Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11282005 . CITY OF IpORT TOWNSEND crr COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGUL.~R SESSION OF NOVEMBER 28, 2005 i CALL TO ORDER A~D PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port T~wnsend met in special session this twenty- eighth day of November 2005, at 6:3P p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Cedar Room of the [Waterman & Katz Building, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. [ i ROLL CALL I i Council members present at roll call ~ere Frank Benskin, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. I , Staff members present were City Malnager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Long Range Planning Directolr Jeff Randall, Long Range Planner Judy Surber, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. ! Also present was contractor Paul Ingham of Berryman & Henigar. . , I CONTINU~D PUBLIC HEARING i SHORELINE M~STER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Judy Surber reviewe~ the packet material, including a review of the process to date and addressing the wnresolved items from the November 17 t. I mee Ing. i After the presentation, she suggesteb taking up the tracked changes and then tackling the three remaining main to~ics. She noted that many representatives were in attendance from the Shoreline Adyisory Group, Planning Commission, Port, Department of Ecology and staff. I Public comment: . i I Jeffree Stewart, Department of Ecol~gy, noted that when the SMP draft comes to the Department of Ecology, there ar$ provisions in the governing RCW and supporting WACs that include solici*tion of public comment; he characterized it as an iterative process and added that y"ater dependent and water oriented public uses are of considerable concern and an~ part of the plan which comes forward as a "place holder" may not pass muster. i i I Gloria Bram supported the status qu' option. She stated that the Port has never requested a mixed use facility to be onstructed anywhere on their property and new City Council Special Meeting Page 1 November 28, 2005 . construction can in no way replace t e revenue currently received from RVs. If new construction were done in the b ck 40, it would have to bring in $100,000 per year if all RVs on the point were elim nated. She added that the parade ground has been open space for 85-90% of its hi tory so not building there would preserve the historic nature of Point Hudson. Sh$ stated that voting to remove RVs would be very chauvinistic. Dave King provided written comment;s. He reviewed two points with respect to the SMP at Point Hudson; first to consid$r adding transient accommodations for the hospital building and second, that th$re is no intrinsic value to a new mixed use facility as it was just there as a way ~f eliminating some of the RVs. He suggested returning to general language regarding bulk and dimension and keep it simple. A single new facility including accomm$dations was proposed as an alternative to RVs; quantification of this facility wa& tasked to the Planning Commission at Council's instruction; as the draft is ~resented, the mixed-use facility would not be compatible with the rest of Point Hu~son. He strongly urges the support of marine trades there. I . Carol Hasse urged the Council to pr~serve the character of Point Hudson as a scenic and charming area. Motel deyelopment, if the appearance would fit and it would eliminate the financial need for RVs, could perhaps be justified but she is loath to do that through the SMP. S~e hears constantly from customers and visitors how special and unique the Point Hljdson marina is and she believes allowing other uses would shift the ambience towar~ tourism and would take away the open vistas that inspire us. Small scale and arti~an maritime trades can expand at Point Hudson and Boat Haven; a motel works agairst that unless the scale fits in and it is tied to the removal of RVs. I . i i Guy Hupy stated that the Shoreline Jj>.dvisory Group started with the best of intentions to create a trade-off, but o~er the process of the development of the draft, , the intention was diluted until the trade off components went away entirely. Bulk and scale were not addressed early on. e said that if this Council chooses to keep the mixed-use facility (MUF) within the MP, they need to come up with a new justification for the facility. One goo thing the RVs provided was to hold the space open all this time; once new constru tion is erected, the context of the Coast Guard buildings goes away forever. He b ,Iieves it is better not to do anything than to try and fix a purported economic shortf~1I by building a hotel. Many economic issues need to be looked at and no one ha~ seen numbers at that level. There will be multiple opportunities in the future d~ring zoning and planning processes to work on these issues when the information i~ in hand. He cautioned making any moves without the proper