HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1992
90
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 5, 1992, Coni:.
a greater sign area for the comple~ of, businesses in .the building
where Chula' s is located and a d1.str1.ct monument s1.gn could be
worked on.
Tourism Coordinating Council Members. A discussion of the make-up
of the Tourism Coordinating Council membership ensued.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Coun'
motion to adjourn which was second by
passed unanimously at 9:11 PM.
ember Westerman made a
ou ilmember Jones and
Attest:
.
Mayor
~T~
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19, 1992
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular
session this Nineteenth day of October, 1992, at 7:00 PM in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor John M Clise presidinq.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present at Roll Call were Jean Camfield, Vern Jones,
Julie McCulloch, Norma Owsley, Robert Sokol, Sheila WesterIAan and
Cindy Wolpin. Also present were Clerk-Treasurer David Grov.~, City
Attorney Dennis McLerran, Director of Planning and Building Michael
Hildt, City Planner Dave Robison, Assistant Planner Darlene
Bloomfield and Public Works Director Robert Wheeler.
INTRODUCTION
Public Works Director introduced Catherine McNabb, Public Works
Assistant.
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Clise recognized Safeway, Inc, for their outstanding Hxample
of how business can significantly contribute to the community
through sensi ti ve design and genuine commitment to community
values.
Mayor Clise proclaimed October 23
Hazardous Waste Collection Days.
and 24,
1992,
as Household
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bernie Arthur was recognized and discussed. the Shoreline Master
Program as it relates to Union Wharf and stated that the:re are
others in the community working to save the wharf. Mayor Clise
reported that his is also working through Congressman Norm Dicks
for potential sources of funding to prevent the wharf fro]} being
torn down. A brief discussion of Union Wharf ensued durinq which
Mr McLerran clarified that the dock is clearly dangerous and
clearly signed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Jones made a motion to approve the following i'tems on
the Consent Agenda which was seconded by Councilmember Camfi,eld and
passed unanimously by voice vote.
Approval of the Minutes for August 17, 1992, as written ,l1ithout
reading.
Approval of the following Bills and Claims:
Current Expense
street
Library
Park
Arterial Street
Hotel/Motel
Emergency Medical Services
Capital Improvement
Waste Water Treatment Plant Const
1992 City Dock Reconstruction
F A U S Construction Project
Community Development Grant
Water-Sewer
storm and Surface Water
Equipment Rental
Firemen's Pension and Relief
Total
Setting Hearings:
$ 89,544.72
356.29
4,843.57
5,253.30
21,812.71
10,292.00
82.82
5,731.00
490,659.98
33,024.59
1,791.95
1,982.70
24,002.38
566.53
6,646.44
213.60
$ 696,804.58
McCarron Variance Application set for November 16, 1992
Adoption of Resolutions:
RESOLUTION NO 92-101
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO BID
FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FOR THE BIOSOLIDS/
COMPOSTING FACILITY SITE.
RESOLUTION NO 92-102
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO BID
THE FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR THE CITY DOCK.
RESOLUTION NO 92-103
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE BIDDING OF
NECESSARY SERVICES AND PRODUCTS FOR 1993.
Communications:
A note dated September 11, 1992, from Mildred Johnson pr01:esting
her water bill was copied for Council and referred to the Water/
Sewer Committee.
A letter dated September 28, 1992, from Janeen Hayden comnenting
on the proposed City Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance was
copied for Council.
A letter dated September 30, 1992, from Frank D'Amore, Co-Director,
Port Townsend Marine Science Center, to Calmar A McCune in rE~sponse
to his suggestion of making a reef out of the remains of Union
Wharf was copied for Council.
91
92
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19, 1992, Cont.
A note dated October 4, 1992, from Hilary Lowrence on the utility
rates was copied for Council and referred to the Water/Sewer
Committee.
A letter dated October 6,1992, from the Salal Cafe relating their
problems with their dumpster and recycling area was copied for
Council and referred to the Community Services Committee.
A letter dated October 11,1992, from Calmar McCune including his
proposal for the removal of Union Wharf was copied for Council and
referred to the Parks/Property Committee.
A letter dated October 12,1992, from Gary D Huff, of Karr, Tuttle,
campbell Law Offices, commenting on the amendments to the Shoreline
Management Master Program and determination of nonsignificance was
copied for Council and referred to the Public Hearing.
A letter dated October 12, 1992, from Gordon J Meling, President,
Superior Refuse Removal Inc, explaining the problem with the Salal
Cafe recycling was copied for Council and referred to the Community
Services Committee.
This concludes the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
Enarson/Kraxberger street Vacation and Director's Decision on Short
Plat. Ms Bloomfield reviewed the material on Enarson Short Plat
Application 9205-07 and Enarson/Kraxberger street Vacation
Application 9205-07. Mayor Clise opened the hearing to the Public.
Lisa Enarson was recognized and spoke in favor of the project.
There being no further testimony, Mayor Clise closed the hearing to
the Public and turned to the Council for disposition. During a
discussion of "site review", Councilmembers Jones and Westerman
stated that they had driven by this project site. After further
discussion, Councilmember McCulloch made a motion that the Council
adopt the following findings, conclusions and conditions and
approve Street Vacation Application No 9205-07 which was seconded
by Councilmember Owsley and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Findings:
1.
The applicants proposed to vacate the full 60-foot width of
the Hancock Street right-of-way from the southern boundary of
29th street to the Hastings Avenue right-of-way approximately
240 feet to the south. The applicants also propose to
dedicate and alternative 40-foot wide route and provide a
utilities easement.
2.
The street vacation is proposed as part of a subdivision
proposal made by the applicants. The subdivision, if granted,
would divide an existing parcel to the west of Hancock Street
into eight building sites (For additional information on the
proposed. subdi vision please see Enarson Subdivision
Application 9205-07.)
3.
A residence, which is currently located within the Hancock
Street right-of-way proposed to be vacated, has an existing,
non-conforming front setback of approximately one foot from
the Hastings Avenue right-of-way; a 20-foot side setback to
the property line to the east (where the proposed utility
easement would be located), a 65-foot side setback to the
proposed new Hancock Street right-of-way to the west and 30-
foot setback to the proposed rear property line.
