HomeMy WebLinkAbout11172005
.
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
C TY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE SPECI L SESSION OF NOVEMBER 17, 2005
I
CALL TO ORDER 4ND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
,
I
The City Council of the City of Port t ownsend met in special session this
seventeenth day of November, 200$, at 6:30p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary
Council Chambers in the Cedar Rodm of the Waterman & Katz Building, Deputy
Mayor Michelle Sandoval presiding. i
I
I
ROLL CALL
I
I
Council members present at roll caXI were Frank Benskin, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff,
Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, and ichelle Sandoval. Mayor Catharine Robinson
arrived at 6:42 and acted as presidi g officer for the remainder of the meeting.
,
i
Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John
Watts, Senior Planner Judy Surber, ILong Range Planning Director Jeff Randall,
Public Works Director Ken Clow, anl:l City Clerk Pam Kolacy.
I
I
!
.
I
RESblUTION 05-047
,
,
,
,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CcpUNCll OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND,
WASHINGTON, ENDORSING [HE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOLUNTEER
PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF A :;lISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP WITH BAY ST.
loLliS, MISSISSIPPI
!
I
City Manger David Timmons stated ithat the resolution will have the effect of
endorsing the efforts of the sister cily organizers and acknowledging volunteer
activities of city staff related to effo1s to assist Bay St. louis, Mississippi.
Public comment
i
Carla Main: stated a public meeting is scheduled for Sunday evening. She handed
out additional information about thel project.
I
I
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for adopti/;Jn of Resolution 05-047. Mr. Masci seconded.
The motion carried unanimously, 6-p, by voice vote.
P BLlC HEARING
.
RE OlUTION 05-046
City Council Special Meeting
Page 1
November 17,2005
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND DECLARING THE
APPROVAL OF AND INTENTIO TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S
SHORELINE MASTER PROG M, INCLUDING GOALS, POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS, AND DIRECTIN SUBMITTAL TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT
OF ECOLOGY; AND FURTHER PECLARING THE INTENT TO REPEAL THE
URBAN WATERFRONT PLAN (1990) AND COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC ACCESS
PLAN UPON ADOPTION OFf THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
I
Senior Planner Judy Surber reviewe~ the packet materials and staff report, which
contained responses to the Council's requests for information from the last meeting,
an outline of outstanding policy issu$s, and submission of an errata sheet.
,
Public comment:
.
Larry Crockett, Executive Director, F/ort of Port Townsend referred to the massing
,
drawings provided earlier today and Inoted the drawings are oblique and not the
actual footprint. Mr. Crockett went qn to the GIS system and drew a new document
from that showing that 12,500 feet i$ one third of the site in square feet. He added
that the Port provided answers to sdme minor questions the Council had such as the
history of Point Hudson. He noted ~oint Hudson is 71 years old and the parade
ground has had buildings or RVs on! that area for all but eight of the 71 years,
therefore it has not historically been!open space. Regarding the comments from the
Washington Native Plant Society, h~ does not have any objections to the Port taking
a look at the tidal flow connection b$tween Kah Tai Lagoon and the saltwater if good
science shows that would be something worth restoring. He thanked staff and other
players and noted that he believes t~e process can move forward with the
compromises reached.
.
Mary Winters, Port of PT Attorney: reiterated that in both Boat Haven and Point
Hudson, shoreline regulations have ibeen made more strict to allow only water
dependent or water related uses. ~egarding the mixed-use facility, Council will have
to decide if the compromise is a pOlicy you are willing to support. Point Hudson
goals include encouragement of sm~1I marine trades, and a financially self-
supporting Point Hudson; these areitied together which was a challenge and a
dilemma; to remove anyone of them would not make Point Hudson self supporting.
The Port believes the plan before Cpuncil represents a good compromise and if they
wish to revise the plan, Council sho~ld keep those goals in mind. Regarding specific
footage, there are many other regulations that provide a great deal of protection for
bulk and scale. She stated the Po~ has also reviewed the Errata sheet and have
no objection to any of the correctio~s.
Guy Hupy: stated that consultant Rlick Sepler did a good job of bulk and scale
modeling. The mixed-use facility allowed under these rules would be the largest
structure in the historic area of PortlTownsend east of Swains; it would be three
times larger than the neighboring mptel and three times larger than the sail loft. He
I
City Council Special Meeting
Page 2
November 17,2005
.