documentation. ! Chris Grace stated that much of thejiProiect is predicated on the notion that there is a need for Point Hudson to be econo ically independent. He stated that he has been a commercial developer for years a d has been involved in many port and port adjacent projects; he is not shy abo t making money or producing economically , City Council Special Meeting Page 2 November 28, 2005 . viable projects but he does not think here is anything here that supports that. Point Hudson is a culturally significant part of the community. Point Hudson has an iconic quality for the community and the ec nomic impact goes far beyond what happens in the facility; what happens in the fu ure will have a dramatic impact on the community and he asked the councitfirst do no harm to that end. He stated a specific economic plan is absolutely ecessary and the loss of revenue from motor homes is only part of the issue. The e is a need to see a complete business plan as to how many marina facilities don't c rrently measure up. He does not see a hotel- restaurant mixed use facility as bein economically viable as presented - no one will want to come in for a speculative pr 'ect. . Barbara Marseille provided written ,aterial, stated she is speaking as a private citizen. She stated the Council is de~tined to determine the future of the Point Hudson area; staff has been workin hard to be cooperative and reach consensus. A new permanent structure on the p rade ground would be inconsistent with the overall historic character of Point Hu son and in this case, open space is just as valuable as built space. She added t at the Port's economic reasoning seems vague and insubstantial and action based ,n only the evidence presented by the Port is irresponsible. I Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Pllanning Services, on behalf of the Port. He stated the Port's continued support ~fthe Planning Commission's draft including provisions regarding mixed-use facili~ies at Point Hudson, which is a product of thoughtful deliberation. The economic goals and objectives of the SMP are achieved by a good compromise, re~oving 50% of the RVs and offsetting that revenue through a mixed-use facilityf The Port continues to support this option, recognizing that reasonable minds c' n differ. He urged the Council not to adopt an option that fails to support marine tr des by precluding water related and water dependent uses on the parade grou ds. The Port believes that water enjoyment should also be allowed throughout a I of Point Hudson. The question posed in today's staff memo is the wrong que tion; the question should be what allowance should be made for new uses and dl:!velopment that could help offset income from RVs and promote futures uses to re~lace RVs. Regarding the back 40 - we must recognize that any shoreline MUF wp'uld occupy only a portion of that area. Theoretically there are two areas, bl)t the development would occupy one acre or less analogous to the defined area qn the parade grounds. Regarding the idea that the historic context would be compr~mised, he offered that RVs have been there longer than any other use and for only eight years has the parade ground been used as a parade ground. Regarding the lidea that there can't be master planning without economic analysis - economic planming for 35,000 square foot area would be costly and unprecedented at this juncture. I . Scott Walker stated that the historiciuse of the Point Hudson parade ground has been open space; sixteen years ag;' when he first became involved, Point Hudson RVs were under discussion and we thought to be ugly, but he has come to realize that RVs are not so different from w ter yachts and are just another way for people I i ! City Council Special Meeting I Page 3 November 28, 2005 ! I , . to see the world. It is not a bad use until we come up with a really fitting way to use the parade grounds. He said his pr ference is to leave them there and leave the parade grounds open until a good solution can be found. Larry Crockett provided a GIS outlin of the back 40, noting he has indicated the maximum space available for a building, the rest would be needed for parking, fire lanes, overflow parking, etc. and probably about an acre would be available for further development. He addresse~ a letter in the Council packet from David Goldman, and said the letter contain~d many errors in regard to the financial situa tion of the Port. He stated that although Mr. Goldman looked at revenues, he did not look at the expense side of t e sheet. He added that most expenses are dedicated and cannot be touched in luding airport revenues, and debt service. He reiterated that one of the adopted gals of the joint resolution between the City and Port regarding the Point Hudson ma ter plan is that Point Hudson must be financially self-supporting. He state that the Port is committed to marine related uses. He also stated he senses a fe or to create open space on a