Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1992 I I I MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 26,1992 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this twenty-sixth day of October, 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. County Commissioners present were B G Brown, Larry Dennison, and Richard Wojt. Also present were City Attorney Dennis McLerran, City Planner Dave Robison and Plans Technician Jan Zimmer. Mayor John Clise and Councilmembers Robert Sokol and Vern Jones were excused. Mayor Pro-Tem Camfield stated that there are ten exhibits tonight: minutes from the Shoreline Commission Workshop on septembE~r 30, 1992, the Shoreline Commission Public Hearing on October 14,1992, and the Shoreline Commission Decision Meeting on October 21,1992, along with seven letters from members of the Public. Mayor Pro-Tem Camfield gave the Commissioners and the Council forty-five minutes to read the correspondence and review the minutes. STAFF REVIEW Mr Robison presented a brief review of the Shoreline Amendment process to date. There have been three meetings prior to this date, specifically; a Shoreline Commission workshop on September 30, 1992, a Shoreline Commission Public Hearing on Octobl:!r 14, 1992, and a Shoreline commission decision meeting on October 21, 1992. Mr Robison stated that Draft Three incorporates all the changes since those meetings. He went on to explain that all revisions, edits, deletions and new text since Drafts #1 and #2 are identified by underlines, double underlines, strike-outs, bolded text or shaded boxes. Mr Robison stated since most of the audience attended the Public Hearing on October, 14, 1992, he would not review the amendments themsel ves but would focus on the proposed changes that the Shoreline Commission is recommending to the City Council and the County Commissioners. Mr Robison stated that although there is no bold text on page one, he would briefly review the findings as they are important in their support of the proposed amendments. Finding #1. Intent of this Finding was for the city to incorporate policies and guidelines from the Urban Waterfront Plan into the City Shoreline Master Program. Finding #2 states that inconsistencies in the Shoreline Program need to be addressed. Finding #3. Shoreline Commission sent a letter in January 1992 to the City Council requesting them to address these inconsistEmcies. Finding #4. As Union Wharf permits were never approved, it is recommended that the Union Wharf amendments be deleted. Finding #5. Comments in bold were suggested by the Shoreline Commission to further identify those properties especially sui table to further the marine trades. Specifically, Point Hudson and the Boat Haven are well-suited to accommodate and maintain the marine trades. Finding #6. Results of Main Street survey indicating citizen preference for uses along the Port Townsend Commercial waterfront. Finding #7. Review of public testimony indicating concern about loss of traditional uses along the shoreline. 109 110 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 26, 1992, Cont. Finding #8. New sentence added to this finding by the Shoreline Commission. This finding states that some uses are more suitable in certain areas. For example, water-dependent uses in the Historic District may be more appropriate in the Boat Håven District. Finding #9. No new changes. Finding #10. An entirely new finding; recommended at last workshop that the intent of the Shoreline Management Act be incorporated into a finding. Finding #11. The works "Administrative rules implementing" were added to this finding to clarify that this finding did not come directly from the Shoreline Management Act itself but from the rules which implement it. Finding #12. A new finding as the Commission felt strongly that the amendments in Draft #3 be identified as meeting the Department of Ecology's suggestions for Shoreline amendments for mixed use projects. Definition. No proposed changes. General Policies. Policy #1. The order of policies a. and b. was changed to reflect the preference of water-dependent or water-related uses over the more general policy of providing public access to the shoreline. Policy #6. Suggested by Shoreline commission to support Findings #5 and #8. Specifically, the Boat Haven is better suited to provide water-dependent and water-related uses. Policy #7. Deals specifically with Point Hudson and properties within the Point Hudson District providing water-oriented uses. Performance Standards. Mr Robison emphasized the difference between policies which are "shoulds" ~nd performance standards which are "shalls". Performance standards are the regulations. Performance Standards #6 and #7. These are the companion standards to policies #6 and #7. These clarify the types of uses allowed in the Boat Haven and Point Hudson Districts. Residential and transient accommodations would not be allowed in these two districts. Appendix D shows a boundary line revision which excludes the Thomas Oil property and the James Swan property from the Point Hudson district and joins them to the Civic District. Mr Robison stated the intent was they currently do no provide water- dependent or water-related uses and are more compatible with the adjacent civic District. Performance Standard #8. #8a. Clears up inconsistencies in the Master Program by stating that any residential or transient accommodation will not be allowed on the ground floor unless