4.
The proposed street to be vacated is located on the border of
the Hasting's Heights Addition which dedicated the western 25
feet of Hancock Street and Hasting's 3rd Addition which
dedicated the eastern 35 feet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
5.
The applicants propose to improve and realign Hancock street.
The proposed improvements would provide access to the n,ew lots
proposed in the Enarson Short Plat.
6.
There are 6-inch water lines located in Hastings Avenue to the
south, along the eastern edge of the subject portion of
Hancock street (between the existing residence and Lot 6,
Block 10 of the Hastings 3rd Addition to the east) and at the
intersection of Hancock and 30th Streets.
7.
An 8-inch sanitary sewerline is also located in the Hancock
Street right-of-way proposed to be vacated. The line, running
southeasterly, is located approximately 25 feet from the
southeast corner of the intersection of 29th and Hancock
Streets and terminates approximately 100 feet to the south.
8.
The applicant proposes to provide a utility easement for the
existing utilities in the area proposed to be vacated.
9.
puget Power, US West and Port Townsend Cable have been
notified of the proposed vacation. puget Power has ref;ponded
that no services exist within the subject area. No comments
were received from US West and Port Townsend Cable.
10.
The applicants state in their application that the Hancock
Street right-of-way is obstructed by a house, and t:he new
Hancock Street right-of-way proposed to be dedicated will
allow a much needed transportation and trail corridor between
Hastings and the residential community to the north.
Conclusions:
1.
Under the conditions prescribed below, the proposed street
vacation will improve future traffic circulation and will not
impair future maintenance of utility lines. Therefore, it is
in compliance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
2.
The proposed street vacation, as conditioned, is not required
for current or anticipated overall area circulation.
3.
Under the conditions prescribed below, the effectiveness of
fire, law enforcement, medical and other emergency sE~rvices
will not be impaired by the proposed vacation.
4.
Although the proposed portion of Hancock street proposed to be
vacated is required as a current utility corridor, with the
conditions prescribed below, maintenance of utility lines will
not be impaired.
5.
Under the conditions prescribed below, the portion of the
street proposed to be vacated is not required as a current or
anticipated bicycle, pedestrian or equestrian trail corridor.
The portion of the street proposed to be vacated does not abut
on a body of salt or fresh water.
6.
7.
Because the proposed street vacation conforms wi th thE~ goals
and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan and sa1:isfies
the review criteria for street vacations set forth in Section
12.20.060 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, the Port
Townsend City Council approves the above refE~renced
application as conditioned:
Conditions:
1.
The applicant shall dedicated to the City that area of Hancock
Street as illustrated in Exhibit I.
93
94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
2.
A utilities easement 20 feet in width shall be retained along
the eastern border of the southernmost 92 feet of subject
Hancock Street (Along the eastern border of proposed Lot 7).
In addition, a utilities easement shall be dedicated which
includes that area of Hancock Street lying easterly of the
following described line: Beginning at a point 30 feet
westerly of the northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 10 of
Hastings 3rd Addition, and extending in a southeasterly
direction to a point 138 feet south (northern lot line of
proposed Lot 7) located 20 feet west of the western property
line of Lot 6, Block 10 of the Hasting's 3rd Addition. See
Exhibit I.
3.
A certified copy of the ordinance vacating the street and
alleys shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of
the Jefferson County Auditor upon receipt by the City Attorney
of all dedications required. The street vacation shall be
canceled and become automatically null and void one year after
City Council action if said dedications are not made.
After review of Short Pla't Application 9205-07, Lisa Enarson,
Councilmember Camfield made a motion that the Council adopt the
following findings, conclusions and conditions which was seconded
by Councilmember Jones and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Findings:
1.
The applicant proposes a short subdivision of approximately
2.21 acres into eight lots pursuant to Chapter 18.38 of the
Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC). The applicant has
submitted a preliminary plat titled PRELIMINARY ENARSON SHORT
PLAT dated July 24, 1992 (Exhibit I).
2.
The subject property is in the R-1A zoning district and is
described as Lot 1 of the Hastings Heights Addition to the
City of Port Townsend along with portions of Hancock Street
per Hastings 3rd Addition to the City of Port Townsend.
The subject property is bounded by 30th Street to the north;
the Peninsula Christian Fellowship facility and grounds to
the west; Hastings Avenue to the south; and platted property
to the east.
3. The applicant proposes eight lots as follows:
a. Lot 1, .231 acres (10,065 square feet)
b. Lot 2, .234 acres (10,200 square feet)
c. Lot 3, .234 acres (10,200 square feet)
d. Lot 4, .234 acres (10,200 square feet)
e. Lot 5, .229 acres ( 9,975 square feet)
f. Lot 6, .441 acres (19,200 square feet)
g. Lot 7, .253 acres (11,010 square feet)
h. Lot 8, .310 acres (13,500 square feet)
4.
Proposed Lot 7 would incorporate an existing single family
residence that is currently located in a portion of the
unopened and undeveloped Hancock Street right-of-way, and a
freestanding accessory building located westerly of the right-
of-way. The existing residence has an existing, non-
conforming front setback of approximately one foot from the
Hastings Avenue right-of-way; a 20-foot side setback to the
property line to the east (where the proposed utility easement
will be located), a 65-foot side setback to the proposed new
Hancock Street right-of-way to the west and 30-foot setback to
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19, 1992, Cont.
the proposed rear property line. The existing outbuilding is
proposed to have a rear yard setback of five feet and a side
yard setback from proposed Hancock Street of more t:han 10
feet.
5.
Proposed Lot 6 would incorporate an existing barn, which is
currently an accessory building to the single-family
residence. Barns are permitted uses in R-IA zoning dis1:ricts,
although Section 17.16.030(E) of the Port Townsend Municipal
Code provides for super-setback requirements:
" . . . Barns shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from side
and rear property lines..."
6.
