Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102692 MINUTES WEEK OF OCTOBER 26,1992 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt. Si2nin2 of the Buildin2 Code Ordinance (Approved October 26. 1992): Associate Planner Eric Toews reported that he contacted the State Building Code Council about the proposed amendments suggested to the Building Code regarding the use of un- graded lumber in residential and other structures. The Building Code Council staff advised that they felt that the amendments suggested would not be approved if submitted. Building Official Mike Ajax reported that the Building Code Council staff is referring to RCW 19.27.020 which says that the provisions of the State Building Code cannot be diminished by any County. The discussion turned to how the Building Code Council works in reviewing requested amendments. Eric Toews reported that the staff of the Building Code Council have a different interpretation of the RCW than the County's Prosecuting Attorney. Commis- sioner Brown stated that he doesn't feel that the Council's staff should have been con- sulted since they cannot give a legal opinion. He added that he feels the County should still include an amendment in the County's Ordinance that ungraded lumber can be used in non-residential structures. Chairman Dennison directed staff to have the Prosecuting Attorney review the amendments proposed and proceed as directed at the hearing. Dave Robison. City of Port Townsend re: Briefin2 on Amendments to the Jefferson County/Port Townsend Shoreline Mana2ement Master Pro2ram: City Planner Dave Robison briefed the Board on the proposed amendments (draft 3) to the Shoreline Management Master Program. He reported that the City Council is the lead agency for SEPA and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was issued on the Urban Waterfront Plan. The intent of these changes to the Shoreline program are summarized in the 12 findings made by the Shoreline Commission. This amendment to the Shoreline Program is to make it consistent with the City Urban Waterfront Plan. The text of the Shoreline Plan is inconsistent with the use chart. The City's interpretation of the Master Program text is that residential development in the urban designation is a conditional use. Dave Robison explained that an asterisk has been added (on page 13) to refer to language added that single family residences, are exempt but a subdivision of single family residences would be a conditional use. He then summarized some of the changes: · Port Townsend Urban Waterfront boundary is defined. -,~. .,.. , 'I.'} ,it; , 18 r~~ 00 ;1012 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 2 · Eight districts are identified in the Urban Waterfront plan (Point Hudson, Boat Haven, the downtown Historical District, etc.) · Three categories of uses are defined in the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront boundary. · Performance Standards - standards have been changed, deleted and added. There are recommendations for some deletions which will be discussed further at the hearing tonight. · Exceptions - in Historic District water oriented uses are not required on the ground floor of the building, but commercial uses are required. · Program revisions (page 14) states that revisions to the Shoreline Program which apply only within the City or the County would not have to be approved by both bodies, only the governing body of the area effected. The public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. tonight in the City Council Chambers. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The process and amount of time for public review and comments on the proposed amendments to the Shoreline Management Master Plan and a request to sell insurance to County employees were discussed. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Closure Plan. Cost Estimate and Invitation to Bid; Closure of Landfill and Septa2e La200n in Accordance with Chapter 173-304 WAC: Solid Waste Specialist Jeff Frettingham reported that the closure plan for the landfill is currently before the State Department of Ecology for their approval. Implementation of the plan will begin in 1993. The work to be done is specialized and can not be done by County personnel. Commis- sioner Brown moved to approve the call for bid and set the bid opening for Monday December 7, 1992 at 10:45 a.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Bud2et Mana2er re: 1992 Bud2et Cut Recommendations: Budget Manager Gary Rowe reviewed his recommendations (see memo dated October 26, 1992) for budget cuts in 1992 and 1993. Discussion ensued regarding the services provided to the City as well as the cost of these services. Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that a request has been submitted to the City to share in those costs. He noted that many programs have fees for services that have not been adjusted recently. He suggested that these fees be reviewed and increases be considered. Commissioner Brown asked the Budget Director to discuss these specific budget reduction recommendations with each department. Gary Rowe reported that he will route this memo to all County Department's for comment and then meet with the Board again on November 2, 1992 for action. BID OPENING re: Indi2ent Le2al Defense Services and Conflict Case Services; Superior and District Courts for 1993: Commissioner Brown opened and read the bids received for indigent legal defense services for District and Superior Courts as well as for conflict cases: ~Cl 18 rA[~ 00 1013 · Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 3 BIDDER: BID TOTAL: 1. Clallam Jefferson Public Defender Indigent Defense Services for 1993 (380 Superior Court and 400 District Court cases) $134,000.00 2. Harold J. Caldwell $200 per case - Superior Court Conflict cases for 1993 $150 per case - District Court Alternative bids were included for two and three year contracts for these services. Commissioner Brown moved to accept the bids, have staff check them for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Minutes of October 5, 1992 as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Brown moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Request for 4th quarter allocation from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund; Jefferson County Historical Society 2. Notice of Public Hearing re: An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1-84; Increasing the charge for processing checks returned to offices; Hearing set for November 9, 1992 at 11:30 a.m. 3. Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Robert Spafford $296.84 4. AGREEMENT re: Rental of the Swimming Pool for Recreational Programs; from September 1, 1992 to August 31, 1993; Port Townsend School District #50 5. AGREEMENT, Supplement No.1; Consultant Services for digitized Assessor's Plat Maps and GIS analysis of various resource and geographic data; Economic and Engineering Services 6. Request for Bids; Project SW1025 Procurement of Services for transportation and disposal of Jefferson County Municipal Solid Waste; Bid opening set for December 7, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 7. AGREEMENT, Amendment 3; Extension of Completion Date to June 1, 1993 and Permit Continued Grant Funding; Southwest Washington Intercounty Solid Waste Management Advisory Board (SWICSW AB); Lewis, Grays Harbor, Thurst- on and Mason Counties 8. CALL FOR BIDS; One (1) New Ten Yard Dump Truck; Bid opening set for November 9, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 102-92 re: Changing the name of a portion of Buck Point Road to Fox Trail Road 10. RESOLUTION NO. 103-92 re: Changing the name of Buck Point Road to Blue Dog Road 11. Approval of Claim #C-13-92; Broken Window from County Brush Cutter; Beverly J. Dickgieser Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund applications submitted for Charlie H. Kennard in the amount of $500, Michael J. Kelly $500.00 and David M. Richmond in the amount of $130.00 Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. vOl 18 r~Çf 00 1014 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 4 Resignation from Plannin2 Commission: Commissioner Brown moved to accept Dick Shipman's resignation from the Planning Commission effective December 1, 1992. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Special Occasion Liquor License; South Bay Community Association: Commissioner Brown moved that the County has no objection to the applicant or the location of the Special Occasion Liquor License submitted for the South Bay Community Association. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP90-0008; Develop an Upland Transfer and Sta2in2 Facility to Serve Floatin2 Shellfish Aquaculture Facilities in the Southpoint Area; Allseasons Aquaculture: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that there were issues raised in the last review of this permit application regarding the possible vacation of County right-of-way and the well protection area. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that a boundary line agreement was approved by the County and the property owners (Wally Peterson, et al) to set the boundary line between the tidelands and the uplands of this property at Southpoint. This was necessary because the Trails End Plat indicated that the boundary line was the meander line. Litigation defined the boundary line as the ordinary high water mark. The boundary line agreement defines the line as running from the easterly line of Lot 9 Block 8 to the easter- ly line of Lot 9 Block 9 straight across the right-of-way of Ferry Street as the boundary line. The agreement states that the County still owns the right-of-way for Ferry Street. Mr. Elicker raised the issue of the County vacating right-of-way on the tidelands side of this property. Mark Huth reported that he has reviewed the file again and feels that it clearly delineates the boundary line between the tidelands and uplands and that the County did not vacate right-of-way by signing the agreement. In May of 1951 Puget Sound Navigation quit claimed all of Ferry Street and a portion of the ferry dock to the State of Washington to allow the construction of secondary State Highway 9E in a different right- of-way than was held at the time. The Trails End Plat was dedicated in November of 1951. In August of 1961 the State certified Ferry Street to the County (by letter) "from the ferry dock to the State Highway." The ferry dock was not included in this right-of- way. The County never owned right-of-way on the tidelands side of Ferry Street. Mark Huth concluded that he feels there is no question of the right-of-way being vacated in the area involved in this shoreline permit application. Jim Pearson then provided and reviewed a memo from Environmental Health Director, Larry Fay (dated October 21, 1992) regarding the well head protection area. Larry Fay noted that a sanitary control area around the well (100 foot radius) is required. Within that area no source of contamination may be constructed, stored, disposed of or applied without permission of the Health Department and the purveyor. This has generally been interpreted to mean no building construction within the control area and no activities that would result in spills of contaminants that could pollute ground water in the vicinity of the well. Larry Fay reported that the Health Department would have to recommend against any project that would encroach into the sanitary control area of a public water supply well. The project proponent can apply to the State Department of Health for a reduction in the amount of sanitary control area. Jim Pearson reported that part of the proposal site is within the well protective area and part of it is not. He suggested that the project proponent be asked to delineate the well protective area on the site. There is a mitigative measure recommended on this project that says that local and State environmental health requirements must be met before the project can operate. The Health Department will review the activities that will occur in the well protection area and determine if those activities could possibly contaminate the voc. 18 r.~r.r Oa.01S Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 5 well. Mter further discussion of what can be done to assure protection of the well, Jim Pearson added that part of the proposal description states that a curbing will be built around the site so that waste water is controlled. Wally Peterson reported that the area within 100 feet of the well is all asphalt. Commissioner Brown moved to approve shoreline permit #SDP90-0008 for Allseasons Aquaculture as recommended by the Shoreline Commission with the conditions suggested, including the staff recommendation that State and local health requirements be met for the protection of the well. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mter noting that a building permit would be required for any building . on the site, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a un- animous vote. Conditional Use Permit #IZ34-92; Expand a nursery previously approved as a home business; South of Leadville Avenue and West of Lin2er Lon2er Road. Ouilcene; Donald Kench: Assistant Planner Jerry Smith reported that this is an applica- tion to expand an existing home nursery business. The application adds an additional greenhouse. The Hearing Examiner held a hearing, reviewed the applicable rules and regulations and recommends approval of this conditional use subject to 12 conditions. The applicant has questioned condition #10 in which the Public Works Department asked for an engineered drainage plan. Jerry Smith reported that the Public Works Department has reviewed this condition and the application again and clarified that they will accept a small lot drainage and erosion control plan. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the Hearing Examiner with conditions and the change in condition #10 as suggested by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Miti2ated Determination of Non-Si2nificance; Lar2e Lot Subdivision. Fulton Lake Estates: Chairman Dennison opened the hearing on the appeal of the final mitigated determination of non significance issued on the Fulton Lake Estates Large Lot Subdivision. Jim Pearson reported that the responsible official (the Planning Director) issued a final MDNS on this proposal on September 29, 1992. He then submitted copies of the environmental checklist on this large lot subdivision, and notices of appeal of the SEP A Threshold Determination from the South County Coordinating Council and the Point No Point Treaty Council. The proposal is to develop an 80 acre parcel into a 16 lot, large lot subdivision called Fulton Lake Estates. The lots will be between 2.88 acres and 6.88 acres in size. The proposal includes the construction of approximately 1,900 feet of access roads and cui de sacs. This subdivision is being reviewed under the Interim Large Lot Subdivision regulations. The applicant placed lots 2 and 4 (10.5 acres) in open space. The sub- division ordinance allows subdivision of open space areas by the long plat process. The applicant proposes to subdivide the open space lots into four lots each which means there will be a total of 22 lots in the subdivision. The proposal site is located adjacent to the Black Point Road. Jim Pearson then reviewed the notice of appeal which states that the proposed mitigation measures do not assure avoidance of significant adverse environmental impacts especially in regard to wetlands, wildlife, surface water runoff into bodies of water, native American cultural resources, native American archaeological resources, land use and open space impacts and cumulative impacts resulting from the subdivision of the open space. The appeals requests that a Environmental Impact Statement be prepared. pavid Bricklin of Bricklin & Gendler Attorneys, has requested that this hearing be continued because he can not be present. Jim Pearson added that no one is present from the South County Co- ordinating Council at this hearing. Mr Bricklin states that he would have no objection to vet 18 rA~~ on 1016 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 6 having public testimony taken at this hearing, but requested that testimony from the project proponent or staff be deferred until he can be present. Mark Huth explained that this appeal is being made under section 8.30 of the County's SEP A Ordinance, and that the issuance of the MDNS is appealable to the Board on a de novo basis. He reported that he feels that a brief continuance should be granted to allow the attorney time for proper preparation. Mr. Bricklin has indicated that he is available on November 9, 1992. He noted for the record that Mr. Boling (the proponent), Mr. Hol- loway, Attorney representing Mr. Boling and Mr. Cross are the only people present beside staff. Harry Holloway stated that Mr. Boling objects to a continuance being granted. Mr. Boling is present today and he is prepared for this hearing. Mr. Bricklin's letter states that even though he will not be present at the hearing, his clients will be. He added that if they were serious about their objections they would have representatives present today. Sam Boling stated that the notice of appeal was submitted on October 9, 1992 which was the last day it could be submitted. He reported that he met with Brian Arthurs (president of the Coordinating Council) who lives in a subdivision on Black Point Road. Commissioner Brown stated that he isn't anxious to have a continuance, but he isn't anxious to be involved in a legal action over it either. Mark Huth added that he feels it is in Mr. Boling's interest also to grant a continuance because if there is a law suit it could drag on for a long time. Commissioner Wojt moved to continue this hearing to November 9, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mark Huth suggested that since there are no members of the public present, that the Board wait until November 9, 1992 to take testimony from the project proponent. JOINT COUNTY/CITY HEARING re: Amendments to the Jefferson/Port Townsend Shoreline Mana2ement Master Plan; Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District: (Hearing held at City Hall) 29 interested City/County residents were present when Mayor Pro-Tem Jean Camfield called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of the following: Council Members - Julie McCulloch, Sheila Westerman, Cindy Wolpin, and Norma Owsley and County Commissioners - Larry W. Dennison, B.G. Brown, and Richard E. Wojt. City Planner Dave Robison reviewed the process that the proposed amendment has undergone to date including a Shoreline Commission workshop meeting (September 30), . Public Hearing (October 14, 1992), and an additional meeting (October 21, 1992) where the Shoreline Commission made their recommendation. Draft 3 of the amendment incorporates all of the proposed changes. He reported that any new text or additions to the draft that were added by the Shoreline Commission after its last meeting are marked by bold text. He reviewed the following findings and the last changes made to the amendment (bold text). Finding Number 1: No changes were made to this finding, Dave Robison explained. He noted however that the intent of this finding is for the City to incorporate the policy and guidelines of the Urban Waterfront Plan into the City Shoreline Master Program. Finding Number 2: This finding states that inconsistencies in the current Shoreline Master Program need to be addressed. Finding Number 3: The Shoreline Commission requested that the City Council (January 1992 letter) address these inconsistencies. '.,-(~L .