Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/1993 314 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 21, 1993, Cont. FROM VARTKES TATARIAN AND JILL TATARIAN FOR A STORMWATER FACILITY AND AUTHORIZING THE CLERK/ TREASURER TO ISSUE THE WARRANTS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURCHASE. After discussion, Councilmember Westerman made a motion that the Council adopt Resolutions No 93-76 through 93-81 which was sE~conded by Councilmember Wolpin and passed unanimously by voice v01:e. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Cou ilmember Camfield made a motion to adjourn which was seconde n ass at 11:00 Pli. Attest: ~~ Clerk-Treasurer MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this Sixth day of July, 1993, 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 Westerman and Cindy Wolpin. Also present were Clerk-Treasurer David GroVE!, City Attorney Dennis McLerran, Police Chief Jim Newton, Direc'tor of Planning and Building Michael Hildt, Planner Dave Robison and City Engineer Randy Brackett. PUBLIC COMMENTS Carter Haven was recognized and requested consideration and adoption of an enforceable noise ordinance. His particular si tuation has to do with motorbikes but there are other problems in other areas that should also be addressed. Mayor Clise referred this request to the Police/Fire/Animal Control Committee. Cc>uncil- member Sokol conf irmed that there is a meeting of the Commi tt:ee set for July 13, 1993, at 5: 00 PM when this matter can be discu.ssed. PRIORITY ITEM G-2B Appeal Hearing. This matter was an appeal under ChaptE!r 1.14 of the Municipal Code. The detailed findings and conclusions of the City Council are to be considered the minutes for this portion of the meeting. An appeal submitted by G2B Partnership regarding the administ.rati ve decisions of the Planning and Building Director on permit applications submitted by G2B. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This matter came on for public hearing before the City Council on July 6, 1993, at the regular meeting of the Council. This is an Appeal of administrative decisions of the Planning and Building Director regarding permit applications submit,ted by G2B Partnership (hereinafter "Appellant-). I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. 2. The Appellant currently operates a marine boat repair, boat sales, boat storage and marine retail sales facility in the Point Hudson area of Port Townsend under the name of Fleet Marine. 3. The property owned by Fleet Marine was purchased in 1986 by Appellant. The former owners of the property had requested and obtained a rezone of the property from the City 1:0 P-1 Public zoning designation to allow a boat repair facility on the site to be legalized and expanded. The property was zoned P-1 at the time of purchase by Appellant and the use has been expanded several times under the current P-1 zoning regulations. The most recent addition to the use by Appellant was a boat wash-down facility permitted and constructed in late 1992 in the area east of Jackson street. 4. The P-1 zone is described in Chapter 17 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, the zoning Ordinance, as being "primarily" a public use district. The permitted uses in the zone, however, include a variety of non-public uses such as boat building and repair, marinas, new and used boat sales, motels and motor hotels, private office buildings, including professional offices, single family dwellings, amusement parks and microwave relay stations. The P-l zone has been applied to both privately-owned and publicly- owned parcels of property in Port Townsend since adoption of the zoning Ordinance in 1971. 5. On March 12, 1993, Appellant submitted development permit applications to the Port Townsend Planning and Building Department. The Appellant's application was before the City Council in this appeal as Exhibits R-3A through E. The submitted plans included a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application (R-3A); a Building Permit application (R- 3B, although the exhibits before the Council deleted an energy code application, glazing schedule, ventilation notes., span and beam load calculations and foundation investigation report as these were not relevant to the appeal); eleven ShE!ets of building plans (R-3C); a copy of the site plan for the site (R-3D, which is also sheet 2 of R-3C); and a copy of the architect's notes (R-3E). 6. The proposed development would displace part of the existing Fleet Marine facility. The current Fleet Marine development is located northerly of Jefferson Street, easterly of Monroe Street and extends easterly of Jackson Street. The Fleet Marine development is a water-oriented use containing boat repair, boat sales, boat haulout and marine retail sales facili ties. The Fleet Marine operation contains an area leased from the Port of Port Townsend containing a trav4el lift and travel lift dock for hauling boats out of the Point Hudson Marina; a boat wash-down facility recently permitted and installed; and a boat storage and boat repair area. 7. The Jackson street right-of-way separates the area leased from the Port, from the area of Fleet Marine owned ¡by the Appellants. The Jackson Street right-of-way has been graded and parking is located along the edges of the right-of-way. The Jackson Street right-of-way serves as access to Fleet Marine as well as a small area of single family residences located north of the Point Hudson property. The area of Fleet Marine operations between Monroe and Jackson Streets currently contains boat repair, boat storage, boat sales and marine retail sales operations. 8. The new construction proposed under the permit applications would be located in the area between Monroe and .Jackson Streets. The proposed new construction would be a four- story building containing approximately thirty thousand square feet 315 316 10. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. 9. of building area. The new building would include a ground level containing 7,793 square feet, consisting of 1,361 square feet of retail space and 6,432 square feet of parking area, with twelve parking stalls; a second story containing approximately 8,000 square feet of office space; a third level wi th four condominium units totalling approxima"tely 8,000 square feet including deck space; and a fourth level containing four additional condominiums totaling approximately 7 ,300 square feet including deck areas. The project is identified on the application of the Appellant as a "multi-use resort.- As identified on Exhibit R-5, 3,238 square feet of the office space is to be leased to others than Fleet Marine. The redevelopment of the Fleet Marine site would include demolition of the majority of an existing building on the property. The existing building to be partially demolished is located adjacent to the Jackson street right-of-way. The demolition is to occur where the new building, and driveway access to the new building, are to be located. The remaining undemolished portion of the existing building is identified on exhibit R-3D as continuing to be used for marine use. An . existing boat storage area to the west of the new building is to remain, as is a building located in the northwesterly corner of the site which would continue in marine use. The existing boat storage and repair area, including the boat wash-down facility and the travel lift facility, located to the east of Jackson Street are also to remain, according to the testimony and documents in the record. The Appellant, however, questions the long-term viability of the travel lift and other uses east of Jackson Street because they are located on leased property. The Appellants' testimony indicated they are seeking extension of the lease on this portion of the site from the Port of Port Townsend. The architect's notes contained in Exhibit R-3E state that thirty-nine (39) parking stalls are required by the zoning code for the Fleet Marine site" wi thout credits. - The garage identified on the exhibit R-3D would provide twelve (12) parking stalls off street. The site plan at Exhibit R-3D shows no additional parking other than the twelve (12) garage stalls outside of City right-of-way. The architect's notes identify the parking requirement for the residential units as being twelve (12) stalls. The architect's notes identify thirty-one (31) "on-street existing- spaces as being counted to meet code parking requirements. The testimony of Planning and Building Director Michael Hildt, and his letter of June 16, 1993, Exhibit R-7, indicate that the parking code, Chapter 17.30, requires forty-one (41) parking stalls and only twelve (12) are identified as being provided. According to Mr. Hildt's calculations, this would leave a parking stall deficiency of twenty-nine (29) stalls below code requirements. Exhibit R-5, a letter from architect Kevin Rex dated June 23, 1993, includes a revised parking calculation which makes the assumption that new parking is only required for the (8) eight condominiums and leasable office space in the new structure not to be utilized by Fleet Marine. The calculation identifies thirty-one (31) parking spaces in the Jackson Street right-of-way as part of the parking used to meet code requirements. The testimony presented by Kevin Rex and Mark Beaufait on behalf of Appellant indicated they contend that the thirty-one (31) stalls located in Jackson street are allowed as a credit under the City's parking code. In the alternative, they argue that alternative parking can be provided in the boat storage area to the west of the new I I I 3\1 I 11. 12. I 13. 