The applicants have proposed to vacate the full 60-foo"t width
of the Hancock street right-of-way from the southern boundary
of 29th Street to the Hastings Avenue right--of-way
approximately 240 feet to the south. The applicant$ also
propose to dedicate an alternative 40-foot wide routE~ which
would be located to the west of proposed lots 8 and 6 (SEE
EXHIBIT I.) In addition, the applicant proposes to provide a
utili ty easement for the existing utili ties in the area
proposed to be vacated. (For additional information on the
proposed street vacation please see Enarson Street Vacation
Application 9205-07.)
7.
The applicants propose to improve and realign Hancock street.
The proposed improvements would provide access to proposed
Lots 1-6 and 8. Lot 7 would continue to be accessød from
Hastings Avenue.
8.
A city water supply is required for each building tract within
a short subdivision (PTMC 18.38.130 (c) (1». There are 6-
inch water lines located in Hastings Avenue to the south, in
Hancock Street from Hastings to 29th Street and at the
intersection of Hancock and 30th streets. The applicant
proposes to connect these water lines by installing a new 6-
inch water line in the existing Hancock Street right~of-way
from 29th to 30th streets.
9.
sani tary sewer service for the proposed short subdivision
would be accomplished through the existing line located in the
Hancock street right-of-way. The line running southeasterly
intersects the northern border of proposed Lot 8 approximately
25 feet from the northeast border of that lot and terminates
approximately 100 feet to the south.
10.
section 18.38.130 (D) of the Port Townsend Municipal Code
states that "Fire protection devices in the form of fire
hydrants shall be a requirement of any short subdivision, in
accordance with city specification and the Uniform Fire Code."
The Fire Department has recommended that a hydrant be
installed at the intersection of 29th and Hancock streets.
11.
The applicant has submitted an engineered drainage plan dated
August, 1992, as prepared by Northwestern Territorie!s, Inc
(Exhibi t IV). The plan proposes runoff generated from the
proposed residential construction be controlled by a de1:ention
pond on Lot 6, adjacent to Hastings Avenue. Stormwater would
be directed to the pond through a drainage swale along the
western border of the subject property and through a drainage
di tch along the western side of proposed Hancock Stree"t. The
proposal has been approved.þy City Engineer Randy Brackett.
A letter was received from Charles and Caro¡ Barne~t of 3012
Hancock Street. The letter requested improvements in the
current status of roads, as well as water, sewer and drainage
services in the area prior to approval of any further
development of the neighborhood.
12.
95
96
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
13.
The City council has issued a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS), dated August 3,1992, after review of
the environmental checklist submitted by the applicant
pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act
(Exhibit III). The applicant has agreed to comply with the
mitigations suggested by the City Council, and has drafted
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated September 4,
1992, (Exhibit II) which reflect the mitigations.
14.
The subject property is not in a flood-control zone; and is
not within 200 feet of a body of water of statewide
significance.
Conclusions
1.
2.
3.
The proposed short subdivision is in conformance with the
goals and policies of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Lot 6 will not conform to the setback requirements
unless the existing barn is removed, the lot design is re-
configured, or a variance is granted.
Under the conditions prescribed below, the proposed short
subdivision meets the purposes, standards and criteria of
Chapter 18.38 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the
Planning Director hereby recommends to the City Council the above-
referenced preliminary plat be GRANTED AS CONDITIONED:
1.
The following shall take place prior to final plat approval:
a.
The applicant shall construct and surface Hancock Street
from 30th Street to Hastings Avenue (See Exhibit I). In
constructing the proposed road, the applicants shall use
two surface coatings of light bituminous surfacing top
coarse. Notice shall be provided by the applicant to the
Director of Public Works by certified mail at least 30
days prior to the proposed road surfacing date. The City
shall have the option during this 30-day notice period to
inform the applicant that an alternative paving material
is required by the City, the applicants shall be required
to provide a proportionate share contribution for the
proposed surfacing not to exceed an amount equal to the
cost of providing two surface coatings of light
bituminous surfacing top coarse for the subject road. If
the City chooses to require an alternative material, the
City shall surface the roadway within 45 days of
notifying the applicant of that requirement.
A graveled pedestrian walkway shall he constructed on
Hancock Street between 30th Street and Hastings Avenue.
b.
A fire hydrant, water and sewer lines shall be installed
as indicated on the preliminary plat.
c.
The applicant must receive approval from the City Council
for the vacation of the subject portion of Hancock Street
including an easement along the eastern property lines of
proposed Lots 8 and 7.
d.
The existing barn located on proposed Lot 6 shall be
removed or a setback variance granted prior to final plan
approval.
e.
The existing outbuilding on proposed Lot 7 shall maintain
a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet from the proposed
Hancock Street right-of-way and a rear yard setback of
five feet; or be removed or a variance obtained.
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
3.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19, 1992, Cont.
f.
A final short plat shall be prepared pursuant to all of
the applicable requirements of Chapter 18.38 of the Port
Townsend Municipal Code and shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning and Building, after all required
improvements are made, and within three years of the date
of preliminary plat approval.
The final short plat and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions shall be recorded with the Jefferson County
Auditor's Office.
The following shall take place during construction within the
proposed plat:
a.
Temporary erosion and sedimentation control mE~asures
during construction and excavation shall be reviet.¡ed and
approved by the Public Works Director.
b.
Construction areas shall be watered to suppress dust.
chemical dust suppressants should be used.
No
c.
All improvements constructed on the property shall comply
with these Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions.
In case of any conflict, Conditions shall prevail over
Findings in interpreting or applying the same.
d.
Building permit applicants shall list the following
condi tion on the face of the construction drawings
submitted to the City for building permit approval:
"Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7
AM and 6 PM Monday through Friday and prohibited on
weekends. This conditions shall be prominently displayed
at or near the entrance to the site in view of
contractors and the public."
e.
Work shall be stopped if any archeological resources are
discovered and the State Historic Preservation Officer
shall be contacted immediately.
4.
The following conditions shall also be included in
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions:
the
a.
The large scale use of chemical pesticides and herbicides
shall be prohibited.
b.
Significant trees that have not been identified as posing
a hazard shall be tagged to indicate that they will not
be cut except those located directly in a utility path or
on a proposed building pad.
c.