they are an accessory use such as a lobby. An example of this is the Palace Hotel. The Shoreline Commission has proposed to delete #8b based on public testimony. Only the ground floor would have residential restrictions; there would be no limit in square footage to the development. Performance Standard #8c. Commission recommended a change to "water-oriented" from water-dependent or water-related; this would broaden the permitted uses to include restaurants and museums, for example. I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 26, 1992, Cont. Mr Robison stated that this Standard (#8) applies only to new proposed transient accommodations and residential development along the shoreline and not to other uses. Mr Robison proposed to add to the end of #8c "... except in the Boat Haven Marina and Point Hudson Marina Districts" as he thinks this clarifies the intent of the Shoreline Commission. Exceptions to #8. h The wording". .but shall not contain residential or transient accommodation uses on the ground floor" was added by the Shoreline Commission for clarification. This is the case now in the Historic District but adding this incorporates it .into a performance standard. Councilmember Westerman added that residential and transient accommodations uses in the Historic District are currently conditional uses and the purpose herE~ is to make them primary uses. iii. Proposed to be deleted by the Shoreline Commission as #8c has broadened the 50% requirement to allow water-oriented uses rather than just water-dependent or water-related. iv. First sentence should be in a shaded box as it is a proposed deletion by the Shoreline Commission. ~ "water-oriented" was changed from water-dependent or water- related by the Shoreline Commission and so should be in bold text. Mr Robison proposed that "floor area" should be added following "twenty percent (20%)" and that following the words "existing structure" the words "as it exists at the time of adoption of this provision" should be added for clarification. Incentives 9a. The changes in this provision were intended to encourage publicly-oriented recreational uses for piers and wharfs in addition to water-dependent uses. 9b. A change by Shoreline Commission from water-dependlent to water-oriented to broaden the uses. "Oriented" should be in bold text. 9c. The Shoreline Commission recommended this new provision. Mr Robison suggested adding the word" incompatible" to commercial operations as not all commercial operations are incompatible with public access. lOa. ".. .or publicly oriented recreational uses" should be in bold text as it was a change by the Shoreline Commission to be consistent with 9a. The word "over" should be deleted in addition to the indicated deletion of "water structures". Councilmember Wolpin pointed out that "piers and wharfs" should be in bold text as it is a change. Classification Table Mr Robison suggested that numbers be substituted for asterisks. Mr Robison suggested a change to the Aquatic column: Commercial non-water-dependent row, the two asterisks should be deleted. Mr Robison added that for consistency with Policy #6 and Performance Standard #6 an additional footnote should be added to the P in the PTUW column, Commercial Water-related and/or Dependent row. This footnote would be footnote #5 which would read". .except in the Boat Haven Marina District". 111 112 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 26,1992, Cont. councilmember Wolpin Staff pointed out that footnote #5 should also be added to the c*** in the PTUW column, Residential Development row. Councilmember McCulloch pointed out that footnote #5 would apply for PTUW, Commercial only in the water-enjoyment area and not to water-related and water-dependent. She finds this confusing. Some discussion followed on how to clarify this. Mr Robison stated that it could be worked on later in the meeting. Program Revisions Mr Robison stated that many of the Shoreline Commissioners felt strongly that there were advantages to having a joint shoreline program and that is the reason for the proposed deletion of the separate program provision in the amendments. Summary Mr Robison summarized the major changes: residential and transient uses would not be allowed in the Point Hudson and Boat Haven Districts; broadens the uses allowed in the ground businesses to include water-enjoyment uses; floor of deletes the provision that 50% of the total floor area be limited to residential or transient accommodation uses. Mr Robison stated that under State law, any proposed shoreline amendment to the Master Program must have three consecutive weeks of public notice. There was three consecutive weeks of notice published in the Leader; specifically the issues dated September 23,1992, September 30,1992, and October 7, 1992, and additional notice published in the paper two other times. One public hearing is also required. In this case, there was five weeks of notice and two public hearings. commissioner Dennison questioned the Shoreline recommendation to delete Performance Standard #8b. Commission Linda Clifton, Shoreline commissioner, spoke on behalf of the Shoreline Commission. She stated that the Commissioners felt, based on public feedback, that to limit residential and transient accommodation to 50% of total building floor area of a development could create unreasonable hardship. The Commission supported the limit of 50% as it pertained to the ground floor. commissioner Dennison asked