14. I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont.. building in an amount sufficient to meet the forty-one (41) stall number identified by Michael Hildt. They also testified that a plan had been prepared at the time of submission of the application which provided the forty-one (41) parking spaces off-street, but it was not submitted with the applicat:ion. On March 29, 1993, the Director of the Planning and Building Department, Michael Hildt, mailed a letter to Appellani: dated March 25, 1993, which identified items the Planning and Building Director felt were incomplete in the application. The March 25,1993 letter is contained in the record of this hearing as Exhibit R-1. The letter of the Director stated that rezoning of the property to be developed would be necessary to allow the eight multi-family dwellings identified on the plans submitted. The Director's letter urged the applicants to submit a rezone application and stated that a shoreline permit for the facility could be processed concurrently with a rezone if an application for the rezone was made. The Director's letter also stated that a design review application would need to be submitted, that a parking plan consistent with Chapter 17.30 should be submittE!d, and that a parking variance application would need to be submitted. He also identified several other items of a minor nature that would need to be addressed or modified in the applications. The Planning and Building Director concluded that the applications were incomplete and that the applications could not be further processed without filing a rezone and variance. Because the applications were viewed as incomplete by the Director, his letter of March 25 indicated to the Appellant that the proposed applications would be reviewed under the new Shoreline Master Program use regulations adopted ]JY the Department of Ecology on March 23, 1993. On November 16, 1992, the City Council adopted OrdinancE~ 2321, enacting interim controls for certain areas of the City of Port Townsend including the property owned and leased by Appellant. The interim controls Ordinance provided that only water-oriented uses would be allowed wi thin an area cont:aining the Appellant's and others' property located in the vicinity of Point Hudson. Water-oriented use is a defined term in the interim controls Ordinance and encompasses water-depEmdent, water-related and water-enjoyment uses, which are also defined terms. On April 21, 1993, Appellant filed this appeal by a letter delivered to the Port Townsend City Council. The appeal letter is contained in the record as Exhibit R-2. The appeal raises seven specific points under a general claim that the determination of the Director is contrary to applicable law, applicable zoning controls under the Port Townsend Municipal Code, and applicable Shoreline regulations. The seven points raised in the appeal letter are set forth below: a. G2B's applications were properly filed according to applicable rules, regulations, and checklists on March 12, 1993. G2B's applications were substantially complete, and G2B has vested rights to approval of project as submitted. b. The Fleet Marine Property is not public or quasi-public property, and is therefore not j/~ 15. 16. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont.' subject to zoning under the P-1 Public Zone category, pursuant to Zoning Code section 17.48.010. c. Even if subject to zoning under P-l Public Zone, such zoning would be impermissible spot zoning, in that this property is essentially singled out for regulation not applicable to similarly situated property in the immediate area. Such zoning is an impermissible exercise of the police power, in that such limits are not reasonably related to the public health, welfare, and safety. d. Applicable zoning, if any, is limited to zoning under Interim ordinance 2321, limiting use of the Fleet Marine Property to water- oriented uses. e. The new Shorelines Amendment, Ordinance 2320, is not applicable to these applications, due to timing, procedural, and substanti ve defects, including but not limited to, as applied to this property, this Ordinance being impermissible spot zoning. f. Historic Preservation Commission review of the project has not been completed in the time required and is therefore waived by the City, alternatively, HPC review as applicable to this site is not an appropriate exercise of the police power. g. Rejection of the proposed project, under P-l Zoning and/or under the new Shorelines Amendment, constitutes a taking of G2B's property under the Washington State and United states Constitutions. The initial appeal letter filed by Appellant also made a statement that "Board or Counsel (sic) Members beneficially interested in the results of this appeal, or who í have prejudged the appeal should be disqualified from participfiting in deciding this appeal.D No specific allegations of beneficial interest or prejudice were identified in the letter of appeal. At the City Council's regular meeting of June 21, 1993~ the city Council discussed the procedural format for this appeal and discussed scoping of the appeal. A memorandu~ was received from the City Attorney suggesting what issues could be considered under the appeal Ordinances of the city and suggesting what issues raised in the appeal were withip the scope of the City's appeal Ordinance. The City Attorney's memorandum recommended that the City Council consider the appeal under the provisions of Chapter 1.14 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, Uniform Appeal Procedure of Decisions of Planning and Building Director. The June 21 memorandum from the City Attorney suggested that the appealable issues contained in the letter of appeal from the Appellant, could be distilled into three issues for consideration by the council: a. Whether the planning and Building Director correctly interpreted the P-1 zoning and the I I I I I I 17. i8. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. interim controls Ordinance as not allowing the multi-family units proposed in the plans filed by G2B. b. Whether the Planning and Building Director correctly concluded that the G2B plans failed to conform to the parking requirements of the zoning Ordinance and were therefore incomplete. c. Whether the Planning and Building Director was correct in not further processing the plans if they did not conform to the City's zoning Ordinance and interim controls Ordinance. On June 25, 1993, Appellant submitted a letter to the City Council requesting that Council Members McCulloch, Wolpin and Westerman not participate in hearing this appeal on appHarance of fairness grounds. The letter is contained in the record as Exhibi t R-9. The letter raised the following points reqarding participation of the three Council Members: a. Council Member McCulloch. The Appellant's letter alleged that Council Member McCulloch "has stated her opposition to residential condominiums in the downtown area." The letter also alleged that Council Member McCulloch "attended a 1990 meeting on Whidbey Island, the purpose of which, in part, was apparently to preclude condominium development in the Fleet Marine site, which was under discussion at the time." The letter also objected to Council Member McCulloch's participation based on the argument that she "has property in the downtown area, apparently without off-street parking, while review of the parking plan submitted by G2B is at issue in this appeal." b. Council Member Westerman. The following was alleged regarding Council Member Westerman: "Council Member Westerman has spoken directly in favor of Shoreline controls implementing a condominium ban at the Fleet Marine property. Council Member Westerman allegedly attended the 1990 Whidbey Island meeting referred to above. Council Member Westerman owns property in the downtown area, apparently without off-street parking. As noted above, fair review of the G2B appeal cannot occur with prejudgment of these issues. " c. Council Member Wolpin. The following was alleged regarding participation of Council Member Wolpin: " Council Member Wolpin is opposed to residential condominiums in the downtown area. She has been quoted as being opposed to all condominiums in the downtown and/or Port Hudson area." I The appeal hearing was conducted at the regular meeting of the City Council on July 6,1993. The first issue discussed was the appearance of fairness allegations raised in Appellant's letter of June 25. Council Member McCulloch stated that she 319 320 19. 20. 21. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont. has never made any blanket statement against condominium development in downtown Port Townsend and has never attended a meeting on Whidbey Island discussing condominium development on the Fleet Marine property. Council Member McCulloch also stated that she does not own the property on which her business is located, that her parents do, and that her business is in conformance with the parking requirements of the code. She concluded by stating she believed she had no bias and could make a fair judgment in this appeal. Council Member Westerman gave the same response as Council Member McCulloch regarding a meeting alleged to have occurred on Whidbey Island. She also stated that she has never opposed condominium development in the downtown area on a blanket basis. She stated that the building she owns in the downtown area conforms to the City's parking regulations and that she could make a fair judgment on the issues in this appeal. Council Member Wolpin stated that the allegations regarding opposition to condominium development in the downtown area are untrue as she has supported opportunities for increased residential development in the downtown area. She also stated she believed she could make a fair judgment on the issues in the appeal. The Appellants presented testimony and argument from their attorney, Mark Beaufait, their architect, Kevin Rex, and one of the Appellants, Gary Jonientz. Mr. Rex's testimony can be summarized as follows: He designed the plans submitted on March l2, 1993, to meet the provisions of Ordinance 2321, the interim controls Ordinance and not to meet P-1 zoning or final Shoreline Master Program provisions. It was his belief that the project was water oriented under the definitions of the interim control Ordinance because the ground floor uses would continue to be water dependent, the offices would be for Fleet Marine, and the condominiums would be considered a "resort.