~ 8 ' Ar- 1 f.·,,' 00 1017 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 7 Finding Number 4: Since the Union Wharf project permits were never approved, it is proposed that the amendments in the existing Shoreline Program which pertain to that project be deleted. The proposed chan2es: Finding Number 5 (page 2): These comments were suggested by the Shoreline Commission to identify properties well suited to maintain the marine trades. This proposed language suggests that the Boat Haven Marina and the Point Hudson districts are well suited for these purposes. Finding Number 8 (page 3): Shoreline Commission added a sentence which states that the current Shoreline Management Master Program does not distinguish between the various districts ability to accommodate certain uses. Finding Number 10 (page 3): This is a new finding which states the legislative intent of the Shoreline Management Act. Finding Number 11 (page 3): The words "Administrative rules implementing" were added to the beginning of this finding to clarify that it is not from the Shoreline Management Act. Finding Number 12 (Page 3): This is a new finding that states that the proposed amendments in draft 3 are based'on the Department of Ecology Guidebook for preparing Master Plan revisions for incorporating mixed use developments along the waterfront. Page 5, fifth paragraph end of last sentence - Dave Robison suggested that the comma between the words "water-oriented" and "uses" be deleted because it is unnecessary. Policy #1, (a) and (b): The Shoreline Commission recommended that the order of these two items be switched.. Policy 6 and 7 (Page 6) were suggested by the Shoreline Commission to support some of the earlier findings, particularly 5 and 8, that certain areas (the Boat Haven and Point Hudson) are better suited to provide water oriented uses. There was a discussion at the previous public hearing on the difference between water dependent, water related and water enjoyment uses. He provided a copy of the definitions of these uses (from the Shoreline Management Plan). Performance Standards 6 and 7- (Page 8) are the companion standards to policies 6 and 7 on page 6. These new policies and performance standards clarify the types of uses that would be allowed in the two Port Districts (Boat Haven and Point Hudson). Under these changes residential development or transient accommodations would not be allowed in these two districts. Appendix D shows a boundary revision for the Point Hudson District. The Shoreline Commission has proposed to exclude the Thomas Oil Property as well as the James G. Swan properties from the Point Hudson District. These properties are currently not serving water dependent or water related uses and that they better fit in the Civic District and are more compatible for the adjacent His- toric District. Performance standard 8 (page 9): 8(b) is recommended for deletion. 8(c) has been changed to say that 50% of the ground floor of buildings which include any residential or transient uses shall be reserved for "water-oriented" uses which is broader than saying "water related" uses. Dave Robison explained that everything under performance standard 8 only applies to newly proposed residential or transient accommodation developments. He suggested that the following phrase be added at the end of 8(c), "except in the Boat Haven Marina and Point Hudson Marina Districts." Exceptions to #8 above (Page 10): Item (iii) is to be deleted. The first sentence in Item (iv) is to be deleted. In Item (v) the words water-dependent are changed to VOl 18 Be; 001018 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 8 water-oriented. Dave Robison suggested that after the words twenty percent (20%) "of the floor area" be inserted and "as it exists at the time of adoption of this provision" be added at the end of the sentence. Performance Standard 9 (Page 10): 9(a) says "the floor area of any existing pier or wharf which provides water-dependent or publicly oriented recreational uses may be substituted for up to one-half of the required floor area developed on the uplands for water-oriented uses." The words "or publicly oriented recreational uses" and water oriented (instead of water dependent) were added to broaden the types of uses and make it more consistent with performance standard 8. A new provision 9(c) is recommended. Dave Robison suggested adding the word "incompatible" after "unless." Performance Standard 10 (page 10 & 11): The term over water structures was struck and changed to piers and wharfs to make it consistent with 9. In 10(a) the words "publicly oriented recreational uses" were added to make this consistent with 9(a). In 10(b) "over water structures" is struck and replaced with piers and wharfs. In 10(c) the reference should be to 10 (a) and (b) not 6 as indicated in the document. Section 4.40 Classification Table (Page 13): Dave Robison suggested that numbers be used instead of asterisks to denote footnotes. Under the aquatic column (far right hand column) and across from the Commercial, Non-water Dependent heading, there is an "X" with two asterisks, Dave Robison reported that the asterisks should be deleted. To be consistent with the Shoreline Commission recommendation to add policies 6 and performance standard 6 (limiting the uses in the Boat Haven District to water dependent and water related uses) an additional footnote (#5) needs to be added under the column entitled PTUW across from Commercial - Water-related and/or Dependent and/or Enjoyment, to say "except in the Boat Haven Marine District." Also under PTUW column across from Residential Development the same footnote #5 should be added. Council member Julie McCulloch suggested that across from Commercial, where it now says "water-related and/or water dependent and/or water