for clarification from the Commission on their recommendation for continuation of the Joint Shoreline Master Program. Ms Clifton and Frank D'Amore, Shoreline Commission, stated that all Commissioners felt strongly that there was a history of success, positive mixture of skills and advantages to keeping the Joint Program. Mr McLerran, City Attorney, clarified that the Department of Ecology would give final approval for separate shoreline master programs. In addition, he stated that this could be accomplished in the future even without the proposed amendment. Commissioner Dennison asked for clarification of the Shoreline Commission's approval of any revision or adjustment which applies only within the County or only within the City need not be submitted for recommendation to the unaffected jurisdiction. Ms Clifton stated that the Commission was satisfied with that provision. I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 26,1992, Cont. Mr D'Amore asked if the Shoreline Commissioners could give public testimony at tonight's meeting. Mr McLerran responded that the Shoreline Commission should answer questions tonight regarding the action of the Commission but should not give public testimony as individuals. Commissioner Brown questioned the Commission's deletion of the Union Wharf amendment. Mr D'Amore responded that there seHmed to be community concern that deletion of this amendment would mean that Union Wharf could not be renovated in any way. He clarified that this deletion did not preclude renovation of the dock.. The amendment referred only to the project specific to thE~ Union Wharf project proposed by Wally Trace & Associates. Ms Clifton clarified that a project similar in scope to Trace's with a large amount of over-water residential may not be approved undeÅ“ this deleted amendment but that another project such as a ferry dock or public pier or overnight mooring would be possible. Some discussion followed. Commissioner Brown stated that he did not see any disadvantage in leaving this amendment in the Program. Ms Clifton responded that she feels it would be misleading to ll~ave it in as it is very site-specific and project-specific. If someone new cam to town, he/she could possible misunderstand that he/she could build an over-the-water hotel. Commissioner Brown pointed out that if it is deleted it would be difficult to add it later as it had been an arduous task to gain Department of Ecology approval. Ms Clifton and Mr D' Amore stated that not one person from the public had lamented the Union Wharf deletion not did the Commission lament its deletion. Ms Clifton stated that this use is possibly viewed as not an appropriate use. Mr D' Amore stated that throughout the whole process there was unanimous concurrence on the Commission's part to delete the Union Wharf amendment. Councilmember Owsley questioned the Boat Haven being excludød from the water-enjoyment uses list. Mr D' Amore responded that it was mainly to keep operations like the heavy haul-out facility as priority uses. Ms Clifton statHd that real water-related and water-dependent uses that need to be on the water should be encouraged in that area rather than uses such as restaurants and aquariums. Councilmember Owsley asked about retail i.e., marine hardware. Mr D'Amore and Ms Clifton stated that these businesses should not be given preference on the waterward side. More discussion followed on what would be encouraged on the waterward side of the shoreline in the Boat Haven District.. PUBLIC HEARING Bob Rickard was recognized and asked for clarification of Performance Standards 6 and 7. Specifically, Mr Richard. asked "where is the restriction for only these uses"? Mr Hobison responded that "shall provide" will be changed to "limited to" to meet the intent of the Shoreline Commission. Mr D'Amore and Ms Clifton agreed that this would more meet the commission's intent. Bernie Arthur, Fleet Marine, was recognized and read a lettE~r from Gary Huff dated October 26, 1992, (see Exhibit 11). Mr Arthur then read his own letter dated October 26,1992, (see Exhibit 7). Mr McLerran suggested that the letter from Gregory Easton, Property Counselors, dated October 26, 1992, be copied to Council and the Commissioners or be read aloud so as to incorporate it into the record. 113 114 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 26,1992, Cont. Mayor Pro-Tem Camfield stated that the~ letter would be dealt with after public testimony. Fred Apstein, Port Commissioner, was recognized and strongly urged the Council and Commissioners to adopt the amendments and to not water them down. Mr Apstein stated that the Port is planning an expanded haul-out facility and an expanded marina. He feels that the marine trades should be encouraged - they should be nurtured and expanded in Jefferson County. He stated that there are more jobs in the marine trades than in the Mill. The marine trades are important. Kay Robinson was recognized and stated her support for the amendments. Ms Robinson stated she has been in the marine trades for most of her life and believes support of this amendment is very important. Peter Robinson was recognized and stated that the marine trades should be supported as they are very viable and valuable to this community. Kathryn Jenks was recognized and asked if the tidal flat at Point Hudson is protected under the Shoreline Act. Specifically, the area from the tip of Point Hudson to the dock at Fort Worden. Mr Robison deferred the question to Jim Pearson, Shoreline Planner for Jefferson County. Mr Pearson responded that the area that is always wet (seaward of extreme low tide) is a shoreline of statewide significance. Ms Jenks recommended that some specific attention be paid to this area. She would prefer to see the shoreline not totally accessible so does not entirely agree with General Policy #2. This area of the shoreline is a unique and natural place and needs to be protected from development of any kind. Ms Jenks stated items #9a and #9b should be deleted. agree with blanket exceptions of any kind. She does not Ms Jenks stated she believes #9c is too vague. Ms Jenks reminded everyone that Point Hudson is not private property. It belongs to everyone and the profit of a few should not be sacrificed at the expense of many. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, was recognized and supported the joint program. He stated he was surprised to see this amendment not have any sort of stringent environmental review. He believes there should have been a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that the City should apply the same standards to itself as it does to the private sectors. Mr Cunningham feels this amendment is contrary to the goals of the Growth Management Act as it does not encourage growth in the urban areas. Mr Cunningham recommended that, in the State versus local control, residential development be retained as a primary use in urban areas. Mr McLerran clarified the testimony of Mr Cunningham. The City and County believe that this conditional use requirement is not a change. The Department of Ecology established that residential development is indeed a conditional use as opposed to a primary use in the City. In his opinion, the Master Program does require conditional uses for residential development under its existing language and its existing form. There is an inconsistency between the use chart and the language in the Master Program itself. The I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 26, 1992, Cont. environmental review then that has been done considers that "this is a change within the City only and not within the County. In its environmental review, the City has adopted be reference the PTUW EIS. This EIS does address changes in the City Shoreline Program but does not evaluate changes in the County program. If the Commissioners believe that this amendment is consistent wi1:h what the Master Program already provides there should not be any problem with SEPA. Mr Cunningham stated that there are 12 Urban areas designated in the unincorporated area in the Master Program document. ThE~refor. residential use (other than single-family) would be a conditional use under this proposed amendment. He added that this may have not been the intention but this is the way it may be read. Mr McLerran stated he has spoken with Mark Huth, County ProsE~cutor, and Mr Huth has indicated he does not believe this is a change in the County Shoreline Master Program. He recommends that the Commissioners visit with Mr Huth themselves to resolve this issue. Some discussion followed. Mr McLerran suggested that this fmbject be closed for now as it is a legal question. Mr McLerran will speak with Mr Huth tomorrow and get back to the Commissioners if Mr Huth believes the proposed amendments change the County Shoreline Program. Bill Massey, property owner in Ferry Retail District:, was recognized and stated that he is opposed to the ordinance as he believes it is another level of bureaucratic process in an area that is already heavy with bureaucratic process. Mr Massey stated he supports the deletion of Performance standard #8b. He stated he is concerned with Performance Standard #8c as there is no definition of water-related uses. Mr McLerran stated that these uses are all defined in the Shoreline Master Program. Mr Massey suggested an economic analysis of the potential development of the affected properties. Mr Massey stated his support of the amendments as they relate to public access and public views. He feels this part ()f the ordinance is very important. impac:ts to Nora Petrich, co-owner of the Sail Loft, was recognized and stated that she supports the work the Commission has done on the proposed amendments. She feels like this final draft tonight incorporates the essence of the importance of the shoreline and protection and promotion of the marine trades even more so than the original document. She especially likes that the Boat Haven and Point Hudson have been targeted to promote and protect the marine t:rades. She believes the Shoreline Commission has been very responsive to public comment. She thanked the Commission and it hopeful t:onight that the character of Port Townsend will survive. Gae Pilon was recognized and stated her support of the amendments as they support and contain marine trades. Kiesy Strauchon was recognized and stated her support of the amendments and feels like we have achieved quite a compromisE~ since the last public hearing on October 14, 1992. Craig Jones, representing Norm Sather, was recognized and stated he is surprised how fast the amendment is proceeding forward ~lithout significant environmental review. He referred to specific circumstances cited in the Environmental Checklist which state that there will be significant environmental impacts from developments encouraged under the proposed amendments. Even so there was no evaluation of these potential risks and