Outdoor lighting fixtures shall shield and direct light
or glare downward and away from adjoining proper1:ies.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Final Review of Comprehensive Public Access Plan. Ms Bloomfield
reviewed each of the changes made in the Comprehensive Public
Access Plan. A discussion by the Councilmembers ensued.
97
98
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
RESOLUTION NO 92-104
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PHASE II OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN WHICH
PROVIDES A STREET END ACCESS IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM, DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND IMPLEMENTATION
INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC ACCESS ESTABLISHED
WITHIN THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER
PROGRAM'S PORT TOWNSEND URBAN WATERFRONT
SPECIAL DISTRICT.
Councilmember Camfield made a motion that the Council approve the
Comprehensive Public Access Plan and adopt Resolution No 92-104
which was seconded by Councilmember Westerman which passed by voice
vote with councilmembers Camfield, McCulloch, Owsley, Westerman and
Wolpin voting in the affirmative and Councilmembers Jones and Sokol
voting against the motion.
Mr Hildt noted appreciation for work done on the plan by the Public
Access Committee, Councilmember camfield, the Shoreline Commission
and Ms Bloomfield.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sign Code Amendment. Mr Hildt reviewed the background for the sign
code amendment along with a unanimous recommendation from the
Planning Commission in its favor. Mayor Clise opened the hearing
to the Public. There being no testimony, Mayor Clise closed the
hearing to the Public and turned to the Council for disposition.
ORDINANCE NO 2318
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND SIGNS;
AMENDING ORDINANCE 2249 AND SECTION 17.50.180
OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE; EXTENDING
THE PERIOD FOR COMPLIANCE OF NONCONFORMING
SIGNS WITH ORDINANCE 2249 AND CHAPTER 17.50 OF
THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
After a brief discussion, Mr Grove read the ordinance by title.
Councilmember Owsley made a motion that the first reading be
considered the second and the third be by title only which was
seconded by Councilmember Sokol and passed unanimously by voice
vote. Mr Grove again read the ordinance by title. Councilmember
Owsley made a motion that the Council adopt Ordinance No 2318 which
was seconded by Councilmember Sokol and passed unanimously by roll
call vote.
Environmentally Sensi ti ve Areas Ordinance. Extended Hearing. Mayor
Clise clarified that this hearing is just on changes requested and
not for general testimony on the whole ordinance. Mr Robison
reviewed each of the changes requested since September 28, 1992,
some of which were discussed by Council. Mr Hildt explained the
estimated costs and recommended fees for the ordinance. Mayor
Clise opened the hearing to the Public. Bob Rickard was recognized
and made suggestions for changes to certain areas of the ordinance.
Kathryn Jenks was recognized and commented on several areas of the
ordinance and stated that she feels that there should a low fee to
appeal a determination saying that she already helps to pay the
salaries and would rather not do it twice. Bernie Arthur was
recognized and spoke in favor of an expert to make the decision on
environmentally sensitive areas, and that the costs should be
fairly low and stated that this ordinance is complicated. Janeen
Hayden was recognized and stated her concerns about the words
"should" and "may" in mitigating natural wetland systems and
concerns regarding "species of local significance". There being no
further testimony, Mayor Clise closed the hearing to the Public and
turned to the Council for disposition.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
RECESS
Mayor Clise declared a recess at 9:40 PM.
at 9:44 PM.
The meeting reconvened
A lengthy discussion of the language in the ordinance and proposed
fees to be charged ensued during which a vote was taken by a show
of hands for the use of "should" instead of "may" in 2.e. on page
40. The vote was 5 to 2 for "should" with Councilmembers Camfield,
Jones, McCulloch, Westerman and Wolpin voting for "should" and
Councilmembers Owsley and Sokol voting for "may". The show of hand
vote for "$25.00" for an appeal of a determination was 4 v01:es for
and 3 votes for a higher amount. Further discussion of procedure
ensued.
ORDINANCE NO 2319
AN ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 19.05 OF
THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING
REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREAS PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 3.36 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ASSESS FEES FOR PERMIT
APPLICATIONS UNDER NEW CHAPTER 19.05.
Mr Grove read the ordinance by title. Councilmember Westerman made
a motion that the first reading be considered the second and the
third be by title only which was seconded by Councilmember Wolpin
and passed by voice vote with Councilmembers Camfield, McCulloch,
Owsley, Sokol, Westerman, and Wolpin voting in the affirmative and
Counci lmember Jones voting against the motion. Mr Grove again read
the ordinance by title. Councilmember Wolpin made a motion that
the Council adopt Ordinance No 2319 which was seconded by
Councilmember McCulloch. Mr Hildt stated that the effective date
should be November 16, 1992, which was agreed to by Council. The
motion passed by roll call vote with Councilmembers Camfield,
McCulloch, Owsley, Sokol, Westerman and Wolpin voting in the
affirmative and Councilmember Jones voting against the motion.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
out of state Travel. Counci1member Westerman made a motion that
the Council approve out-of-state travel for John Clise, Bob Sokol,
David Grove, Jim Newton, Howard Scott, Michael Hildt and Randy
Brackett to attend Federal Emergency Management Training in
Emmettsberg, Maryland, which was seconded by Councilmember Camfield
and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Resolution on Staff Support for Tourism Coordinating Council.
RESOLUTION NO 92-107
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AND THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF JEFFERSON COUNTY (EDC)
REGARDING STAFF SUPPORT OF THE TOURISM
COORDINATING COUNCIL FUNDED THROUGH PROCEEDS
OF THE HOTEL/MOTEL TAX.
Mr McLerran explained the resolution. Councilmember Westerman made
a motion that the council adopt Resolution No 92-107 which was
seconded by Councilmember Owsley and passed unanimously by voice
vote.
99
100
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
COMMITTEE REPORTS/STAFF REPORTS
1993 Budget Hearings. Mr Grove confirmed that there will be two
hearings for the 1993 Budget as requested at the Council Retreat.
Councilmember Jones made a motion to formally set the Hearings for
November 23, and 30, 1992 at 7: 00 PM, which was seconded by
Councilmember Sokol and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Announcements. Mr Wheeler announced that he will be speaking at
the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce October 21,1992, about water
and that there will be a Public Meeting on November 4,1992, on the
Gateway Park.