enjoyment," that water enjoyment be added as a second line and Non-water dependent be a third line. Section 8 Program Revisions (Page 14): The Shoreline Commission proposes that the wording be deleted that says that nothing in the amendment shall be considered to restrain either the County or the City from adopting a separate and independent Shore- line Program. Dave Robison then summarized the major changes as: · Residential or transient accommodation uses would not be allowed in the Boat Haven and the Point Hudson areas. Restrictions are placed on residential and transient accommodation uses. In mixed use provisions, water-related, water-dependent and water enjoyment uses are allowed on the ground floor of a building. Deletes the provision that transient accommodations or residential uses are limited to 50% of the total floor area. He added that under State law any notice of a change to the Shoreline Management Master Program requires three consecutive weeks of publication. There was not notice of this public hearing in this week's edition of the Port Townsend Leader. He reported that there has been notice at previous meetings and there have been numerous articles in the Leader regarding this public hearing. There was also notice of the public hearing held by the Shoreline Commission that was published September 23, 30 and October 7, 1992. The State law requires only one public hearing. There will have been two public hearings with five weeks of public notice for these amendments. · · · Chairman Dennison asked for background on why the Shore1ine Commission recom- mended deletion of 8(b) on Page 9? Linda Clifton, Shoreline Commission member, stated that the Shoreline Commission heard a lot of public testimony on residential and transient accommodation uses occupying only ~6l 18 ~A~~ on 1019 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 9 50% of the total floor area of a multi level building. On a three story building, this would mean that 1 1/2 stories could not be used this way. A majority of the Shoreline Commission members felt this would be a hardship. Chairman Dennison clarified that 8 (c) states that 50% of the ground floor would still be reserved for water-oriented uses. Frank D' Amore, Shoreline Commission member, stated that 8 (c) of the performance standards states that "a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total ground floor of all buildings which include residential or transient uses shall be reserved on a continuous basis for water-oriented uses except in the Boat Haven and the Point Hudson Marina." He suggested that it is not the intent of the Shoreline Commission to include the Point Hudson Marina in that standard. David Robison stated that this wording was to make it consistent with 6 and 7 of the policies and performance standards. Residential or transient accom- modation uses would not be allowed in either the Boat Haven or the Point Hudson Marina districts. Chairman Dennison asked why the Shoreline Commission recommended that the possibility of splitting the County or City jurisdictions be deleted? Linda Clifton advised that this is allowed by the State law and the Shoreline Commission didn't want this document to make it seem that this was being considered. Dennis McLarren, City Attorney, reported that if the City and/or the County want to petition the State to have the Master Program split the State Department of Ecology would probably entertain that request. This request could be initiated with or without this lan- guage in the Master Program. Chairman Dennison asked if the Shoreline Commission had any problem with the recommendation that any revision or adjustment of the plan that applies only with the County or the City need not be submitted to the unaffected jurisdic- tion for approval? Linda Clifton stated that the Shoreline Commission agreed with that provIsIOn. Frank D' Amore asked if the Shoreline Commission members would be allowed to give public testimony regarding this amendment? City Attorney Dennis McLarren recom- mended that since the Shoreline Commission acted as a body making recommendations on this amendment that the members not testify as individuals. They may answer questions regarding the deliberations of the Shoreline Commission. Commissioner Brown asked what the thinking of the Shoreline Commission was regarding their recommendation to delete language which was amended to facilitate the Union Wharf project? Frank D' Amore stated that he received a lot of feedback from people in the community who were concerned about Union Wharf as a historical landmark on the urban waterfront. The deletion of this project specific language in the Shoreline Program does not preclude renovation of the Wharf. The deletion just refers to the project specific re-write of the Program to allow one specific project. It would almost be impossible for this language to apply to another project on Union Wharf. With this deletion the Wharf could still be used as a ferry dock, a public pier, overnight moorage, and many other projects. Linda Clifton reported that it was her understanding that a project, such as the one proposed would not be allowed if this language was removed from the program. Com- missioner Brown stated that he doesn't see any real disadvantage in leaving this wording in the program. Linda Clifton responded that the language is confusing because it is very site specific, and it could lead someone to think that they could build an over the water hotel on the site, when they actually can not. Commissioner Brown added that it was no easy accomplishment to get the Shoreline Program changed for this project. It is the only exception granted by the Department of Ecology in the State. Commissioner Brown pointed out that income would have to be generated from any project to renovate the Wharf. Linda Clifton added that the amendments being considered now are aimed at figuring out what types of projects are appropriate in the urban waterfront. Generally speaking residential projects, such as the Union Wharf project, are not con· sidered appropriate. ." 1 t j,'.... 