I
I
urged the Council to keep scale in ~ind when reviewing shoreline issues including
the view corridor from the Comman~er's quarters. Regarding the marine trades
component, there was a compromis~ by the SAG proposed for this facility in the first
place that had to do with scale, repl~cing all RV spots and a 75% marine trades
component on the main floor. In th~ last draft, that 75% rule was downgraded to
allow 50% of the main floor to be hotel rooms and the remaining to be marine
related. Under the new restaurant ~egulations, the restaurant square footage would
take up the bulk of that remaining s~ace, thereby leaving no room for marine trades.
Regarding the Historic Preservation Committee recommendation, they are
concerned about a mixed-use buildi g of any size because of the heritage resources
and because it is in the national histpric district. The Committee believes the
parade ground should be kept free Jnd the Port encouraged to maintain open view
corridors to include the view across he parade grounds. The HPC favors preserving
historic integrity by limiting new buil ings.
,
i
,
Eric Toews stated he would be surptised if the proposed shoreline mixed use facility
would be the largest structure east 4f Swains in Port Townsend; he can think of
many multi-story structures that woljld vastly outscale this facility. Regarding the
suggestion that there has been a sh!ift in what can occur on the ground floor, he
stated that the suggestion there is ai shift in what can occur on the ground floor from
entirely marine related to non-marin~ related, that is not the case. The language
consistently refers to water enjoym~nt and water related uses on the ground floor. It
was never intended that there woul9 be some major driver to support marine trades
on the ground floor as that would b~ incompatible with primary use but that a
percentage of the ground floor should be used for transient accommodations and the
balance to be water enjoyment or water related. Regarding view corridors and the
need to protect views across the parade grounds, he called attention to the graphic
showing the implementing mechani~ms in the municipal code for view protection.
He stated the Urban Waterfront Plan included extensive analysis to ensure that
buildings would follow the contour ot the bluff and nowhere in the Urban Waterfront
Plan or in the implementing regulati?ns is he aware of anything other than the 25-
foot height limit pertaining to Block ~3, which is the parade grounds. He added that
the Port continues to support the PI~nning Commission's draft as recommended and
offered that the preliminary massin~ schematic represents only a worst case
scenario and is highly unlikely to be!encountered because of the safeguards
inherent in the process. He stated trat the HPC's views are tangentially relevant to
the deliberations and under no circljmstances should a blanket of no new
development be applied so that the lability for water dependent and water enjoyment
be retained. He stated again that tHe parade grounds have seen development of
one form or another for the vast majority of their history.
I
Steve Chapin stated he was Point Hudson's marine trades representative on the
Shoreline Advisory Group and appl~uds all who have worked on this. He stated that
that the new designation at the parade grounds had been part of a compromise that
offered a viable acceptable way to ~oothe the Port's needs for revenue in exchange
for removal of the RVs from the shqreline. He added that of course a long term goal
.
.
City Council Special Meeting
Page 3
November 17, 2005
.
for management policies of this doc ment would preserve the key public view, the
near shore wildlife habitat, and origi al character of Point Hudson. Also, Goal 1 of
the 6 between the City and Port say that Point Hudson must be economically self-
sufficient. Mixed use on the parad ground could be a viable means of doing that.
The compromise was watered down! a bit with mixed use conditional on removal of
RVs from the parade ground only a~d they would stay along the shore. Now the
plan no longer has any attachment ~etween the mixed use and removal of RVs as
the use if allowed outright. The Marine Trades people at Point Hudson believe this
is wrong and think the connection isineeded to maintain small marine trades and
working atmosphere. The allowed r~staurant dimension would greatly expand
restaurant activity from 6,000 to 11 ,~OO square feet, effectively doubling the
restaurant space and bringing more!people into Point Hudson so it will be harder to
go along with our work. It would alsp ruin the view corridor. At the very least, mixed
use is unnecessary on the parade ground as it could occur in the back 40 or at Fleet
Marine. He asked that Council ple~se delete the shoreline mixed use from the
parade ground at Point Hudson. .