- He testified that a parking plan meeting his understanding of parking requirements had been submitted with the applications. The parking plan identified twel ve (12) new spaces for the eight (8) new condominium units. It was his belief that City parking codes allowed a credit for existing non-conforming spaces provided within the Jackson Street right-of-way. He further testified that additional parking could be provided on the site in the boat storage yard if required. He felt the Planning and Building Department was made aware that full code parking could be provided on the boat storage area when the plans were filed. The testimony of Gary Jonientz, one of the partners in Appellant G2B, can be summarized as follows: The multi-use project submitted on March 12,1993, was intended to deal with Fleet Marine's existing economic problems. The buildings existing on the site needed major repairs and the existing use cannot support the repairs. He felt that getting outside financing would be difficult because their lease with the Port of Port Townsend providing access to the water for their travel lift expires within a few years. He testified that they will try to renegotiate the lease with the Port but he is unsure of where to go from here. The condominiums in the new project, in his opinion, would make the project cost effective. He testified further that additional parking could be provided beyond that submitted on the plans, by putting parking within the area now shown as boat yard, but they prefer that the area remain as a boat yard rather than as a parking area. I I I I I I 22. 23. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont. The testimony and argument of Appellant's attorney, Mark Beaufait, can be summarized as follows: Mr. Beaufait argued that the P-1 zone, by its own terms, does not apply to the property. Mr. Beaufai t argued that the P-l zone states in its purpose that it shall only apply to public and quasi~public properties and that the Appellant's property is privately owned. Mr. Beaufait argued further that if the P-l zone does not apply, there can be no rezone required. Mr. Beaufait also argued that Ordinance 2321 superseded the zoning Ordinance for the period of time at which this application was filed. It is his viewpoint that the proposed project is consistent with the interim controls as either a water-oriented resort or as a mixed-use comnercial development. Mr. Beaufai t argued that the parking issue is a II strati man." He argued that, in his belief, the Planning and Building Director knew that an al ternati ve parking plan could be provided which met the code requirements and could be submitted as a revision to the plans. Mr. Beaufait contended that the delay in reviewing the plans between March 12 and March 25 was calculated to raise a vesting issue falsely. Mr. Beaufait argued that the application was complete as submitted. The project, in his view, is water oriented because it contains a travel lift, it is identified as a . resort, it was submitted under the provisions of Ordinance 2321 and a written explanation of the water oriented nature of the project was submitted in a letter from Kevin Rex. Mr. Beaufait further argued that all of the items contained in Michael Hildt's letter of March 25, 1993, had actuaLly been submitted and that the plans were complete. Mr. Beaufait also argued that the review of the plans .took an excessi ve amount of time before a response was recei v ~d from the Planning and Building Department when compared with another project submitted by John Pickett. Mr. Beaufait argued that it was unfair for Mr. Pickett's project to be reviewed and returned with comments in only one day when it took between March 12 and March 29 for this project.. Mr. Beaufai t argued further that corrections could have belen made to the parking plan prior to the effective date of the new Shoreline Master Program use regulations becoming effective and the project would have been vested. Mr. Beaufait also argued that the Shoreline Master Program modifications did not become effective until thirty days later than indicated. in the March 25, 1993 letter from Mr. Hildt. Planning and Building Director Michael Hildt represented the Planning and Building Department in the appeal hearing. He presented briefing, testimony and argument including Exhibits R-1 through R-18. These exhibits included the plans and applications submitted on March 12, 1993 by Appellant. In his testimony and argument, Mr. Hildt emphasized that the issue before the City Council was whether the application was complete as submitted and not whether the project had merit in an abstract sense. The primary focus of the appeal, in his opinion, was whether he, as the Planning and Building Director, properly applied the Ordinances of the City as adopted by the City Council. Mr. Hildt reviewed his March 25,1993 letter to the Appellant in detail in his testimony. Mr. Hildt presented testimony regarding the timeliness of his response to the March 12 321 322 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. submi ttal by Appellant. It was Mr. Hildt' s understanding that the Appellants were aware that their project was inconsistent with the P-l zone at the time they made their submittal. He testified that he had written a letter to Bernie Arthur, an Appellant, in November of 1992, notifying him that a rezone from P-1 zoning would be necessary for condominium uses. Mr. Hildt testified that he felt there was no compelling need to rush a review on this application because there were interim controls in place and a rezone was necessary to allow further processing. Therefore, he reviewed the plans wi thin the ordinary time frames any set of plans submitted would be reviewed. He also testified that the approximate two week turn-around time for an initial review of plans submitted was normal for such projects. In response to the argument presented by Mr. Beaufait that the turn-around was excessive and .calculated, Mr. Hildt testified that he believed that if the application was inconsistent with the P-l zoning regulations, the application could not vest before the new shoreline regulations became effective, in any event, because a rezone process would be required. A rezone could not occur within the time before the shoreline regulations became effecti ve. This was contrasted in his testimony to the Pickett project where there was not a zoning issue involved, merely the need to make corrections to the plans to be consistent with other Ordinances such as parking requirements. Mr. Hildt testified that it was the Planning and Building Department's policy to help applicants meet the City's regulations and he felt he was doing so, both in his response to the Pickett project and in his March 25 response to the Appellant. In the Pickett case, there also had been two pre- application conferences requested by the applicant so the staff was familiar with the details of the application when it was submitted. In the Appellant's case, no pre-application conferences had occurred or been held and staff needed to review the plans in detail before responding to the applicant. Mr. Hildt testified that, in his view, the parking plan as submi tted was inconsistent with the City's parking Ordinances. It was his opinion that the Ordinances did not allow a credit for parking in City street right-of-way when an existing non- conforming building was demolished and a new structure was built to replace it. It was his belief that the Appellant had indicated to him, on a tour of the Fleet Marine site around the time of the application, that parking in the area identified on the plans as boat storage area would make the existing water oriented use on the site no longer economically viable, and that the applicants did not wish to provide parking in that area of the site. He testified that this is why he suggested a variance application be submitted in his March 25 letter. This was bolstered, in his view, by a letter from architect Kevin Rex dated April 7, 1993, which states at paragraph 6, that requirement of parking in the boat storage area would greatly diminish the water-dependent use of the site. Mr. Hildt also presented rebuttal testimony to Mark Beaufait's statement in his brief that architect Kevin Rex had responded to all of the comments in Mr. Hildt's March 25 letter, in a letter from Rex dated April 7,1993. Mr. Hildt stated that a rezone application was not submitted nor was a final parking plan meeting Ordinance requirements submitted with Mr. Rex's letter. Mr. Hildt also testified that the first time a completed parking plan had been submitted by Appellant was ,-"ith the brief for this appeal on July 1, 1993. The parking plan I I I I I I 24. 25. 26. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont.. submitted on March 12, 1993, was seventy three percen1: under the minimum number of code required parking spaces. Mr. Hildt also testified that his staff member who took in the applications at the counter, has placed a memo in the project file which indicates that she only took in the plans at the counter, and passed them on to others for review. She indicated to Mr. Hildt that she made no statements reqarding completeness of the plans to Mr. Rex at the time the plans were submitted for review. Mr. Hildt testified that the parking credit provisions of the zoning Ordinance only apply to a change of use in an existing building and do not allow new construction to take advantage of non-conforming parking situations which existed for a building being demolished. It was also his opinion t:hat no Ordinance of the City allows parking within a street riqht-of- way to be dedicated to a particular private use. The rE~quired parking to be provided under the City's Ordinance must be provided on the private site as the parking ratios in the code assume that additional on-street parking is availablE!. Mr. Hildt concluded by arguing that the parking issue only arises in the context of the appeal if the zoning issue is resolvable without a rezone. In his opinion, if the site requires a rezone the plans are incomplete and cannot be further processed. The parking issue is only relevant if the zoning allows the proposed use, which it currently does not. Mr. Hildt testified that the P-1 zoning of the property was requested for the site by the former owner, Radon Boats. The City Council at the time of the rezone could have selected M-1 Industrial zoning for the site as well, but that zone also does not allow the residential use proposed by Appellant. In response to Mr. Beaufait's argument that Mr. Hildt should have found the P-1 zone inapplicable to the site, Mr. Hildt testified that such a determination was beyond his authority. He stated that his duty is to apply the codes as they exist and only the City Council can rezone a piece of property. In rebuttal, Mr. Beaufait argued that the Appellant's argument is not that P-l zoning is appropriate or inappropriate :Eor the site, but that the zone says it only applies to public sites. Mr. Beaufait further argued that the interim control Ordinance, Ordinance 2321, superseded the P-1 zoning and by its terms, allows the uses being proposed by Appellan1:s. In response to a question from the City Council, Planning and Building Department Shoreline Planner, Dave Robison, gave testimony regarding what constitutes a " resort" under the Shoreline Master Program and/or the interim controls Ordinance. Mr. Robison testified that this issue was discussed by the Shoreline Commission at length in numerous sessions regarding development of the Shoreline Master Program. In his opinion, a resort would be a "' water- enjoyment" use and would be required to meet the terms of that def ini tion. He related that the Shoreline Commission had defined a resort use as requiring public access to the shoreline as a primary character of the use and would have to meet the requirements of the definition, such as being open to the public. In his opinion, a resort would be somethinq along the lines of a "Club Medø operation which could have a restaurant or shops along with the accommodations. He believed that the Ordinance language was intended to require a determination on a case-by-case basis. The interim controls Ordinance, Ordinance 2321, defines a water-enjoyment use as follows: 323 324 27. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont. 1.2 water-enjoyment: A recreational use such as a park, pier, or other use facilitating public access as a primary character of the use; or, a use that provides for passive and active interaction of a large number of people with the shoreline for leisure and enjoyment as a general character of the use and which, through location, design and operation assure the public's ability to interact with the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the public and most if not all of the shoreline oriented space in the facility must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that foster shoreline interaction. Water- enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, restaurants, museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves, resorts, and mixed use commercial enterprises provided such use conforms to the above requirements. section 16.04.140 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code defines a substantially complete building permit application for purposes of vested rights determinations. The provisions of section 16.04.140 are adopted as part of Title 16, Buildings and Construction. That section of the code states the following: 16.04.140 Vested rights - - Substantially complete building permi t applications. Applications for all land use and development permits required under Ordinances of the City shall be considered under the zoning and other land use control Ordinances in effect on the date a fully complete building permit application, meeting the requirements identified in this section, is filed with the planning and building department. Until a complete building permit application is filed, all applications for land use and development permits shall be reviewed subject to any zoning or other land use control Ordinances which become effective prior to the date of issuance of a final decision by the City on the application. An application for a building permit shall be considered complete when an application meeting all of the requirements of Section 302 of the Uniform Building Code is submitted which is consistent with all then applicable Ordinances and laws. In addi tion, to be considered complete, such an application must be accompanied by complete applications for any subsidiary land use or development permits needed, such as a complete shoreline management permit application and/or complete applications for other discretionary permits required under the Ordinances of Port Townsend. An application for a partial permit under Section 303 (a) of the U~iform Building Code shall not be considered cq~~Ißte unless it me.ets all requirements stated ~þp,y~ and conta~ns plans for the complete structural frame of the building and the architectural plans for the structure. I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. 28. Chapter 17.56 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, as part of the zoning Ordinance, contains provisions which give guidance regarding processing permits where compliance with the provisions and requirements of Title 17 are at issue. Those sections state the following: 17.56.010 Issuance in violation deemed inoperative. Any building permit, certificate of occupancy, or other authorization issued, granted or approved in violation of the provisions of this title, shall be null and void and of no effect without the necessity of any proceedings for a revocation or nullification thereof, and any work undertaken or use established pursuant to any such building permit, certificate of occupancy, or other authorization is unlawful, and no action shall be taken by any board off icer , or any employee of the ci ty purporting to validate any such violation. 17.56.020 Application -- Payment of fee prerequisi te. No application for a street vacation, rezone, conditional use permit or variance shall be considered, nor any public hearing set therefor, unless and until an application fee shall have been paid to the City treasurer for such application, which fee shall not be refundable under any circumstances. 17.56.030 Application fees. Application fees for applications for street vacations, rezones, conditional use permits and variances shall be paid at the time the application is submitted, and shall be in the amount as set forth in other Ordinances of the city. It is undisputed by the parties that no application for a rezone or text amendment to the zoning Ordinance was submitted by Appellants with their application for the development project submitted on March 12, 1993. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is properly before the City Council as an appeal pursuant to Chapter 1.14 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. The City Council sits as the Board of Adjustment for purposes of hearing appeals under Chapter 1.14. Appellant initially filed its appeal under Chapter 17.64 of the Municipal Code. However, that section of the code has been superseded by Chapter 1.14, which is a later adopted Ordinance. Bot:h code sections provide for City Council review of administ:rati ve decisions of the Planning and Building Director reÇJarding interpretation of the zoning regulations of the City. The purpose of the appeal provisions of Chapter 1.14 is to allow the City Council the opportunity to review whether the Planning and Building Director has properly exercised his or her authority in applying the zoning and subdivision Ordinances of the City. The Appellant raised several issues in its original appeal statement which are not properly issues which can be decided in the administrative appeal. For instance, the Appellants raised "spot zoning," "taking" and other issues regarding the validity of the City's land use Ordinances. These issues go beyond the scope of an appeal to 2. 325 326 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. review whether the Planning and Building Director properly applied the city's Ordinances as they exist. In the hearing, the Appellant conceded that challenges to the validity of the City's Ordinances were not properly part of the appeal. The City Council concludes that the issues in the appeal are properly framed as follows: a. Whether the Planning and Building Director properly interpreted the City's zoning regulations and/or interim controls Ordinance, Ordinance 2321, as not allowing the multi- family units proposed as part of the application filed by Appellants? b. Whether the Planning and Building Director correctly concluded that Appellant's plans as submitted on March 12, 1993 were incomplete? C. Whether the Planning and Building Director was correct in not further processing Appellant's plans if they did not conform to the City's zoning Ordinance and/or interim controls Ordinance? 3. The existing Fleet Marine boat sales, boat repair, boat haulout and boat storage operation is an outright permitted use under the P-1 zoning of the subject property. The current Fleet Marine facility consists of uses which are permitted under the currently effective Shoreline Master Program as well as the use regulations of the Master Program in effect on March 12, 1993, when the plans at issue were submitted to the Planning and Building Department. The uses currently operated on site are also consistent with the interim controls contained in Ordinance 2321. Any development proposal submitted to the City must be consistent with both the zoning regulations applicable to the property, and the use regulations of the Shoreline Master Program adopted by the City and the State of Washington. While vested rights determinations are not appealable under Chapter 1.14 because such decisions are made under Chapter 16.04, the Building code, the determination of whether the plans as submitted were complete will effect the vested rights issues. If the plans as submitted on March 12 required a rezone or were otherwise incomplete, the development proposed by G2B will be subject to the new Shoreline Master Program use regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology on March 23, 1993. The Shoreline Management Act requires that local governments adopt shoreline use regulations which supplement underlying zoning regulations for areas of the local jurisdiction which are located within two hundred (200) feet of the shoreline. See RCW 90.58. The City adopted Ordinance 2321 to supplement and overlay the City's zoning and shoreline regulations during a period when new Shoreline Master Program use regulations were pending before the Washington State Department of Ecology for adoption. Interim controls Ordinances are authorized by the Growth Management Act if certain procedural requirements are met. See RCW 36.70A.390. The development plans submitted by Appellant on March 12, 1993, were subject to the City's zoning regulations, the Shoreline Master Program then in existence, and Ordinance 2321, the interim controls Ordinance. By the time the plans I I I I I. I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont. 4. had been reviewed by the Planning and Building Director and a letter reviewing the plans (Exhibit R-l) had been sent to Appellants dated March 25,1993, the interim controls INere no longer effective as the permanent Shoreline Master Program amendments had been adopted by the Department of Ecology. It is undisputed that the permanent Shoreline Master Program amendments adopted by the Department of Ecology prohibit residential development in the Point Hudson Marina District where the Fleet Marine property is located. The AppE~llants contend, however, that the P-1 zoning of the property is inapplicable by its terms and that the interim controls contained in Ordinance 2321 allow the Appellant's proposed project as either a II resort" development or as a mixed-use commercial development under the definitions of water oriented development contained in the interim controls Ordinance. It is further the Appellant's contention that the plans submitted on March 12, 1993, should have been processed rathe,r than rejected by the Planning and Building Director because of the arguments identified above. 