Setting of Meeting. Councilmember Wolpin announced a meeting of
the Legislative/Environmental Committee for October 27, 1992 at
5:00 PM to discuss the North Sound Bank and the construction of
four homes by the TIR Corporation.
NEW BUSINESS
Resolution on Residential Anti-Displacement & Relocation Assistance
Plan.
RESOLUTION NO 92-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND ADOPTING AN AMENDED
RESIDENTIAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION
PLAN.
Mr McLerran explained the Resolution. Councilmember Sokol made a
motion that the Council adopt Resolution No 92-106 which was
seconded by Councilmember Westerman and passed unanimously by voice
vote.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Clise recessed the meeting into Executive Session to discuss
the acquisition of real estate including Dennis McLerran, and
Robert Wheeler at 11: 30 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 11: 43 PM.
RECESS
There being no further business, at 11:43 PM, Mayor Clise declared
the meeting recessed until October 28, 1992 at 7:00 PM.
MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED SESSION OF OCTOBER 19, 1992
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in continued
session this Twenty-eighth day of Octoher, 1992, at 7:00 PM in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Pro-Tem Jean Camfield
presiding.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present at Roll Call were Jean Camfield, Vern Jones,
Julie McCulloch, Norma Owsley, Sheila Westerman and Cindy Wolpin.
Mayor John Clise and Councilmember Robert Sokol were excused. Also
present were Deputy City Treasurer Vera Franz, City Attorney Dennis
McLerran, City Planner Dave Robison and Public Works Director
Robèrt Wheeler.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Pro-Tem Camfield explained that this is a continued Public
Hearing on the proposed Amendments to the Jefferson County/Port
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19, 1992, Coni:.
Townsend Shorel ine Management Master Program. The Publ ic Comments
were accepted at a special meeting on October 26, 1992, and this
meeting is for Council deliberation and additional information
only. Mayor Pro-Tem Camfield listed communications from the
following:
Gary Huff dated 10-12-92
Lowell Bogart dated 10-28-92
Craig Jones and Associates dated 10-27-92
Bumgarner Associates dated 10-28-92
Recommended Alternative Haul-out Facility -Port of Port
Townsend copied to Council 10-28-92
6. Tourism in Port Townsend Survey Results dated 2-6-92 copied for
this meeting
7. Survey of Economic Impacts of the Marine Trades Industry in
Jefferson County dated 6-90 copied for this meeting
8. Memorandum to Dave Robison from Dennis McLerran dated 3-9-92
copied for this meeting
9. City of Port Townsend/Jefferson County Shoreline Advisory Board
dated 1-21-92 copied for this meeting
10. Port District Management Plan dated 1-91 copied for this
meeting
11. Donald Bales, Department of Ecology, to Dave Robison dated 12-
31-91 copied for this meeting
12. Doris Thurston dated 10-26-92
13. Sylvia Thomas dated 10-28-92
14. Preliminary Minutes of the meeting on 10-26-92
15. Minutes of the Legislative/Environmental Committee Meeting of
9-28-92
16. Addendum #3, Master Program provisions for Mixed Use Project
17. State Environmental Policy Act Addendum for Draft #3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Councilmembers took time to review all of this material.
Mr Robison briefly discussed the letter from the Departmlent of
Ecology (exhibi t #11) indicating the interpretation that
residential development would be a conditional use undE~r the
existing Shoreline Master Program which is one of the prime reasons
for the proposed amendment, the letter from the Shoreline Advisory
Board (exhibit #9) requesting the Council to prepare the proposed
amendments, the memorandum from the City Attorney to Mr Robison
(exhibit #8) concurring with the Department of Ecology's opinion,
the Survey of the Economic Impacts of the Marine Trades Indm;try in
Jefferson County (exhibit #7) which relates to finding #5 in the
Proposed Amendments and the Tourism in Port Townsend, Issues Facing
Our Community (exhibit #6) which was used in the development of
finding #6 in the Proposed Amendments. Mr Robison suggested a new
finding based on the Recommended Alternative Haul-out Facility for
the Port of Port Townsend ( exhibit #5) which would place this whole
report as exhibit #18 as exhibit #5 is the Executive Summary of
this report. The suggested new finding: The 1992 report prepared
for the Port of Port Townsend evaluates the feasibility of
increasing the capacity of marine haul-out facilities at the Boat
Haven Port property. Enhanced haul-out facilities will allow
existing and new marine trade businesses to service a class of
vessels that will constitute new clients which could allow the Port
firms to service over 96% of the commercial and recreational fleet
based on the west coast. The report states that "this activity
will create between 79 and 97 new jobs. Marine trades employment
is especially important to the community as it has one of the
highest average annual wages per employee of all economic sectors."
The 1991 Port District Management Plan (exhibit #10) includes a
table showing the employment levels as of Winter 1991 totaling 472
people. Addendum #3, Master Program provisions for Mixed Use
Projects (exhibit #16) comes from the Department of Ecology's
Shoreline Master Program Guidebook which includes recommendations
and suggestions for preparing amendments to shoreline master
programs which was used as a basis for many of the amendments under
consideration tonight.
101
102
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
Mr Robison discussed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum
for Draft #3 (exhibit #17) in greater detail which adds information
and analysis to the existing SEPA documents and the difference in
Draft #1 and Draft #3 of the Proposed Amendments to the Jefferson
County -Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program. In
summary of the SEPA amendment, Mr Robison stated that under natural
environment, overall, the changes in the proposed action would not
have any probable significant impacts to the natural environment
that have not been considered in the previous EIS or SEPA
documents. Under the built environment and all the elements under
the built environment from housing, land use and esthetics, the
proposed amendments would not have a major effect on those land
uses in the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront District. The revisions
to the proposal made as a result of the public input at the Public
Hearings and meetings do not have the potential to create
significant adverse environmental impacts. The environmental
analysis contained in the Urban Waterfront Environmental Impact
Statement and in the SEPA documents and the DNS for the current
proposal as supplemented by the information in this addendum
adequately addresses the potential environmental effects of the
proposal as now constituted. Mr Robison stated that the city
Attorney has suggested that Council adopt the SEPA Addendum as an
addendum to the Previous Environmental Review that Council made on
October 6, 1992, before adjournment of this meeting.