Dave Robison, Northwest Maritime ~enter, used an aerial photograph taken about
four years ago as an exhibit. He st*ed that the intent of the Shoreline Advisory
Group's work was to prevent Point Ijludson from being threatened in the future. He
stated that Point Hudson has been +n incubator for marine trades for the last several
years and this is one of the largest ~nd most vital sectors of the local economy. He
added that gentrification and propertY value escalation is having an impact on the
trades. The Maritime Center is tryi~g to establish a maritime corridor which extends
to the armory building and east sidel of the cupola house. A goal of the Maritime
Center and SAG was to make sure that area was protected to be an incubator for
marine trades - so throughout proc$ss, tried to restrict uses that could be allowed
but also broadened uses to include maritime education and maritime non profits. He
stated they tried to recognize there Was compromise needed to allow the Port to do
renovations within the marina and meet preservation goals for buildings on the east
side so proposal was made to allow! adaptive re-use of those historic buildings.
The intent of including mixed use w~s to allow a small footprint in keeping with the
scale of the hotel building to some ~ay be accommodated there so it would allow
more income and allow enough revenue for the Port to accommodate the six goals
of the 1994 Point Hudson master p~ogram.
.
,
There was no further comment, an~ Mayor Robinson closed the public comment
portion of the hearing. I
I
.
Staff response:
Ms. Surber noted regarding Steve Ghapin's comment about there being no
remaining link between the constru9tion of the mixed use facility and the loss of RV
parking, she stated that the mixed Ljse facility can be constructed only on the
condition that the RVs at the parad, ground be removed. She stated that originally
the hope was that mixed use could replace RVs as a revenue source, but as it
City Council Special Meeting
Page 4
November 17, 2005
.
evolved, it became evident that the) venue source was unlikely to replace all of the
RVs and the compromise came to bf just the RVs at the parade ground, then
,
morphed into the size restrictions, th~ percentage of water oriented uses, hotel, etc.
It was a natural progression and a nloot point as to when and who proposed any of
these iterations but it did evolve to trye point where it affected only the RVs on the
parade ground.
.
Mr. Masci asked Ms. Surber to review the definitions of water dependent and water
oriented uses, which she read from chapter 15. She added that the definition of
mixed-use development says it must be accompanied by water dependent or water
related use.
I
Mr. Masci asked about the square f~otage of some of the larger buildings downtown
such as Mt. Baker, Hastings, etc. ~r. Hupy stated he did an overlay and all have
footprints smaller than 12,500 squar1e feet. He confirmed Ms. Robinson's question
that he based his comment on the b!uilding footprints, not total square footage.
In response to Mr. Kolffs question, /r.-1s. Surber stated that the "hospital" building at
Point Hudson has a 6,900 square fqot footprint and has a total of 8,872 square feet.
In regard to a second question, she !stated that mixed-use development is different
from a mixed-use facility. The brea~down in chapter 5.13 says that the 5.13 - say
that ground floor area could be 50o/~ transient and of the remaining 50%, 75% must
be water oriented (which could be al restaurant) and the remaining area is open to
non-water oriented. This means as little as 12.5% of the total can be non-water
oriented and 37.5% water oriented. '
Mr. Benskin referred to Mr. Crocke~'s schematic. Mr. Timmons noted the outline on
the schematic is the maximum size ~hat would be allowed, and that other factors
would affect build out. Ms. Surber! noted that the regulations are intended to be
more restrictive than the zoning reg~lations.
Mr. Kolff asked about the size of th~ "back 40." Larry Crockett estimated that the
area is about 40,000 square feet frqm Fleet Marine boatyard back to the fence and
then over to the Commander's Hou$e.
Mr. Benskin asked about Exhibit 32j6. - the view corridor exhibit. Ms. Surber
confirmed that the original Gatewa~ Plan policies were conceptual and that some of
the policies have been implemente~ through development regulations, including
height overlay districts. She noted that the area between downtown easterly of the
ferry dock and Boat Haven is not ccjvered by a height overlay district. She added
that the Comprehensive Public Access Plan did provide more specific information
regarding where public access poin~s could be developed and referred to the
appendices. !
Ms. Sandoval asked about the "resloration" process and how developers may end
. up offsetting with incentives; she a~ked if there would be a list of items, which could
City Council Special Meeting
Page 5
November 17, 2005
.
be used so that developers would b clear about possible incentives as part of the
condition of the restoration.
Ms. Surber stated this would be diffj ult to develop without knowing at least some
site-specific information. There has Ibeen a concern expressed that there is no
proportionate ratio that can really be) a stand-alone list. The language will be similar
to the planned unit development lan~uage, making it site specific.