impacts. Even though these 115 116 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 26,1992, Cont. potential impacts and toxins are disclosed in the checklist, no further studies or evaluation have been performed or required. No traffic study has been required even tough the Checklist discusses potential traffic and parking problems, only the disclosure that these potential problems exist - and then a determination of non- significance. Mr Jones stated there has been no consideration of the economic impact of the proposed amendments. The Department of Ecology will consider the economic values of the proposed amendments. Mr Jones asked "Who is the lead agency?" As the City has been the lead agency, Mr Jones stated this is like asking the fox to watch the henhouse. Mr Jones will submit the remainder of his testimony in writing. Bob Rickard was recognized and stated that on page 7, Performance Standard #1 there is a misprint - "these" should be chanted to "those". Mr Rickard commented on the Point Hudson Steering Committee. He feels like the restrictions do no undermine the work of the Steering Committee. The restrictions do not change the name of the game. The steering Committee should have always kept these restrictions in mind. Mr Rickard stated his support and quoted findings from the Main Street survey. Mr Rickard provided a handout of a graph showing citizen preference for uses along the commercial waterfront. The marine trades are the highest preference. Mr Richard read responses to the question "what would you like to see happen to Port Townsend in the area of Point Hudson and the waterfront?" Karen Erickson was recognized and passed out some pictures of the fish farm and the Aladdin Motor Inn. She asked for delay of a decision on this ordinance until such time as concerns and questions can be answered. She believes more time is needed for public invol vement and discussion. She stated that she has a waterfront building for rent for over a year and no water-related, water-enjoyment or water-dependent used has expressed interest. She 'stated the parking requirements cannot be complied with in these areas as there is not adequate room. Bill Massey was recognized and expressed his concern for the minimum 50% requirement of ground floor area being reserved for water-oriented uses. He believes it should be less and suggested a way to accomplish this. Mr Robison read the October 26, 1992, letter from Property Counselors to Gary Huff into the record (see Exhibit 12). The letter from Craig Jones and Associates will be listed as Exhibit 13. There being no further testimony, Mayor Pro-Tem closed the Public Hearing at 9:45 PM. DISCUSSION Mr McLerran clarified for the record alleged violations from Gary Huff regarding the Open Public Meetings Act and Notice Requirements. Mr McLerran also clarified the lead agency status question for craig Jones who is representing Norm Sather. Mr McLerran stated that the lead agency determination is made early in the SEPA process. The City initiated the process and the initiator usually is the lead agency. There were no challenges to the City being the lead agency and that time period for the challenge is now closed. I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 26, 1992, Cont. Mr McLerran also spoke regarding the State Economic Police Act (SEPA). He Stated the Council and Commissioners are required to look at the economic issues presented by public testimony and to examine any other economic information referenced in the rE~cord. Mr McLerran addressed the SEPA determination and discussed that this environmental review was programmatic. He also statE!d that there will be two levels of environmental review (SEPA procE~ss and Shoreline Substantial Development of Conditional Use process) for site-specific projects. The Environmental Checklist was circulated to the Department of Ecology (DOE) as was Draft Three of the proposed amendments. Mr Robison stated that the DOE was very supportive of the amendments. Mr McLerran encouraged the Council and Commissioners to review the full EIS done for the Urban Waterfront Plan and to ensure that they feel satisfied thE!re was adequate environmental information available to them for rE~view. Mr McLerran stated that there may be supplemental information from staff in response to the items raised at tonights meeting. At the request of Commission Dennison, Mr McLerran restat~ed his reasons for believing there is not a Public Notice violation. Mayor Pro-Tem Camfield stated that new information will bE! taken prior to the Council making their decision on Wednesday, October 28, 1992. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Pro-Tem Camfield dE~clared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM. Mayor Pro-Tem Attest: M~ Clerk-Treasurer MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF NOVEMBER 2, 1992 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this Second day of November, 1992, at 7: 00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor John M Clise presidinÇJ. 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, Assistant Planner Darlene Bloomfield, Director of Planning and Building Michael Hildt and Public Works Director Robert Wheeler. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Peterson was recognized and addressed the rumble strip problem at the intersection at F and Cherry Streets. He read a statement from the citizens in his neighborhood who are dissatisfied with the 117