Mr Robison suggested an additional finding to Draft #3 for
consideration. The suggested finding: The Port Townsend School
District has recently received a $400,000 Federal Grant to fund a
magnet training center. The purpose of the center is to integrate
schools in the business community in a partnership in vocational
training. A primary target of the center is to provide vocational
training for high school students interested in working in the
marine trades. The center will also provide classes in additional
training for marine trades employees. .
Mr Robison explained that the Point Hudson District boundary line
on Draft Appendix D looks as if the boundary is drawn down the
center of Jackson Street. Due to the possible vacation of that
portion of Jackson Street, the boundary line is shifted to the east
side of Jackson Street to Water Street if it has been vacated.
This would be an amendment to the map. Mr McLerran explained that
the Council should indicate that the boundary line be shifted to
the east boundary of the Thomas oil Property ownership as the owner
believes the ownership extends.
Mr McLerran explained that there are several letters from attorneys
in the exhibits presented tonight with issues that he should
address:
Mr McLerran addressed the issue of Public Notice for the Hearings
stating that the notice and the number of public hearings done by
the City are in excess of the minimum required under the statute
which requires a public hearing. The Shoreline Commission held a
public hearing that was attended by all the Councilmembers, which
was properly noticed for three consecutive weeks before the
hearing. The Joint Hearing with the Council and County
Commissioners on October 26, 1992, was in addition to what is
required under the statute and the WAC regulations. The fact that
notice occurred for five consecutive weeks but not a sixth
consecutive week immediately proceeding that hearing does not make
this process defective because we have gone beyond the statutory
requirement of having a single public hearing with notice for three
consecutive weeks. Mr McLerran has verified that his reading of
the statute is correct with Tom Mark, Shorelands Division of the
Department of Ecology.
Mr McLerran addressed an issue suggesting that three members of the
Council (McCulloch, Owsley and Westerman) should not participate in
the proceedings due to appearance of fairness and conflict of
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19, 1992, Coni:.
interest issues. First, this is not a quasi-judicial matter but a
legislative matter as it is a master program amendment that deals
with the entire urban waterfront. Conflict of interest arises
where there is an actual monetary interest that is involved in a
specific proceeding which would impact the ability of a Col.lncil-
member to render judgement in a way that was not prejudicial Dr not
impacted by a specific monetary interest. He stated that these are
broad master program amendments and are not situations where there
would be a legal conflict of interest sufficient to rlequire
disqualification. Mr McLerran advised that these Councilmlembers
can participate, the interests are not so significant thai: they
would rise to a legal conflict of interest, but each would have to
make their own decision in that regard.
Mr McLerran addressed an issue of pre-judgement brought up:by the
letter from Mr Huff stating that he is not aware of any stat.ements
regarding pre-judgement that were made at the Shoreline Commission
Hearing and reminded everyone that this is a legislative proceeding
and that it is appropriate for Councilmembers to be able to take
posi tions with respect to legislation and have a dialoguE:! with
members of the public in which opinions are expressed afber the
close of testimony.
Councilmember Westerman stated her concern that the letter from
Lowell Bogart (exhibit #2) is confusing as she understood that the
Point Hudson Advisory Committee embraced the long-term goals of the
amendments and did not interfere with their goals. Bob Rickard,
Point Hudson Advisory Committee, was recognized and clarified that
Mr Bogart had called him and stated that he was going to write the
letter, asked a couple of things, but did not indicate that he
would be writing a letter on behalf of the Advisory CommittE!e. Mr
Rickard stated that he feels that the function of the Advisory
Committee is not compromised by this amendment. There was never a
meeting of the Committee in which there was a discussion of this
for Mr Bogart to write the letter on its behalf. Alex Spear, Point
Hudson Advisory Committee, was recognized and stated that he does
not feel that the letter expresses the majority of the con~ittee
and that he was not contacted by Mr Bogart. Mr Spear also stated
that he personally supports the amendment as it relates to Point
Hudson. Patricia Warren, Point Hudson Advisory Commi tte,e, was
recognized and stated that Mr Bogart called her and indicatE!d that
he had been asked by other members of the committee to request that
the Point Hudson District be deleted and that she told him that she
did not agree with that and explained why. She then told Mr Bogart
that is her opinion that, at the very most, if any stateme!nt was
made, that it should be to request that the Council only affirm its
support of the Point Hudson planning process. She then callE~d four
other members of the Committee and found no one else who had
received a call from Mr Bogart. This is not a statement on behalf
of the Committee. Nadine Jonientz, Point Hudson Advisory
Committee, Marine Trades representative, was recognized and stated
that she had spoken with Mr Bogart and has concerns with t:he job
the committee has done. Councilmember Westerman stated that the
Council and Shoreline Advisory Commission support the Point Hudson
Advisory Committee, their work is important and it is a long-term
visioning process and that they feel that these amendments support
that process and not interfere with it. Councilmember McCulloch
commented that she also supports the Committee and that thE~re are
many decision to be made about the future of Point Hudson and that
this is one component of the process - the doors are always open to
reconsider altering any existing policies. Councilmember Owsley
commented that she can see where the committßß has concerns, the
lettershou.ld n.9:t þe taken lightly andean understand where some
peoPle, m, ,ay fe~el""that thiS, is 1:linde,r, in,g' th, e,ir"job "and, "t"hat i:h~' s ís,'
, ~ihd~fe t~~t~Ni Þ,n t flH,r P~ft. ~~, erta ~ci ~» t' +J~ 4. If,' " P
have statement #2 ln ~r Bogad::Js letter ~ö II '~åtbAÞu~rtt:i~t á~
103
104
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
once the Point Hudson Advisory Committee has completed its work and
the report is submitted at that time a review of any conflicts with
the Shoreline policies will be undertaken and resolved" be
considered this evening.
Mr McLerran responded that the Council can, in a public statement,
ratify that the Point Hudson Steering Committee continue with its
activities and the Council continue its support of those activities
and that the Council can look at any conflicts and decide whether
more Master Program Amendments are needed at that time.