Mayor Robinson asked for commen(s from staff or audience solely to clarify issues
raised in the question period. ,
I
Jeff Randall noted that the group ha~ talked about the restoration issue; he said that
having worked with developers in th early stages of projects, he has found they are
all interested in having their projects look better so if there were an opportunity to
improve something near their site fo a public benefit, he would anticipate a positive
response. He added that restoratio~ is separate from mitigation and it's a question
of how it is implemented; he would ije hesitant to establish specific trade-offs.
Mr. Watts noted for the record that, In addition to the exhibits in the Council packet,
there are documents distributed to Gouncil today, from Nancy Dorgan, Ron Allen,
Kathy Duncan, and Jefferson Land trust.
!
.
There was consensus to complete t~e process suggested by Ms. Surber, and go
through the policy exercise and the l'mata after a break.
RECESS
Mayor Robinson declared a break a~ 7:53 p.m.
~ECONVENE
,
The meeting was reconvened at 8:q5 p.m.
i
Mayor Robinson noted that getting ~hrOugh the remaining two items regarding the
SMP will probably take all the time ~ntil 9:30 and there are two more items on the
agenda. She stated that she woul<~ suggest going forward until 1 0 pm and then if
the remaining agenda items have npt been addressed, they could be moved forward
to a future meeting. :
.
Mr. Watts reviewed the Council Rules which state that the Council shall be deemed
to have approved an extension of almeeting beyond 9:30 p.m. unless a member
requests a vote as to whether to exlend or adjourn.
.
Ms. Surber asked for the Council's onsideration of the errata sheet. Consensus
was to move through each item an ask for consensus.
City Council Special Meeting
Page 6
November 17, 2005
.
(1) View Corridors, clarification of policy language: favored unanimously
Staff was requested to work up a lis of street ends and view corridors in the area of
Indian Point. Ms. Surber noted that taff was moving toward using view corridors
show in the Public Access Plan - do n street corridors and panoramic at Indian
Point. Mr. Watts suggested that it ould be most straightforward to have view
corridors in the Public Access Plan ircorporated into the map, and then add text to
say it is conceptual and not limited tt the arrows on the map
,
(2) Section 2.2A Applicability: unanjimous agreement
(3) Section 2.4A Authority: unanim~us agreement
I
(4) Policy 4.2.3 Historic Re-use: un~nimous agreement
(5) V Section 5.9 and 5.7 = stairs/t1amsl etc.: unanimous agreement
,
Mr. Surber noted that if allowed for ~rivate use, could cumulatively degrade the
environment.
.
i
I
i
(6) V-8-12 New Over-water Struct~res: unanimous agreement
I
(7) Purpose of Urban Designation ~ makes introductory text consistent with
regulations that follow. Flag for furt~er discussion.
,
I
(8) DR 5.12.2(b)(ii)(4) Boat HavenlNE Basin. Flag for further discussion.
,
(9) Point Hudson policy 5.13.9: uranimous agreement
(10) V59-19, correcting math error. Flagged for further discussion.
(11) V-66 Point Hudson use table: unanimous agreement
(12) Add Artwork to Use Table: u~animous agreement
(13) V-74 Use Table, recreational ~ses: unanimous agreement
,
I
(14) VI 4-38 Mitigation preference: I unanimous agreement and add definition of
"drift cell" I
. ;
I
(15) IV-3-36 DR 6.4.19 height limitlinconsistency: unanimous agreement
(16) VIII-15-23 DR 8.7.5(i) consist~ncy with noise ordinance: unanimous
agreement '
.
(17) IX-10-5 Docks:
unanimous agteement
City Council Special Meeting
Page 7
November 17, 2005
.
I
I
,
(18) Artwork -drop distinction betw1en major & minor: unanimous agreement
(19) Definitions - Marine Bluff: unclnimous agreement
abandoned structure !
YES
Additional comment letters:
.
(20) Beef up Chapter 15 definitions !to carry over definitions in restoration plan:
unanimous agreement .
(21) Provide clarifying text about hJW 200-foot setback relates to critical areas
ordinance (Puget Sound Action Tear): unanimous agreement
(22) (Kathy Duncan): amend lang~age to state City will notify Tribes if
archaeological items are uncovered,1 but will not require a survey for every project:
unanimous agreement. I
(Noted that a project the size of Indi~n Point has many requirements for notification
in place already.)
Policy Exercise on Point Hudson.
i
,
Consensus was to conduct a "straw Ivote" on each outstanding policy identified.
!