18 dÇ~ 001020 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 10 Council member Norma Owsley asked why water enjoyment activities are not allowed at the Boat Haven (water-dependent or water-related uses)? Frank D' Amore reported that this wording is used to support activities such as the heavy haul-out study done by the Port. There is only 7.8 acres in the Boat Haven. Space will be at a premium in that area. The discussion turned to the definition of the terms (which is part of the Shoreline Program) water-dependent, water-related, and water-enjoyment. Norma Owsley then asked if it is correct that water-enjoyment activities (restaurants, etc.) would not be allowed on piers and wharves over the water? Linda Clifton answered that this type of use on piers and wharves is prohibited at the State level. Norma Owsley added that this wording would also preclude aquariums and museums on a pier or wharf. Frank D' Amore stated that it would. Linda Clifton added that they would certainly be precluded on the portion of the pier or wharf that is over water. The Mayor Pro- Tem then opened the hearing for public testimony. Bob Ricard asked where the interpretation of "shall provide" in performance standards 6 and 7 (page 8) means only or restricted to? He noted that if a building is built and the indicated use is provided in the proper proportion, this wording does not say that other uses can't be provided as well. Dave Robison answered that the Shoreline Commission's intent was that this wording means "limited to." Frank D' Amore and Linda Clifton agreed that "limited to" would better indicate the Shoreline Commission's intent. Bernie Arthur read a letter from Gary Huff (dated October 26, 1992 and marked as Exhibit 11 by the City). He then read the letter from the G2B Partnership dated October 26, 1992 (see City Exhibit 7). Fred Apstein. Port Commissioner District 1. strongly urged support of the wording as written for Point Hudson and the (Port of Port Townsend) Boat Haven. The community very clearly supports the marine trades and these types of water dependent uses. The Port Commission unanimously supports the expansion of the marine trades. The Port Commis- sion is pursing an expanded haul out and an expanded marina (doubling the size of the current marina) somewhere in the County. Hopefully somewhere in Port Townsend Bay. All over the State of Washington and the West Coast there are places that had marine industry replaced by residential development. The residential development brings a quick buck for awhile, but the marine trades are a more sustainable type of economic growth. We need to protect and nurture the marine trades industry in Jefferson County. There are more jobs in the marine trades in the County than there are at the Mill. He concluded by noting that if the marine trades at Point Hudson are marginal, then maybe they haven't been properly husbanded. Kay Robinson stated that she is in support of this amendment. She has been in marine trades for the majority of her adult life, and feels that it is very important that it be protected. Peter Robinson stated that he is a taxpayer and a land owner in the City of Port Town- send. It is very important to him that the marine trades be supported and continue in perpetuity because they are very valuable to the character of this community. Kathrvn Jenks asked Dave Robison if the tidal flat that exists at the north end of Port Townsend (at Point Hudson) are considered a shoreline of Statewide significance? Dave Robison stated that he doesn't think it is a shoreline of Statewide significance. Jim Pearson, Associate Planner for the County who administers the County Shoreline Master Program, asked Kate Jenks to state precisely the area she is asking about? Kate Jenks answered that it would be the area from the tip of Point Hudson westward to the dock at Fort Worden. Jim Pearson reported that the area seaward of the extreme low tide (the area that is always wet) is a shoreline of Statewide significance. The area landward is not. Kate Jenks suggested that a policy statement and a performance standard be added on page 6 (after number 7). She suggested the following wording for the policy "the tidal flats on the north side of Point Hudson being a habitual and historic and feeding and resting area for migratory waterfowl (i.e. the Black Brant) should be preserved and vOl 18~Mi€ 001021 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 11 protected." The wording for the performance standard would be "The tidal flats on the north side of Point Hudson being an habitual and historical feeding and resting place for migratory waterfowl (i.e. the Black Brant) shall be preserved and protected." She asked that even though there are general statements in the Shoreline Plan about preserving and protecting unique and natural features of the urban shoreline, she would like to see specific attention paid to that area. Especially because of general policy #2 (top of page 6), she would like to have the shoreline not totally accessible. Migratory waterfowl can be disturbed by people with dogs, or other non-harmful human activities. That part of the shoreline is a unique natural place and needs to be protected from development of any kind. Exceptions (page 10) Number 9, she noted that she feels that (a) and (b) should be stricken. She stated that exceptions should be site or project specific. She would like to see debate before any new pier or wharf is given a blanket exception. Exception 9( c) is vague and should be re-worded. The word preclude is vague and another word should be used. She reminded those present that Point Hudson is not private property. It belongs to everyone, and "the profit of a few, I do not believe should be sacrificed to the pleasure of many." David Cunningham. Pope Resources, stated that he was lucky enough to get the job of being the first Planning Director for Jefferson County because of the shoreline program. He stated that he feels this joint program between the County and City has served the community very well for 20 years. He noted that part of that is due to the quality of the staff that has served over that time, as well as the quality of the people who have served on the Shoreline Commission. He continued by noting that he was surprised to see that this particular amendment has not had any sort of stringent environmental review. Port Resources was required recently to prepare a $300,000 environmental impact statement to continue developing residentially in an area that's been residential for 20 years. He stated that the amount of City shoreline and unincorporated County shoreline that is proposed to have its' emphasis