Councilmember Wolpin corrected the minutes of the Legislative/
Environmental Committee meeting of September 28, 1992, (exhibit
#15) second page, item 9 - Housing stating that there was further
discussion on the fact that since they were proposing that
residential development in the Historic/Commercial District be
primary which was not allowed according to the current
interpretation of the Shoreline Plan that that could potentially
increase housing in that area even though there may be a decrease
in housing in the outlying areas - it did not seem reasonable that
they could make a judgement whether or not the housing stock would
be increased or decreased. Councilmembers Camfield and Jones
agreed to the addition as this was the discussion.
Councilmember Wolpin referred to the Preliminary Minutes of the
meeting on 10-26-92 (exhibit #14), page 5 stating that she believes
that the "footnote #5 should also be added to the c*** in the PTUW
column, Residential Development row" was pointed out by staff and
not herself.
Councilmember Wolpin clarified the Determination of Nonsignificance
on this amendment issued by Council by stating that the
determination was made by adopting, by reference the entire
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was done on the Urban
Waterfront Plan. She read from the SEPA threshold determination
dated September 28, 1992, page 3, and also stated that the
following sentence is very often not read "Potential impacts will
be addressed on a case by case basis". The decision was made based
on the fact that they believed and supported the belief that,
overall, the adverse environmental impacts would not he significant
for these amendments and that, for major development projects, they
know that since this is programmatic and non-project that they
would be seeing on a project specific basis any proposals through
SEPA or through Conditional Use Shoreline determinations. Council-
member Westerman added that she reviewed the process for the Urban
Waterfront Plan and found that it was very reassuring that these
things had been addressed and pointed out that the changes being
proposed by the Shoreline Commission focus the activities that are
most likely to generate environmental impacts into the areas where
they are already occurring. Councilmember McCulloch stated that
she has reviewed the Environmental Checklist, the staff
recommendations, the Council recommendation and the Environmental
Impact Statement from the Urban Waterfront and does concur with the
DNS that was issued and also feels that the EIS was a very thorough
analysis of the issues and impacts that we are facing now.
Councilmember Wolpin made a motion that the Council adopt the
addendum to the SEPA determination that has been prepared which was
seconded by Councilmember Westerman and passed by unanimously by
voice vote.
The Council then reviewed Draft 3 of the Proposed Shoreline
Amendments page by page. The following are to be adopted:
Page 1, finding 1, the word "providing" should be removed.
Page 2, paragraphs 5 and 7 as changed by the Shoreline Commission.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19, 1992, Coni::.
Page 3, paragraph 8 as changed by the Shoreline Commission and
paragraph 10 as added. Paragraph 11 as changed. Paragraph 12 as
added with "Department's" changed to "Department".
Councilmember Westerman suggested that the finding regarding the
Port Townsend School District Magnet Center be inserted as Finding
#6 and the finding about the heavy haul-out facility be inserted as
Finding #7 and then renumber the rest of the paragraphs which will
make old #12 be #14. It was the consensus of the Council that this
be done.
Page 4, no changes.
Page 5, as changed with a and b reversed as well as a comma under
"water-oriented uses" above the General Policies deleted.
Page 6, paragraph 3, change from "shall" to "should" and the
addition of paragraphs 6 and 7.
Councilmember Owsley asked if this is the place for the addition
proposed by Mr Bogart. Mr McLerran responded that that would not
be a part of the Master Program but a statement of intention of the
Council to be adopted separately.
An addition of a policy statement for protection of the tidal flats
north of Point Hudson was discussed but was not included because it
had not been addressed. It was the consensus of the Council that
this should go into a subsequent shoreline amendment. Mr McLerran
clarified that this document does adopt the Port Townsend Urban
Waterfront Plan by reference which does have policy statement:s that
are consistent with this.
Page 7, paragraph 1, change "these" to "those", and deletion of the
sentence in parenthesis below 1.
Page 8, paragraphs 6 and 7, change "provide" to "to be limi tE!d to".
After a lengthy discussion of the deletion paragraph 5, and of
Union Wharf, it was the consensus of the Council to kel3p the
paragraph with the deletion of "and non-water oriented" in the
second sentence and the renumbering of the following paragraphs.
Mr Robison suggested that since this paragraph is to remain, the
last word in finding 4 on page 2 should be changed from
"reconsidered" to "revised" which was also the consensus of the
Council.
Page 9, old paragraph 8, new paragraph 9 as changed by the
Shoreline .commission with the deletion of the sentence in
parenthesis.
Exceptions to #5 above to the changed to #9 above as change!d with
"water-related" changed to "water-oriented" in ii.
Page 10, iii., to be deleted with corrections to the numbering of
the rest and the first sentence. In present iv. deleted and "S(c)"
changed to "9 (b) " . In present v., a change to "water-orientE~d" and
the addition of "of the total floor area of the existing structure
as it exists at the time of adoption of this provision." after
(20%).
Old 9, new 10a,b,c; changes concurred with.
On pages 10 and 11, old 10, new 11a,b,c; changes concurred with.
Page 12, no changes.
Page 13, The table was discussed. A footnote 5 was added "Except
in the Boat Haven Marina District where water enjoyment uses are
105
106
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
not permitted." A footnote 6 was added "Except in the Boat Haven
Marina District and Point Hudson Marina Districts where residential
development is prohibited."
Page 14, changes concurred with.
Appendix D. District boundary changes to be done by description,
not by what the map lines look like and will be done by staff.
Councilmember Westerman clarified that the Shoreline Commission
came up with this proposal and that the arguments for doing this
were that the Thomas oil property geographically is much more
closely linked with the Civic District than it is with the Point
Hudson District and that it makes more sense in terms of existing
uses.
Mr Robison explained that Appendix D will show all eight of the
districts with the amended boundary of the Point Hudson and civic
Districts.
Councilmember McCulloch corrected the public perception that this
has been a "railroad job" by giving the history of this from
December 1991, when Council received a letter from the Department
of Ecology which was ruling on the inconsistency in the Shoreline
Master Program.