site which has been developed for over 70 years. f all these types of water related use are excluded from any part of Point Hud on, this flies in the face of the City's own zoning and SMP and treads on the legal authority of the Port District and harbor improvements. He added that not qnce in the entire process was a public comment made that any should be left as ope~ space. I I Mary Winters on behalf of the Port or Port Townsend stated her recollection of the process was that both the SAG and planning Commission somewhat grudgingly came to respect and acknowledge t~at RVs support marine trades and the preservation of historic buildings as y"ell as economic viability of the Port. The discussion moved from how to get ri~ of them to how can we make Point Hudson work as a whole, while acknowledgirjrg that RVs are currently a critical component of the whole picture. The Port has submitted economic information regarding the income derived from RVs, which bri~g many people to she shoreline. Any provision in the SMP that called for sunsetting! of RVs would be a big concern to the Port and might become a challenge which th~ Port would undertake reluctantly. The Port believes that there should be no prohibition of marine trades anywhere in Point Hudson - that would be anathema t? the Comprehensive Scheme, Com Plan, etc. Option 5 regarding reserving future ptions has attractiveness as it puts the issue off to another day and it is always easy to ask for more information but on balance, the Port agrees with the Department of cology that is makes the decision more difficult in the future. The Port has produc d an economic sheet on what a hotel could potentially bring in revenue which will be provided upon request. Jim Pivarnik, Port Director, speakinJ as a citizen. He stated he came here 12 years ago because of Point Hudson and t~e sail making class; things have stayed constant in Point Hudson and what t has supported, including transient accommodations, attorney offices, ow-makers, etc. Point Hudson has not had a single direction and if it is homogeni~ed, it will take away from what Point Hudson really is. He urged the Council not to regulate it to death. . . City Council Special Meeting Page 4 November 28,2005 . . Dave Robison: NW Maritime Center He stated that the SAG Committee was trying to accomplish a balance of uses at pbint Hudson, recognizing historic uses and uses traditionally taking place on the east $ide of the marina. If non-water oriented uses are allowed on the parade grounds, it would help the City in achieving its historic goals and help the Port achieve a balance of revenues. An MUF on the parade grounds would accomplish other impprtant objectives of the City. If RVs were removed, there would be enhanced ~~bliC access, view corridors, ecological restoration and revenue to the Port. ,Since that time the idea of allowing an MUF on the back forty has come up. He sta~ed his concern is if that is closer to the traditional marine trades, the haulou~ and Fleet Marine. He said if you look across the state, when hotels or condos arel placed in close proximity to marine trades, the trades lose. That is why the SAG tri~d to keep non-water oriented uses to the far east, so when we look at Point Hudspn in the big picture, we must recognize the balance of those uses and above all1 maintenance and protection of marine trades businesses. i i I RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess ~t 8:03 p.m. for the purpose of a break. i RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8: 1[8 p.m. i Mayor Robinson requested that the touncil begin the discussion with the issues regarding Point Hudson because so Imany people are here with an interest in the discussion. [ Ms. Fenn stated for the record that ~he does not hold an interest in any business inside Point Hudson. ' Ms. Fenn stated that she has a bias [in support of marine trades as Port Townsend is on of the few communities which still has a working waterfront - others have been gentrified and support uses that canioccur anywhere in an urban area. Our policy says that we will make marine trade$ a priority, and she challenges the Council to hold onto that. She stated she would not dream of removing the opportunity for marine trades and water dependent iuses on the parade ground; she believes the RVs have functioned in a positive w~y, holding the space open and she would like to see it available for more general pu~lic use and some environmental restoration. She stated there has been much co~sensus and the document is very close to a work she is ready to support; her rerj1aining focus is preservation and support of the working waterfront. I Ms. Sandoval asked for an explanation of the term "unlisted non-water enjoyment use." Ms. Surber stated that those /:Ire uses not specifically listed and could be I uses no one has thought of. I . City Council Special Meeting Page 5 November 28, 2005 . Ms. Sandoval asked if they are condi ional in regard