changed from residential to marine business and industrial without even a programmatic EIS, startles him. It doesn't seem fair that the public sector can apply a different environmental standard to itself than it does to the private sector. This proposed amendment effects at least 12 urban locations in the unincorporated areas of the County. The main target of this amendment is the Port Townsend waterfront, but there are critical parts of it that do effect the unincorporated areas of the County. David Cunningham stated that he would direct his remarks only to those issues. He feels there is a relation- ship between the Growth Management Act and this amendment. The Growth Management Act clearly requires the County to make local ordinances consistent with GMA goals. Some of the key goals of Growth Management are to direct growth to urban areas, to increase densities in urban areas, and make multi-family projects easier, not harder to develop. This amendment, David Cunningham noted, seems inconsistent with that goal. It is clear that this amendment is going to make it more difficult to achieve those GMA' goals in urban areas such as Port Ludlow, Port Hadlock and lrondale. The areas that are going to be UGA's under the Growth Management Act are the only shoreline areas in the County designated urban. There is also an issue of local versus State control. The proposal to move residential and multi-family residential, in this amendment, from a primary to a conditional use make a very big difference in the decision making on projects. Conditional uses require State DOE approval. The Shoreline Management Act was founded on local control. It my be okay for the City of Port Townsend to make a change to give this decision making authority to the Department of Ecology, but he doesn't believe it is okay for Jefferson County. He asked that residential development be left as a primary use in urban areas (Page 12 of the matrix). There is a column for all urban areas and there is a separate one for the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront. If you go down the column to Residential Development, you will see that the proposal as part of this amendment has residential development as a conditional, not primary use. The Shoreline Management Advisory \Jot 18 r~~ 00 1022 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 12 Commission minutes reflected the notion that this amendment does not effect any areas outside of Port Townsend. But without changing back that part of the matrix, quite a dramatic change will be made in the unincorporated areas with respect to residential development. City Attorney Dennis McLerran responded to Mr. Cunningham's testimony by pointing out that the City in proposing this amendment and the County staff in their review of it believe this is not a change from the current master program. The State Department of Ecology has opined that a conditional use is required. Six to nine months ago, Dennis McLerran stated that he did an opinion letter for the City which states that the Master Program does require conditional use review for residential development under the language in its existing form and that there is an inconsistency between the use chart and the language in the Master Program itself. The environmental review considers this a change with respect to the City only and not a change for the County. Dennis McLerran noted with respect to Mr. Cunningham's comments on SEPA that the City has adopted by reference as part of the environmental review the EIS completed for the Urban Waterfront Plan. That EIS evaluates use changes that relate to the Port Town- send shoreline. It does not evaluate changes with respect to County area. If the County Commissioners feel that this is, in fact, a change in the Master Program and is not just clarifying what the State Department of Ecology has opined, there could be a problem with environmental review. If the Commissioners believe that this is consistent with what the Master Program already provides, then there is no change and that does not have to be reviewed with respect to SEP A. David Cunningham stated that the Department of Ecology sent a letter of opinion. It was not a change in any State regulation or the WAC's (Washington Administrative Code) pertaining to shoreline management. Their opinion applied only to the City of Port Town- send. In the master program there are at least 12 areas designated urban in the unincor- porated areas of the County. If you turn to the matrix (Page 12) which guides you to what uses are primary, secondary and conditional, this amendment makes it very clear that if you own an urban designated shoreline in the unincorporated area of Jefferson County, a residential development will suddenly be a conditional use. It may not have been the intention, but it will be the effect. He added that he feels the County Commissioners have a distinct decision to make as to whether or not this proposed change should or should not effect the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. Dennis McLerran reported that he has discussed this with Mark Huth, the County Prosecut- ing Attorney, who concurred with his analysis, that this is not a change in the master program. The County Commissioners should get advise directly from the Prosecuting Attorney on this issue. The intention of the amendments and the SEP A review was not to change the County or impact the County. It was to deal with City changes and changes in City provisions and if there is an inconsistency, then there should be some advise from the County Prosecutor. Chairman Dennison stated that he sees for C** under Urban - Residential, the footnote says "residential development that meets the criteria for single family residential develop- ment under Section 3.402(5) shall be a primary use." David Cunningham responded that this refers only to single family residential. The definition of Urban has been changed because the term "multi-family residential" was stricken. He agreed with Chairman Dennison that this would not prohibit multi-family residential, but added that it would make such a proposal a conditional use, which means that the State Department of Ecology would make the decision on it. Chairman Dennison stated that is only the case in the 200 foot shoreline zone. David Cunningham reported that for any project that intrudes in the 