5. The use regulations of the P-1 zoning district, as prE~sented in the permitted use chart contained in Section 17.16..010 of the zoning Ordinance at page 147 - 29, prohibit the multi- family condominiums proposed by Appellants. It is Appellant' s argument, however, that the P-1 zone, because of the language included in the Purpose section of the text of the zone, is not applicable to the property. Appellants argue that Section 17.48.010 should have been read by the Planning and Building Director as applying only to public lands and quasi~public lands and not to privately owned property. It is the conclusion of the City Council, however, that the P- 1 zone is intended to apply to more than only public lands. The Appellant cites language from Section 17.48.010 of the zoning Ordinance in contending that the P-1 zone, by defini tion, is only applicable to public and quasi--public lands and buildings. A more complete reading of the zoning code, however, shows that the P-1 zone also provides for a variety of uses other than public uses. The Appellant' s . citation of the purpose of the zone does not include the . purpose statement contained in Section 17.16.010 of the Ordinance at page 147 - 22, which states that the P-1 ~~one is only II primarily a public use district." The permitt.ed use chart that follows the purpose statement in Section 17.16.010, identifies a number of outright permitted uses in the P.-1 zone which go beyond public use. These include the boat sales and boat repair uses currently conducted on the Fleet Marine site by Appellants as well as such additional uses as marinas, motels, motor hotels, private office buildings, including professional offices, single family dwellings, amusemen't parks and microwave relay stations. The Appellant and Appellant's predecessor have operated under the P-1 zone for many years and have expanded their use and operations under the P-1 use regulations. As late as 1992, the Appellants applied for and received permits for a nE:!W boat wash-down facility under the P-l regulations. The Appe!llants predecessor in ownership petitioned the City for rezoning of the property to P-l to allow the construction of additional boat repair facilities. The Appellants purchased the property under the P-l zoning and have used it in a manner consistent with that zoning throughout their period of ownership. It is the City Council's conclusion that the P-l zone was intended, and has been used since the zoning code's adoption, as a district allowing uses beyond only public uses. While 327 328 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. the language of the zoning code does express an intention that the P-1 zone be "primarilyB a public use zone, it is clear from the language contained in the use chart that the zone allows uses which are beyond only public agency or governmental uses. The Planning and Building Director properly interpreted the language of the P-1 zoning district on its face. It is not the role or responsibility of the Planning and Building Director, as an administrative official, to determine the validity of a zoning district. It is the Planning and Building Director's role to apply the language of the zoning code as it is adopted by the City Council. Here the language of the Ordinance regarding P-1 zoning provides for certain uses, both public and private, but does not allow the multi-family uses proposed by the Appellants. The City council concludes that, read in its entirety, the P-1 zone is not misleading or confusing. The zone permits uses which are clearly not public uses alone. The Appellants were aware of the zoning on the property long before the plans for this proposal were submitted on March 12. They purchased the property under P-1 zoning; they pursued permits and built additions to their operation under P-1 zoning, and they were made aware by the Planning and Building Department as early as November, 1992, that a rezone would be necessary to allow condominiums on the property. 7. Because the City Council concludes that the P-1 zone does not permit the multi-family uses proposed by Appellants, it is not necessary to reach the issue of whether the interim controls Ordinance, Ordinance 2321, would have allowed Appellants proposed uses. The Appellants argue that Ordinance 2321 superseded the zoning Ordinance and that the P-1 zoning regulations were not applicable to the site for that reason. The City Council concludes, however, that Ordinance 2321 was adopted as an overlay to the zoning regulations and supplemented them rather than superseded them. It is apparent from the "WhereasB clauses of Ordinance 2321 that the interim controls were intended to apply to shoreline areas and were to provide supplemental protection against development applications inconsistent with the Shoreline Master Program amendments passed in Ordinance 2320, which were then pending before the Department of Ecology. The interim control Ordinance did not repeal the provisions of the zoning Ordinance, nor was i t in~ended to. The interim controls Ordinance operated with the same effect as the use regulations in the Shoreline Master Program, as an overlay to existing zoning regulations. A proposed project would have to be consistent with both the zoning regulations and the shoreline interim controls Ordinance to be permitted. The project proposed here was not consistent with the P-l zoning use regulations. The City Council also concludes, however, that Appellants have not provided sufficient information to establish that the condominiums proposed in the project would be consistent with the interim controls Ordinance, even if the interim control Ordinance were the only effective regulation. The applicants have merely labelled their project a "mixed-use resort,B without establishing that the project meets the definition of a water-oriented, water-enjoyment resort as contained in the interim controls Ordinance. The materials submitted with the application on March 12,1993 do not attempt to establish that the proposal is in fact consistent with the def ini tions contained in the Ordinance, nor has Appellant provided sufficient information since that date, either in supplemental materials provided or in the testimony presented in the appeal I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont.. hearing before the City Council. In the Planning and Building Director's letter to Appellants dated March 25, 1993, the Appellants were requested to provide a written explana'tion of how the proposed uses would be consistent with the definition of water-oriented use contained in the City's shoreline regulations. No sufficient explanation has been provided despite the opportunities that were given to provide such information. Architect Kevin Rex's letter of April 7, 1993 (Exhibi t R-4) states only in a conclusory manner that the condominium units are designed to be "resort condominiums." To establish that the condominium use is in fact a water- oriented, water-enjoyment use, the Appellants would have to show that the condominium development "provides for passive and active interaction of a large number of people with the shoreline for leisure and enjoyment as a general character of the use and which, through location, design and opE:!ration assure the public's ability to interact with the shorE~line." In addition, "the use must be open to the public and most if not all of the shoreline oriented space in the facili1:y must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that foster shoreline interaction." The City Council conclude~s that eight condominiums on the third and fourth floor of a structure would not be a "resort" under the requiremEmts of the water-enjoyment definition. The Appellants labelling of the project as a "resort" does not establish that it mel~ts the use regulations of the interim control Ordinance. Appellant's further argument that the total proposal is a water-oriented use allowed under the interim controls Ordinance is also without support. The provisions of the interim control Ordinance applicable to the Fleet Marine site allow water-oriented uses only. The definition of ~water- oriented" contained in Ordinance 2321 states the following: "A use or a portion of a use which is either a water- dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment use, or any combination thereof." The definition requires that each proposed use be water-dependent, water-related or water- enjoyment. A combination of uses, each of which is water- oriented is also allowed. However, the regulation does not allow a non water-oriented use in combination with other water-oriented uses. The condominium use on the site Inust be established as independently consistent with the definitions of the Ordinance as a water-oriented use. 8. While the most significant factor in determining th.at the plans were incomplete by the Planning and Building Director was the inconsistency with the P-1 zoning regulations, the plans were also deemed incomplete for several