to adaptive re-use but not new construction. Ms. Surber referred b ck to the development regulation on page 58 of Chapter 5, which says that develop ent must be water oriented. Since non-water oriented use is not listed as a choice Ifor new development, there is an inconsistency. , i Ms. Sandoval asked how the marketlvalue of an abandoned structure is determined and where in the document abandonbd structures are contained besides in the definitions. Ms. Surber stated that t~ey are primarily in over-water construction, i.e. whether they should be removed if apandoned. Ms. Surber also said that the definiti~n of market value is meant to be consistent with other non-conforming uses, so t~at would typically be the value of the structure itself. I i , I Mr. Timmons asked how that would ~elate to the demolition of historic structures. Mr. Masci asked about the revenue ~' rojections the Port has made regarding location of a hotel on Port property. Mary Winters provided a document, noting this is not an economic analysis, but is based on t e Port's understanding of general hotel rates, the size of restaurant that would fit, Elnd similar factors. She added that 6% is a fairly typical rate for a percentage le~se. The document was entered into the record, showing an estimate of abou~ $88,000 income for a percentage lease. She also added that the size of the facilitt would be too big for the parade ground. . , Larry Crocket also cautioned that th~ income estimate is really just an educated guess; he stated the Port is not in thf hotel business and does not want to be in the hotel business. I Mr. Masci asked about the language! regarding incentive for MUF on the back 40; , Ms. Surber stated she believes that ~temmed from the Council discussion on November 17 when it was suggeste~ that a smaller size more in keeping with the surrounding buildings be proposed. : i Ms. Robinson stated that she has h~ard from the public and read a lot in this document about supporting and pre$erving marine trades and that is her interest - making sure that use is supported a~d encouraged and ensured to the greatest extent possible. She asked how th~ document could be drafted to preserve the parade grounds and back 40 for ma~ine trade use, acknowledging that there are RVs currently on the parade ground land setting mixed use aside. Ms. Surber stated that DR 5.13.4 wquld have to be revised to specify water dependent and water related, not welter oriented uses. , . Ms. Robinson agreed with Mr. Croc~ett that we are treading into territory that is not ours to tread into. She agrees that ~ouncil's work is the uses, not micromanaging or master planning. I City Council Special Meeting Page 6 November 28, 2005 . Ms. Sandoval asked if there is any a ea that doesn't explicitly state we would allow non-commercial water enjoyment us s in the maritime heritage corridor. Ms. Surber stated that it is addressed for Point udson East; she said the maritime heritage corridor is fine as written, and there i~ very little opportunity for public open space in that area. i Mrs. Medlicott asked for confirmatiorl that the parade grounds have only been open space for eight years in the eXistenc;' of Point Hudson. Larry Crocket reviewed the history of the facility which the Port g thered through research and photographic evidence. The best they could asce ain was that there was an approximately 7-8 year period when there were no RVsl or buildings on the parade ground since the facility was built in 1933. : , Mrs. Medlicott asked about the Rotaty trail; Mr. Crockett showed on the map where the trail has been placed and noted ~hat the next phase of the project will be historical interpretation signage. H~ added that every linear foot of Point Hudson would be walkable. : . , Ms. Robinson asked about the Marirla serving grocery/deli listed on the use table on page 63, and if there is a size limitatibn on that type of facility. , Ms. Surber stated that is a remnant ~rom earlier drafts and she believes it refers to a water-related use of a marina deli w~ich would be sized and designed for selling types of merchandise a transient bo~ter would be using. Ms. Fenn asked if there had been a1Y discussion about including the grocer/deli in the 11,000 total square footage allowed for food service. Ms. Surber stated it was specifically excluded because it is related to transient moorage. It would not have any table seating. It does not appe~r that there are size limitations proscribed. Mr. Masci asked about the provisionlfor public access which could involve setbacks and buffers if the public access areal was adjacent to a residential use. He stated that this would make some of the pr<[>perty unusable by the owners, in urban settings. Ms. Surber explained this would only apply to residential uses, not a market or a restaurant or another public use. i . I Ms. Sandoval stated she would like ~o see consensus on adding non-commercial use to the language in Point HUdso~ east. Ms. Robinson asked for an elaborati~:m of the language in 5.13.4. Ms. Surber noted that in the errata sheet, suggested c~anges have been made to (a) to include water dependent, water related, and non-qommercial water related uses. She added that a new (b) could be added, specifically addressing commercial water enjoyment City Council Special Meeting Page 7 November 28, 2005 . i I uses. She added that suggested lanhuage in (b) needs to be clarified as to where commercial water-enjoyment use co;'d be located in Point Hudson east; there is at least one new restaurant that could je located in that area, so the concern would be where would it go. i Ms. Robinson stated a preference tolstrike "as part of a Mixed Use Facility" in 5.13.4(b) on the errata sheet; she wquld also like to have the deli/grocery square footage included within the restaura~t total square footage. In response to Ms. Sandoval, Ms. SLjrber stated a note could be added to the use table that unlisted non-water oriente~ use could be allowed in an adaptive re-use with a conditional use permit. ' . i Mr. Fenn asked whether there is a p~rcentage cap on usage that can be non-water related in Point Hudson east. Ms. ~andoval stated that adaptive re-use has different percentages. Ms. Surber a~ded that adaptive re-use has specific requirements, some of which are sp4cific to the buildings themselves. , i Ms. Fenn asked what the current us$ of the main building is. Larry Crockett replied it contains two restaurants, a meetin~ room and small offices. He listed the square footage of each building. I i i Mr. Benskin stated that the only way!to locate a new restaurant is in a new building; . the only existing building that would possibly work would be the main building and in that case, it would compete with the !restaurants already there and wipe out the meeting room. The other existing bpildings are too small to locate a restaurant in. Mr. Randall noted that custom arts alnd crafts and offices are adaptive re-uses now. Restaurants in those buildings are a~sumed to be water-enjoyment and thus not limited to the 30% rule. I Mr. Masci asked if the deli/grocery C~Uld be located in the mixed-use facility. Ms. Surber replied that it could. I Ms. Sandoval asked about errata #111 and why there is now a broad category of unlisted non-water enjoyment uses. I ! I Paul Ingham (Berryman & Henigar) $tated that those listed in the table continue to be permitted if they meet the reqUire~ents of the adaptive re-use category. If they do not show up in the table, they wo Id be required to go through a conditional use permit process. He explained this w uld have the effect of striking an inconsistency in the current SMP where some usef may be listed as both permitted outright and permitted with a conditional use penpil. I Ms. Fenn stated that she believes thlis document really weakens the commitment to focusing on water related uses at ptnt Hudson and leaves a much more wide open I City Council Special Meeting i Page 8 November 28, 2005 I I . door than previous document. She aid this is quite a departure from prioritizing water dependent and water related u es and is much more likely to allow non water dependent businesses to com in; sh stated this does not fit the policies established in the front part of the document. I I , Ms. Surber noted that some of the p~oposed regulations were designed to promoted historic preservation in buildings whi4h are thought to be restricted in their ability to support water related uses; it was linked with the goal of retaining the character of providing space for mixed uses. . Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to adjoo/m after stating a plan about how to proceed with this issue. Mr. Masci seconde~. Motion failed, 2-5, Benskin and Masci in favor. I Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved that i1l1 #11 on the Exhibit #1 (Track Changes) staff clarify that unlisted non-water enjoy~ent uses are intended to be included as adaptive re-use where adaptive re-u$es is currently allowed. Mr. Kolff seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-Q, by voice vote. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for approv~1 of#12 on Exhibit #1 (Artwork). Ms. Fenn seconded. . . i , Mr. Masci stated he would prefer th~ all artwork be prohibited in Point Hudson as it is incompatible with a marine districti Ms. Surber noted that the Port would also have control of what is placed there llnd would be interested in making sure the artwork did not interfere with day-to-~ay business. Vote: motion carried, 5-2, by voice ~ote, Benskin and Masci opposed. Motion: Mr. Masci moved that #14 ~e modified to begin "Drift cell is a term used to describe geographical units...." Mr. iKolff seconded. Motion carried unanimously, 7- 0, by voice vote. ' . i Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to aPRrove #22 (clarify interplay of CAO buffers and the 200-foot setback. Mr. Kolff sectnded. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by ~~e~re. : , I I Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to approve #23 (Archeology. Ms. Robinson seconded. Motion carried, 6-1, by ~oice vote, Masci opposed.) Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for alproval of #1 in entirety, including the view corridor map with arrows added for $aines, Walker and Scott Streets. Mr. Loff seconded. Motion carried unanimO~sIY, 7-0, by voice vote. Motion: Mr. Kolff move to approve ~9 (Point Hudson) as written. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. , i i i I Page 9 I City Council Special Meeting November 28, 2005 . Ms. Sandoval stated she has questi ns and comments because the mixed-use facility discussion has not taken plac and this would affect the restaurant clause. Motion withdrawn by consensus. I i Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to approve I items 2,3,4,5,6, 15, 16, 17, 19,20,21,24, and 25 from the "Tentative Approval" tab~ in the November 23 staff report. Ms. Sandoval seconded. i Mr. Masci asked about the differenc~ between conservancy and Natural (in regard to designation of City owned blocks at '!Cah Tai. Staff noted that the Natural designation is more limiting in use. i I I Vote: motion carried, 5-2, Benskin ~nd Masci opposed. I Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved that ~nder 5. 13.4 d (Chapter 5, page 49) be stricken and in its stead have language that ~lIows a mixed use facility as a CUP within the long term objectives of the goals of !foint Hudson specifically the small scale nature and compatible uses with the requir~ment of the removal of all RVs and a financial plan or economic analysis be require,d as part of the CUP to demonstrate replacement of revenues and that it ~s a viable economic project. Mr. Kolff seconded. ! . i Mr. Masci stated that the language r~garding removal of RVs is harsh and punitive. He would support Mr. King's proposed language submitted during public testimony ("Any restaurant associated with the !facility is subject to 3500 gross square foot limitation. The design is compatible 'fith Point Hudson's scale and historic character. Transient accommodations are allov.{ed as part of a shoreline mixed use facility provided that non-water oriented usejs do not exceed 20% of the ground floor and that the facility is compatible with adjlacent water-oriented and public access improvements.") i ! . , Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved to amend the motion, adding the last paragraph from Mr. King's comments ("Any res~aurant associated with the facility is subject to the 3500 gross square footage Iimit~tion, design is compatible with Point Hudson's scale and historic character. Translf'int accommodations are allowed as part of a shorelines mixed use facility provide~ that non-water oriented uses do not exceed 20% of the ground floor and that th~ facility is compatible with adjacent water- oriented uses and public access im1rovements. ") Mr. Kolff seconded. i Mrs. Medlicolt stated she could sup~ort the motion if 20% were changed to 25%; she is concerned that rules which ar~ too restrictive may make it impossible for for something to succeed. i i Vote: motion failed, 3-4, Benskin, ~asci, Medlicott and Robinson opposed. , , , ! i I Page 10 ! I I City Council Special Meeting November 28, 2005 . , The CO""" """med to d;,,",,;O" of the me;" mot;o" Ms. Sandoval noted that she hates t~ rush the process when so many have worked on it so long up to this point; she sta~d she feels some pressure to adopt, but believes it needs to be considered c refully. She said she does understand the economic reality and that she believ s that when the SAG left the discussion about a mixed-use facility, there was a hook ~o removal of RVs. She wants to work together, but having a hotel be the main goal qf this plan is off track; we need the economic viability of marine trade jobs. She s~ated she wants to provide enough flexibility for the Port to maintain economic vitality!, but the reason the MUF was proposed in the first place was to get the RVs off the ~pit. I Mr. Masci questioned this logic, noti~g that it is because of the lengthy process and participation that he feels comfortabl$ with adopting after some minor corrections and editing. He said at this point th~ Council can spend another two years on this or they can respect the work done byj subordinate committees and staff in putting this all together. I . , Mr. Kolff stated that the more he hears from the public, the less concerned he is about having RVs on the parade gro~nds; to replace them with a large permanent structure that will be irreversible oncE! it is there is causing grave concern for him. He stated his higher priority is to hav~ the RVs removed from the spit and point so that there will be availability for publiq access and parade ground potential. Motion to amend: Mr. Kolff moved t~at an MUF be allowed on the back 40 in exchange for removing the RV parki1g at