Councilmember Wolpin added that one of the public purpose reasons
to look at restricting residential and transient accommodations
outside of the Historic Commercial District was to help create
incentive for redevelopment of existing Historic structures in the
Downtown and encourage residential development downtown. She feels
that this resulting ordinance is an enormous compromise over some
of the intent in terms of broadening what is allowed over what was
originally considered so that most of the shorelines, with the
exception of the two Marina Districts, are allowed to have generous
residential and transient use.
Councilmember Westerman clarified that historic commercial retail
uses do not change as the result of this ordinance. She stated
that this is part of an ongoing process and that she sees these
amendments as a short-term fix for protecting the entire shoreline
and preserving the character of the City while the City's growth
management planning acti vi ties, the Point Hudson Advisory Committee
Planning Process and other Port plans are being conducted.
councilmember McCulloch summarized her perspective of this revision
stating that she feels it is important to look at the Urban
Waterfront District as a whole and to consider the cumulati ve
effects of whatever we do and whatever happens within the district
and it is important to take a long range view - nothing is
permanent, these laws can be changed. She would hate to see the
shoreline blocked from any future potential for a use of a marine
trade that may not be as strong now but may be in the future. The
balance of mixed use developments: increased water dependent
activities, civic revitalization and public access are what we are
looking for. She feels that the Department of Ecology probably
would have gone for a total prohibition of residential in the Urban
Waterfront District and pointed out that Council did not chose to
do so.
Councilmember Wolpin stated that Council owes a vote of
appreciation to the Shorelines Commission that worked really hard
on this and made a wonderful effort to accommodate public testimony
and make changes even though it was not necessarily in some of
their interests to see some of the changes.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
ORDINANCE NO 2320
AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT, AMENDING THE JEFFERSON-PORT
~OWNSEND SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREFOR.
Mayor Pro-Tem Camfield read the ordinance by title. Councilmember
Westerman made a motion that the first reading be considered the
second and the third be by title only which was seconded by
Councilmember McCulloch and passed unanimously by voice vot.e.
Mayor Pro-Tem asked for new information from the public before a
final vote is taken.
Bob Rickard was recognized and pointed out conflicting wording on
pages 8, 10 and 11 relating to water-dependent and water-related as
primary uses, water-oriented as a conditional use. A addition was
made on page 11, c., "except as described in Performance St:andard
6 (a-i) above." Councilmember Owsley made a motion tha't this
amendment be made part of the above ordinance which was seconded by
Councilmember Wolpin and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Patricia Warren was recognized and stated she feels there is an
inconsistency regarding the Point Hudson Study stating that she
feels changing the district boundary is harmful to their work.
Karen Erickson was recognized and questioned if boat building and
boat repair will not be allowed in CII and CIII zones. Mr :Robison
clarified that boat building is not allowed in CII and CIII in the
present zoning code but is allowed in both the Point Hudson and
Boat Haven districts. It would take a zoning amendment to allow
boat building along the waterfront. There are plans to change the
whole Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan in the next two years
and this will be an issue that will be raised.
Ted Shoulberg was recognized and stated that Public Access and
Public Space can be interior space as well, and requested some kind
of incentive for a developers that interior space (arcade, ~'alkway
on the water side, etc) could also be used as public space be
considered.
councilmember Westerman requested Mr Robison to read and discuss
the following, which he did:
"In redevelopment projects or in additions of more than 20% of the
total floor area of an existing building, the 50% requiremEmt for
providing water-oriented uses may be substituted for Public Access
improvements or viewing corridors or public arcades that arH above
and beyond those required under the Conditional Use requirement on
a 1:1 replacement ratio for the 50% requirement."
Mr McLerran stated his concerns about how this would be
administered, what sort of design guidelines or guidance i8 there
and other considerations. A discussion of this concept ensuled. It
was the consensus of the Council that this is something thai: needs
to be put on a list to be looked at a future date.
Mr Shoulberg questioned if this could be done as a PUD concept
instead of an amendment. Mr McLerran responded that this would be
too major a project to work on at this time in the meeting..
Gary Jonientz was recognized and stated that by changing the
boundary line around the Point Hudson District, one piece of
pri vate property has been made Port property. He is speaJdng of
the Fleet Marine Property and now feels that the block has dropped
in value drastically and that the owners should be compensated.
107
108
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 19,1992, Cont.
Mr McLerran stated that the existing use of the Fleet Marine
property is consistent with the Master Program Changes, therefore
it does not affect the existing use of the property. What might
change is the possible future uses of the property in terms of
residential development or some other uses. The effect of the
change does effect the permitted uses but does not change the
existing use.
Alex Spear was recognized and stated that he feels that,
geographically speaking, the Thomas Oil property related more
closely to the Point Hudson District because of the di vision
created by the wharf and its relationship to the entrance to Point
Hudson Marina.
Councilmember Westerman stated that she feels that the Shorelines
Commission's recommendation is a legitimate approach. The decision
was based on existing uses and geographic compatibility which she
feels were both valid concerns. Linda Clifton, Shorelines
Commission, was recognized and stated that the thing she remembers
most clearly is that Point Hudson has a unity of itself and the
planning process involved there; and that this gives the Thomas oil
property a few more options. The whole point of having all the
separate districts was to try to address the diversity that we
have. It is difficult to suit everybody, but feels that the final
redistricting more clearly delineates Point Hudson as a "boaty"
place and the Thomas Oil property more continuity with the town.
Mr Jonientz restated that he feels there is a legal problem with
the Fleet Marine property saying that in ten years, the Port could
cut their access to the water and the property would become
worthless.
Councilmember Westerman made a motion that the Council adopt
Ordinance No 2323 as amended which was seconded by Councilmember
McCulloch and passed unanimously by roll call vote.
PUBLIC STATEMENT
Councilmember Owsley made a motion that the following statement of
support be made by Council which was seconded by Councilmember
Jones and passed unanimously by voice vote:
Once the Point Hudson Advisory Committee has completed it's work
and a report is submitted, at that time, a review of any conflict
with Shoreline Policies will be undertaken and resolved.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Co ilmember Westerman made a
motion that the meeting be adjourne whi h was seconded and passed
unanimously by voice vote at 10:26 PM.
Attest:
...
t
4à~/
I
I
I