other rE~asons. The City Council concludes that the Planning and Building Director was also correct in his conclusion that the plans were not complete because there was insufficient parking identified for the proposed development. An insufficient number of off-street parking stalls t:o meet the requirements of the ci ty' s zoning OrdinancE! were identified on the plans submitted on March 12 by Appellant and no variance application was submitted along with the plans. A parking plan as required by the code was also not submitted. section 17.30.280 of the zoning Ordinance provides that a detailed plan of parking facilities must be submitted with applications for new uses requiring parking. The zoning Ordinance requires that forty one (41) additionaloff--street parking stalls be provided for the new construction proposed by Appellants under the plans submitted on March 12, 1993. Only twelve (12) new stalls were proposed by the Appellants. The Appellant has misinterpreted the parking provisions of the 329 330 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. zoning Ordinance. When an existing use with non-conforming status is demolished and a new use is constructed, new on-site parking must be provided in the amounts required by the zoning code. No credit is given for prior non-conforming uses in such a situation. See section 17.30.020. The exceptions contained in the Ordinance do not apply to the situation presented by Appellant's proposal. While there are exceptions for small expansions of historic buildings or for credits where there is a change of use in an existing building, there is no provision for reductions or credits where an existing use is demolished and a replacement project is constructed. There is also no basis in the City's Ordinances for Appellant's argument that a credit should be given for spaces existing wi thin city street right-of-way. The Ordinance provides that new parking must be provided off-street. A variance could be requested to reduce parking requirements in a hardship situation, but no such application was filed here. The Appellants argue that they could have submitted a parking plan providing the required number of stalls off-site if they had been told of such a requirement when they filed the plans. The testimony of the Planning and Building Director, however, was that he reviewed the plans and informed the Appellant that insufficient parking was provided in a timely manner. The plans were submitted to the City on March 12, 1993, and a letter from the Planning and Building Director was prepared on March 25,1993, and was mailed no later than March 29,1993. The Planning and Building Director testified that this review time for an initial screening was ordinary. In response to an argument by Appellant that an initial review was made within one day for another project attempting to vest in late 1992, the Planning and Building Director gave a credible response that the turn-around time for Appellant's project was normal and that the review time for the other project cited was extraordinary. The Planning and Building Director testified that he knew the other project was attempting to vest and could do so with minor alterations to the plans. In Appellant's situation, the P-1 zoning problem discussed at length above would have made it impossible to vest the project even if the parking modifications would have been made. It was the Planning and Building Director's testimony that he believed that Appellants knew they had a zoning problem from a prior letter the Director had sent to them in November of 1992, which indicated that condominiums were not a permitted use in the P-1 zone. Under those circumstances, the planning and Building Director did not feel that Appellant's project could vest and that a normal turn-around for review was all that was required. The City CounCil concludes that the Planning and Building Director acted in a reasonable and. appropriate manner in reviewing the' plans in accordance with normal practice and time frames. The Appellants 'did not submit parking plans which met the requirements of the City's parking Ordinances with their March 12 application. To the contrary; Appellant continued to contend that the parking was not required in letters from its architect dated April 7, 1993 and June 23 1993. (EXhibi~s R-4 and R-5). Even as late as the appeaí hear1ng on th1s matter, the Appellant continued to argue that only twelve (12) new off-street parking spaces were required for the project. It is disingenuous to argue that the plans shou~d be considered c~mplete because the Appellant could have subm1 tted a plan, wh1ch was not submitted and which the Appellant b~lieves could not be required.' The Appellant cannot have 1t both ways. The relevant fact is that a parking I I I I I I 9. 10. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont. plan meeting the City's off-street parking ratios ~'as not submitted and, therefore, the application was incomplete at the time of submittal. No attempt to correct that deficiency was made until a plan identifying sufficient off.-street parking was submitted on the date of the appeal hearing before the City Council. While this late submittal would correct the def iciency in the plans regarding parking, it cannot relate back to the date of submission of the plans for purposes of determining whether the Planning and Building Director acted correctly at that time. The City Council concludes, however, that Appellants are correct on one point. The application cannot be considered incomplete for failure to submit a design review application along with the other permit applications on March 12, 1993. The provisions of section 17.28. 040D of the code reqarding design review in the waterfront district state that an applicant for a shoreline substantial development permit "shall submit their plans for review and recommendation to the HPC at least sixty (60) days prior to the first hearing or meeting of the planning commission, shoreline management advisory commission or board (City council) scheduled on the proposed development.. Since no public hearings or mE~etings of the specified bodies have yet been scheduled on this matter, the date for submittal of a design review application has not yet passed for the Appellant's project. The Council cannot conclude that the application was incomplete under the language of the applicable Ordinance. The last remaining issue is whether the Planning and Building Director was correct in not further processing the Appellant's permit applications if they did not comply with the City's Ordinances. It is the conclusion of the City Council that the Planning and Building Director was correct in not further processing the plans of the Appellant without an application for a rezone and without appropriate plans for the provision of off-street parking. The zoning Ordinance provides clear direction that permits not in conformance with the pro"isions of the code should not be acted upon. Chapter 17.56 of the zoning Ordinance, entitled" Permi ts ,. provides that any "building permit, certificate of occupancy, or other authorization issued, granted or approved in violation of the provisions of this title, shall be null and void and of no effect..." and that it is also unlawful to establish a use in violation of the code. See section 17.56.010. In addition, it is also unlawful for any board, off icer or any employee of the City to take any act.ion to validate any violation of the zoning code. Processing an application which is incomplete, particularly when the proposal is clearly not permitted under applicable zoning regulations, would serve no useful purpose and would be a waste of private and public resources. Moreover, unless the application is made complete with applications which. would allow City officials to revise the regulations such that the proposal may become consistent with applicable regulations (in this case, the suggested rezone application) there would be no way to process and approve the application without comDlission of an unlawful act by City officials. The Planning and Building Director was correct in not further processing the plans until the application was made complete ei ther by plan revisions in conformance with applicable regulations or by application for a rezone and parking variance. Significantly, the Planning and Building DirE~ctor's 331 332 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont. determination of March 25, 1993, did not require that a rezone and variance be approved before forwarding the applications on for hearings, only that the rezone and variance applications be included. The City has always been willing to consider rezones and zoning text amendments at the same time and within the same public process as a development proposal which depends on approval of those zoning amendments. 11. The decision of the Planning and Building Director that the Appellant's permit applications submitted on March 12,1993, were incomplete because they were inconsistent with the P-1 zoning of the property, did not provide for sufficient off- street parking or provide a complete parking plan, and were also inconsistent with the interim controls in place at the time of submission is sustained. The Planning and Building Director was also correct in not further processing the plans without rezone and variance applications and that decision is sustained. The City Council also concludes, however, that the lack of a design review application is not an additional basis for finding the permit applications incomplete and overturns that decision of the Planning and Building Director. Any finding which should be identified as a conclusion of the City Council is hereby deemed to be a conclusion. RECESS Mayor Clise recessed the reconvened at 10:00 PM. meeting PM. The meeting at 9:55 CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Jones made a motion to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda which was seconded by Councilmember Owsley and passed unanimously by voice vote. Approval of the Minutes for June 7, reading. 