the spit. Motion died for lack of a second. , Motion: Ms. Fenn moved that siting lof potential Mixed Use Facility be conditional on the back 40 in exchange for remoyal of all RVs. Mr. Kolff seconded. i Mrs. Medlicott asked if the bulk, size and dimension requirements could be altered for a facility in that location. Ms. Fe~n stated the project would be required to go through HPC review and other forms iof review that would limit the bulk and dimension of any structure. Ms. Surber noted that most preferred! removing the maximum bulk and dimension requirements and going back to the ~esign language. Mr. Randall added that amendments to the zoning code would be required if bulk and dimension were proscribed. She also stated that a rrixed-use facility is not necessarily a single structure. ! Mr. Masci stated he considers a ban ~n RVs aesthetic tyranny and that a goal to do that flied in the face of fairness. I I . City Council Special Meeting i page 11 i November 28, 2005 i . Mr. Kolff stated he does not intend tJ,propose the banning of RVs, but is saying that if the Port wants to put in a mixed-us facility, this is the way to do it. Ms. Robinson stated that she wishe to support and encourage marine trades existence and expansion in Point Hu~son; testimony is conflicting about whether a mixed use facility on the back 40 or t~e parade ground would have more impact on the marine trades. ' , , Vote on amendment: motion failed, ?-5, Fenn and Kolff in favor. Mr. Benskin stated that location in th~ back 40 would be incompatible because of the proximity to marine trades. ' . Ms. Fenn stated her concern that wel are not addressing any measure to protect any portion of the ground floor for potential water related or marine related uses and she believes this is a clear message from the public. She stated that a portion of the ground floor needs to be specified folr water oriented or related uses. Amendment: Ms. Robinson propos,d an amendment to include the language in Chapter 5, page 59, 4 (d) regarding Rercentage of square footage required for various uses. Mr. Benskin second~d. Motion failed, 3-4, Medlicott, Robinson and Sandoval in favor. : I Mr. Timmons stated his concern reg~rding having the discussion centered on how to do a mixed-use facility rather than 01 whether a mixed-use facility should be allowed. He noted the genesis of t~e MUF was as a carrot in exchange for removal of RVs. He questions where is the ~usiness, plan or strategy to justify any of this; he added that is seems that the motiyation would be on the part of the Port to pursue modification of the plan. If Council cilccepts the current status of RVs then it would be incumbent on the Port to apply fot a conditional use permit or other permit for a new facility. i Mr. Kolff stated the Council is going ~own a path trying to figure out how to compensate what for what. He stat~d they appear to be going toward a compromise that no one is going to I ke. He stated he will not support any Mixed Use Facility and would rather keep t e status quo. Ms. Robinson concurred. , Ms. Fenn added that the issue belonps in a sub-area planning process. Ms. Sandoval's motion was withdra~n by consensus. Motion: Ms. Robinson moved to st,*e all references to the Mixed Use Facility outside of the Maritime Heritage Corridor in Point Hudson from the SMP. Ms. Fenn seconded. . Ms. Robinson explained that this pre~erves the ability for the Landfall restaurant expansion. City Council Special Meeting Page 12 November 28, 2005 . . Ms. Fenn stated that there has been an attempt to come up with a compromise but it is clear from pubic testimony that th compromise fell apart. She believes what is really needed is a master planning p ocess for Point Hudson. I i Ms. Sandoval asked if references to !MUFs are struck, is there some policy regarding removal of RVs as an intention that tOUld allow the Port to come forward using that restoration incentive. i I I Ms. Surber referred to Chapter 5, p~' e 54, line 30, which contains a policy to encourage removal of RVs by allowi g adaptive re-use and revisiting the financials on a periodic basis. There is also di ection that says the RVs on the point can be moved landward of Hudson Street f r the purpose of getting them off the point but no more square foot of dedicated ar~' a and no more spaces can be created. She also stated it would be helpful to c1ar fy if there is any type of new development that would be allowed on the parade gro nds. I Vote: motion carried, 4-3, by voice yote, Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. I i Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to adjofrn. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. The motion carried, 4-3, Kolff, Robinson and safrdoval opposed. IADJOURN , There being no further business, theimeeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Attest: r-;J. .:1><d:tU;~.~ . -fa)) 1 ' i) Pam Kolacy, CMC ' City Clerk City Council Special Meeting November 28,2005 .