(1) Should the SMP include the oplion of a Mixed-Use Facility as a means to
replace RVs at the Parade Grounds!?
FB yes
LM yes
KK maybe
GM yes
FF maybe
MS maybe
CR maybe
(2) If yes, where should the Mixed ~se Facility be allowed?
a: parade grounds b: "back forty c: either location
FB c
LM c
KK b
GM all
FF b
MS b
CR b
.
City Council Special Meeting
Page 8
November 17,2005
.
(3) Should the SMP a: specify thl maximum use of the Mixed-Use Facility (e.g.,
12,500 ground floor 125,000 sf overfll: or b: revert to original, broader language,
i.e. maintain the small scale charact r; c: set a different maximum square footage.
Discussion included:
Proscriptive is easiest to administer, !but proscriptive language allows flexibility for
design options. I
What would it take to remove all RV$ from Point Hudson? Difficult to determine
without an economic analysis and fulnding was not available for that.
,
Larry Crockett noted that Port's income from RVs next year i.e. estimated at
$208,500.00 and essentially a 50-59 split between the point and the parade ground.
FB a
LM a
KK c
GM a
FF c
MS c
CR a
.
Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to adjo(1m the meeting at 9:30. Mr. Masci seconded.
Motion failed, 2-5, by voice vote, witJ,1 Benskin and Masci in favor.
Item 4: Should new development bEl! allowed at the parade grounds?
FB yes
LM yes
KK yes
GM yes
FF maybe
MS yes
CR no
If yes, what type of development?
MS: emphasis on marine trades, if lin addition to mixed use at the "back forty."
GM: all permitted activities within w$ter-related or water-enjoyment definition.
trades.
City Council Special Meeting
water-dependent or water-rela,ed uses
water-dependent or water-relatd; no difficulty with two mixed-use facilities.
I
I
I Page 9
I
November 17,2005
KK:
.
LM:
.
FB: water dependent not compatibl with parade grounds; water-related is more
appropriate. favors mixed use for p rade grounds.
LM: no water-dependent uses
,
I
GM: prefer water enjoyment or mix~d use facility
i
FF: water dependent or water relatEid use; possible Native American cultural center
!
Should size limitations be specified?
.
FB: 12,500 sf footprint
LM: 12,500 sf footprint i
KK: 7,000 sf footprint in addition tp larger development on "back forty"
GM: 15,000 sf footprint I
FF: 5,000 sf footprint; 10,000 sf qverall
MS: 10,000 sf if there is another rrjixed use development on the "back forty"- could
support "back forty" mixed use facili~ with more square footage or the incentive of a
smaller footprint with greater heighqwould rather see mixed use facility incentive
driven i
CR: zero sf in a perfect world; shelis inclined to have the square footage be more
negotiable if it would get RVs off thel point. Would prefer a very small footprint on
the parade ground. I
Mr. Masci stated he believes the do~uments represents the best compromise
concerning all involved. He believe~ the City needs to support the Port with the plan
and not hamstring their ability to earn money with is their legislative mandate. The
City needs to work with the Port to find a better method of removing RVs from the
. I
pOint. I
!
Mr. Benskin stated he would like to ,ee an economic analysis and proposed that the
City commission one so that there i~ something to base the judgment on.
Mr. Kolff asked that the Kah Tai Alli~nce issues and Nancy Dorgan's issue regarding
Kah Tai as natural vs. conservancy pe discussed at the next meeting. Consensus
agreement.
Ms. Sandoval stated she would like to talk about incentives for Indian Point
development and the possibility of a!lIowing flexibility for the developer while keeping
pubic access possible. She would li~e to discuss some things that were talked
about in the Shoreline Advisory Gro p but not discussed at Planning Commission,
particularly keeping the public use p rtion alive.
.
Mayor Robinson stated that public cpmment would continue to the next meeting, but
would be limited to issue already onlthe table, with no new issues to be raised.
I
I
I Page 10
,
I
!
City Council Special Meeting
November 17, 2005
.
.
.
CO"OOUOffi~", ..ked to ,,% the L.,;", 'om th;' e%o;o,..d bOo, them to the
hearing continuation on October 28.1
I
1 ADJOURN
I
I
There being no further business, thJ meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Attest:
n I ~
Yi!J; ),1>)' !l::c'ZCY
Pam Kolacy, CMC .
City Clerk
City Council Special Meeting
Page 11
November 17, 2005