1993, as written without Approval of the following Bills and Claims: Current Expense street Library Park Emergency Medical Services Wastewater Treatment Plant Const Water Quality Improvements GO Bond projects Water-Sewer Storm and Surface Water Equipment Rental Firemen's Pension and Relief Total $ 64,840.96 6,005.32 6,148.49 1,492.75 1,732.99 87,047.92 3,819.20 28,922.03 54,713.12 2,633.70 4,174.23 14.95 $ 261,545.66 Setting Hearings: Gateway Plan for August 2,1993 Ordinance Amending PTMC Chapter 19.04 "SEPA" Policies for July 19, 1993 Adoption of Resolutions: Setting Public Hearing for Eades Street Vacation on August 2,1993. RESOLUTION NO 93-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND FIXING THE TIME FOR HEARING ON A PETITION FOR VACATION OF AN ALLEY. I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. Authorizing Legal Services Contract with Mary winters. RESOLUTION NO 93-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED HERETO, WITH MARY WINTERS TO PROVIDE CONTRACT LEGAL SERVICES. Authorizing an Energy Conservation Grant Agreement with Puge't Power for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. RESOLUTION NO 93-85 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH PUGET POWER REGARDING RECEIPT BY THE CITY OF AN ENERGY CONSERVATION GRANT FOR HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONS MODIFICATIONS AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. Award of Bid: Biosolids composting Facility Sludge Truck. RESOLUTION NO 93-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO AWARD THE BID FOR A BIOSOLIDS HAULING VEHICLE. Communications: A letter dated May 24, 1993, from Dave Robison to Jackie Simmons, Washington State Department of Natural Resources regarding Forest Practice Application FP-02-13601 was copied for Council. A letter dated June 21,1993, from Paula Amell including her yearly request for extension of the Conditional Use Permit for the Puffin & Gull Apartment Motel was copied for Council and referred to the Legislative/Environmental Committee. A letter dated June 21, 1993, from Mark Beaufait, Brown & Beaufait, to the Port Townsend Board of Adjustment/City Council regarding the G-2B partnership/419 Jackson Street "Fleet Marine Property" Appeal was copied for Council and referred to the G-2B Appeal Hearing. A letter dated July 1, 1993, from Mark Beaufait that supplem ~nts G- 2B's briefing materials as well as the materials concerning approval of G-2B's proposal for Point Hudson Mariner's Square Project was copied for Council and referred to the G-2B Appeal Hearing. This concludes the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Biosolids Tub Grinder Bids. RESOLUTION NO 93-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO REJECT ALL BIDS FOR A TUB GRINDER FOR THE BIOSOLIDS/COMPOSTING FACILITY, AND TO REBID THIS EQUIPMENT. Mr Brackett and John Merchant, Chief Treatment Plant Operator, explained the resolution. Councilmember Sokol made a motion that 333 334 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. the Council adopt Resolution No 93-86 which was seconded by Councilmember Camfield and passed unanimously by voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS/STAFF REPORTS Waterfront Projects Update. Mr Bracket explained the recommended bonding for waterfront projects. After discussion, Councilmember Westerman made a motion that the Council adopt the staff recommendations for bonding for waterfront projects which was seconded by Councilmember Camfield and passed unanimously by voice vote. Mr Grove clarified that this amounts to the conversion of the Marine Park Community Building to the Marine Park Visual and Performing Arts Center. Rickard SEPA Determination Application 9305-04. Councilmember Wolpin explained the application. Mr Rickard was recognized and concurred with the recommendations. Councilmember Wolpin made a motion that the Council adopt the following mitigating measures make a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the Rickard Application 9305-04 which was seconded by Councilmember Jones and passed unanimously by voice vote. A. 1. EARTH A soils test shall be required on Site 6 prior to issuance of development permits on that site to determine soil type and infiltration trench sizing and location. C. 2. AIR The site shall be watered during construction, when necessary, to mitigate excessive dust. 3. TO mitigate adverse air quality impacts on neighboring residents and businesses, vegetation removed for construction shall not be burned but shall instead be delivered to the City-County composting facility on Jacob Miller Road. Tree trunks and branches larger than six inches in diameter shall be saved for lumber or fire wood. Every reasonable effort shall be made to dispose of stumps off-site, but as a last resort stumps may be burned on-site subject to a burn permit from the Port Townsend Fire Department. B. 4. WATER To mitigate the increased run-off due to increases in impervious surface each residence shall develop an on-site infiltration plan for review during the building permit process. 5. To mitigate increased run-off due to increased impermeability of existing Q and Maple streets the applicant shall provide drainage facilities along Maple and Q streets. The applicant shall receive approval of the off-site drainage plan prior to approval by the City Engineer of the street development permit. D. PLANTS No mitigation measure proposed. E. ANIMALS No mitigation measure proposed. F. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES No mitigation measure proposed G. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH No mitigation measure proposed. H. 6. NOISE Construction on the site shall be limited to the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday, and prohibited on weekends and I I I I I I I. 7. 8. 9. 10. J. K. L. 11. M. 12. N. 13. O. 14. P. 15. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont.. national holidays. Any exceptions made necessary by special and unusual circumstances must be approved in advance by the Building Official. LAND AND SHORELINE USE The applicant shall complete the boundary line adjustment review process on Lots one and two prior to submittal of a building permit on either of these two sites. The City shall not be responsible for enforcement of the proposed landscaping plan or any private covenants, concH tions and restrictions placed on the property unless otherwise expressly included as a condition wi thin this approval or subsequent approvals. To ensure that the area will not generate additional adverse impacts beyond the scope of this proposal, restrictive covenants shall be drafted and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit, which describe the building sites and prohibit the segregation of sites 1-5. Any development beyond the seven sites shown on the site plan dated June 17, 1993 would require further review under the State Environmental Policy Act. All mitigation measures agreed to as listed herein shall be placed in a plastic sleeve and posted on the sitE! in a conspicuous. HOUSING No mitigation measure proposed. AESTHETICS No mitigation measure proposed. LIGHT AND GLARE To reduce impacts of increased light and glare on neighboring properties, all exterior lighting shall be shielded to direct lighting downward. In addition, mercury-vapor and halogen lighting shall be prohibited. RECREATIONAL To provide for improved access to recreational facili tiles, the applicant shall submit a recorded pedestrian access easement describing the 10-foot-wide trail on the northern boundary of site three prior to approval of any building permits. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION To mitigate potential impacts to archeological resources which may be discovered during excavation, work shall be stopped if such materials are discovered and the state Historic Preservation Officer shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until approval is obtained from the City Planning and Building Director. TRANSPORTATION To mitigate increased transportation needs and to assure the proper construction methods of roads and underlying utilities, the applicant shall receive a street development permi1: prior to the installation of Maple Hill Loop Road. The permi1: shall include an agreement on the phased development of all street improvements and shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan dated June 17,1993. The property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of the private portions of Maple Hill Loop Road. PUBLIC SERVICES To mitigate marginal fire flow in the area, the applicant shall install a fire hydrant in a location generally conforming with the site plan dated June 17, 1993.. The hydrant shall be installed prior to occupancy of thE! first residence in the development. 335 336 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont. Q. 16. UTILITIES The six-inch water main loop and 8-inch sewer main extension shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plan dated June 17, 1993 prior to occupancy of any new residence. 17. The applicant shall draft and record, after the approval of the City Attorney, a 20-foot utilities easement for the location of the sewer main line. Forest Practices Application - Ronald Minaker. Councilmember Wolpin explained the application and made a motion that the Council make a Determination of Non-Significance for the Forest Practices Application by Ronald Minaker which was seconded by Councilmember Jones and passed unanimously by voice vote. Forest Practices Application - Roger & Jon Evans. continued to the next meeting on July 19,1993. Gateway Development Plan SEPA Determination Addendum. Council- member Wolpin stated that staff will be making this presentation which was done by Mr Robison. Councilmember Wolpin made a motion that the Council affirm the Determination of Non-Significance by This was the City Council on March 19, 1991, is reaffirmed which was seconded by Councilmember Camfield and passed unanimously by voice vote. Port Townsend High School Field Improvements SEPA 9306-06. Councilmember Camfield left the Council Chambers and will not participate because she is employed by the School District. Councilmember Wolpin explained the changes made and made a motion that the Council adopt the following mitigating measures and make a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance which was seconded by Councilmember Jones and passed unanimously by voice vote. A. 1. EARTH A copy of these mitigation measures shall be given to and read by the project contractor and all sub-contractors prior to beginning construction, and the mitigation measures shall be posted at the site in a waterproof container or bag. 2. The applicant shall prepare and submit a temporary erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with the 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual, and a stormwater management plan for the completed project. The City Engineer shall approve the plans prior to issuance of the clearing and grading permit. A silt fence shall be installed for erosion control in a location approved by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to issuance of the clearing and grading permit, the applicant shall indicate the exact quantity of extracted materials which will be deposited on-site and off-site. If materials are deposited off-site, the applicant shall indicate where and ensure that permission is granted for such deposit. The Planning and Building Director shall approve the location of off-site dumping of excavated fill prior to issuance of the clearing and grading permit. 4. Care shall be executed by the Contractor through the contract documents and/or construction monitoring to ensure that the existing slopes are preserved and erosion and sedimentation are minimized. B. AIR No mitigation measure proposed. C. 5. WATER Existing line pressure shall be checked with the fire department to properly design and ensure adequate pressure to the irrigation system. Best Management Practices (BMP's) in the Department of Ecology stormwater Manual shall be consulted I I I I I I L. M. N. 11. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1993, Cont.. to establish a lawn maintenance plan due to its association with the stormwater infiltration system on the lower ballfield. D. 6. PLANTS The applicant shall attempt to salvage the six maturE! trees which will be removed at the corner of pierce and Blaine Streets, and make every effort to successfully replant them near the detention facility in the triangular parcel on the north corner of Pierce and Blaine Streets. If thesE! trees cannot be salvaged or if they do not survive replanting, six trees of a similar species with a minimum 3" trunk diameter shall be planted in their place. Overall, the triangular "park" area shall be restored to its former condition after construction, with the above-mentioned trees. 7. No chemical pesticides or fungicides shall be used in the project area. 8. As per Chapter 12.10.010 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, no trees over 6" trunk diameter shall be cut within a public right-of-way without prior approval from the City Council. E. ANIMALS No mitigation measure proposed. F. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES No mitigation measure proposed. G. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH No mitigation measure proposed. H. 9. NOISE Construction activities shall be limited to 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday, except for National holidays and special circumstances approved by the Planning and Building Director. I. LAND AND SHORELINE USE No mitigation measure proposed. J. HOUSING No mitigation measure proposed. K. 10. AESTHETICS Vegetation such as evergreen trees shall be planted along the sides of the tennis court fences that face Blaine and pierce Streets in a manner that helps to screen and reduce thE~ scale of the fence, while allowing visibility into the tennis courts from the street which tends to increase safety and reduce the likelihood of vandalism. Other low evergreen shrubs shall be planted at the base of the fences on the sides facing the future ball field and the gymnasium. Evergreen trees shall be planted behind the baseball field backstop (behind the asphalt bleacher pad) to screen the galvanized fencing. A final planting plan shall be approved by the Planning and Building Director prior to issuance of the Grading and Excavation Permit, and the planting shall be completed no later than six months after completion of construction. LIGHT AND GLARE No mitigation measure proposed. RECREATION No mitigation measure proposed. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION To mitigate potential impacts to archeological resources which may be discovered during excavation, work shall be stopped immediately if such materials are discovered and the, State Historic Preservation Officer will be contacted immediately. 337 338 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont. O. 12. TRANSPORTATION A five-foot-wide walkway along "F" street along the frontage of the School District property shall be constructed where the existing footpath exists, without harming the roots of the existing trees. The surface shall be six (6) inches of compacted cinder or "Mats-Mats" material, or other approved by the Public Works Director. The concrete sidewalk along Fir Street along the frontage of the School District property shall be repaired where necessary. The connection between these two walkways and between the walkways and the street at the corner of Fir and "F" Streets shall be flush and smooth. The School District agrees to maintain these walkways along the frontage of their property. 13. The School District agrees to pay its fair share of the costs of improving the "F" Street walkway described in mitigation measure 12 above, to a paved or concrete surface if the City initiates such a project. 14. Parking capacity and needs for the high school campus shall be reviewed during the Environmental Review of the gymnasium expansion plans. P. PUBLIC SERVICES No mitigation measure proposed. Q. 15. UTILITIES As per an addendum to this Environmental Checklist dated July 1, 1993, the School District shall construct a 6-inch water line from the existing main at the intersection of Van Ness and Pierce Streets through to the intersection of Blaine and Harrison Streets. Additional fire hydrants will be installed at the intersection of Benton and Van Ness streets and on the north side of the proposed tennis courts. Councilmember Camfield returned to the Council Chambers. Uþdate on Arterial street Plan. Mr Hildt reported that the update on the Arterial street Plan is now on track. There will be a joint workshop with the Council, Planning ComInission and Citizen Advisory Commi ttee to go over the draft report from the consultants on August 12,1993, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers and an Environ- mental Impact statement will be prepared along with Growth Management. Mr Hildt then explained the process to be followed for the next twelve to eighteen months. A brief discussion of an interim plan ensued. Legislative/Environmental. Councilmember Wolpin reported that the Committee has been able to deal with the issue clearing and getting rid of debris by delivering it to the Biosolids Compost Facility rather than burning through the State Environmental policy Act (SEPA) but that that does not address smaller projects that are not required to go through SEPA. The Committee feels that an ordinance should be prepared to cover all development in the community that requires clearing and grading. A brief discussion ensued. Parks/Property. Councilmember Camfield reported that Scott Swantner, Wooden Boat Foundation, has requested use of the City lot during the Wooden Boat Festival and explained its use. Council- member Camfield made a motion that the Wooden Boat Foundation be allowed to manage the lot on September 10,11, and 12,1993, which was seconded by Councilmember Westerman and passed unanimously by voice vote. Finance. Councilmember Owsley made a motion that the Council approve $1,000 from the contingency fund to the Economic Development Council for advertising in the Investor's Guide contingent on the Port of Port Townsend donating $1,000 which was seconded by Councilmember Wolpin and passed unanimously by voice vote. I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6, 1993, Cont., Councilmember Owsley made a motion that the Council approve $1,000 to the Rhododendron Festival to complete float travel for 1993 from the Hotel/Motel Fund contingent upon the Chamber of Commerce and Jefferson County donating the same amount which was seconded by Councilmember Jones. After discussion, the motion passed by voice vote with six Councilmember voting in the affirmative and Council- member Westerman voting against the motion. Councilmember Owsley reported that the Fire Department has requested funds from the depreciation fund for a new Chie1:'s car which is not what the fund is for and that the ComInittee is not recommending this purchase. ci ty Attorney. Mr McLerran distributed an agenda for the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Advisory Cornmi ttee meeting to be held on July 7, 1993, and reviewed a letter to be sent from Mayor Clise suggesting that the City and County have separate administration of Shoreline Management Master Programs. Discussion ensued during which the members of the Legislati vel Environmental Committee suggested that they attend the meeting after their meeting adjourns on July 7, 1993, and deliver the letter. Clerk-Treasurer. RESOLUTION NO 93-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ISSUE TAX EXEMPT BONDS TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE OF POLICE VEHICLES. Mr Grove explained the resolution. Councilmember Jones made a motion that the Council adopt Resolution No 93-82 which was seconded by Councilmember Owsley. After discussion includin9 Chief Newton, the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, CouncilmeInber Jones made a motion that the meeting be adjourned whi was seconded and passed at 11:24 PM. Attest: Mayor .. .~~ Clerk-Treasurer MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 19, 1993 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this Nineteenth day of July, 1993, at 7: 00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor John M Clise presidingr. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present at Roll Call were Jean Camfield, Vern Jones, Julie McCulloch, Norma Owsley, Robert Sokol, Sheila Westerman and Cindy Wolpin. Also present were Clerk-Treasurer David GroVE!, City Attorney Dennis McLerran, Police Chief Jim Newton, Direc.tor of Planning and Building Michael Hildt and City Engineer Randy Brackett. 339