200 foot shoreline zone, the entire project is required to have a shoreline permit. He noted that the Growth Management Act intent is to make urban growth areas more compact, and make it easier for higher density residential development. He feels this proposed amendment tends to do the opposite of that. lJot 18 f~€ 00 J- 023 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 13 Dennis McLerran, City Attorney, stated that testimony on this point should be cut off because it requires a legal clarification from the County Prosecuting Attorney. He con- tinued to explain his interpretation of the Growth Management Act. Bill Massey stated that he is a property owner in the area designated as the Ferry Retail District of the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront District. He stated that in general he is opposed to the ordinance because it's another level of bureaucratic process in an area that is already heavy with process (the Historic Preservation District, Shoreline Management Act and the recently passed sensitive lands area in the City of Port Townsend). He is concerned, in particular, with 8(b) (Page 9) which has been suggested for deletion. He agreed that this should be deleted. The other item he is concerned about is 8(c) which says "A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total ground floor of all buildings which include any residential or transient uses shall be reserved on a continuous basis for water- oriented uses." Water oriented uses aren't defined in the ordinance. The handout that defines water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment uses is not included in the ordinance. Dennis McLerran clarified that the full Shoreline Management Master Program does have definitions for these terms. Mr. Massey noted that over the last 8 years his property (the Port Townsend Plaza Building, approximately 38,000 square feet) has had space available from time to time. He has encouraged prospective tenants to consider water-oriented uses. In that period of time there was an existing small restaurant oriented toward the water. Since that time another restaurant with about 600 square feet of space oriented toward the water, has gone in. They worked to get the space Sprouse Reitz now occupies, rented to a business that is water oriented. This is a retail district and businesses that operate there want to be oriented toward the street to be in the retail environment. If you limited 50% of that building space to water-enjoyment uses, it would mean 19,000 square feet of space in a small retail market, would have to be related to marine hardware, fishing tackle, etc. Dave Robison stated that the examples Mr. Massey is giving don't really apply to 8 (a), (b), or (c) because his property doesn't have any residential or transient accommodation uses. If there was a change of use in any of the building, water-oriented uses would not have to be incorporated. Bill Massey responded that his building is 30 years old, and at some point in time it will be due for re-development or re-construction. At that time it may be appropriate that a transient residential accommodation be built on the upper floors. If this was done then 50% of the space on the ground floor would be required to be water-oriented. He doesn't feel that is possible because the project may not be economically viable in that configura- tion. He suggested that an economic analysis be done. He stated that he strongly sup- ports the changes that suggest public access and public views. Nora Petrich. Co-owner of Port Townsend Sails at Point Hudson stated that she strongly supports this amendment. She applauded the Shoreline Commission for their changes to the amendment. She feels they have been extremely responsive to public testimony. She feels the amendment supports the marine trades. Gue Pilon stated that she feels that the marine trades is as integral to this area as the Victorian architecture. She added that what she is hearing in these proposals is protection and containment of marine trades. Kiesy Strauchon stated that she is really in support of this amendment. She feels it will do a lot for the physical environment, the economic environment, and the diversity here. Craig Jones. Attorney representing PST Investment Company and Norm Sather. stated that it is amazing that this amendment is proceeding so fast within the last month, with no significant environmental review. When you look at the threshold determination that was made, you can not determine the environmental impacts of it. The checklist itself shows a Vùl 18 r~ 00 1024 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 14 myriad of different areas that show clearly that there will be significant environmental impacts associated with this. A potential for greater environmental impacts exists from promoting water-dependent uses, such as boat repair and/or storage, along the shoreline. These uses typically involve the use of toxic materials which could be discharged into water if not properly managed or controlled. There is absolutely no evaluation with regard to the impact or the potential for these toxic materials. Protection or promotion of water dependent uses may result in an increase in odors or emissions from users such as fish processing, boat building, boat repairs, etc. There is no evaluation with regard to extent of odors, air patterns in Port Townsend, or procedures to alleviate these impacts nor what these impacts will do to adjacent or other property owners in the area. The amendment places a higher priority on water dependent uses which may create more of a risk than residential uses of exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waste. Yet, despite this statement there is absolutely no evaluation with regard to what these impacts are, what sources are involved, and what can be done to alleviate these potential risks, or take them into consideration prior to complete- ly reorganizing the uses along the waterfront. Promotion of water-dependent uses may result in closing off or limiting recreational access in some shoreline areas due to safety issues. These area are not identified and there is no environmental evaluation. Traffic and parking problems associated with these uses are discussed, but there is no evaluation or mitigating conditions that would require traffic studies. There is only a disclosure that these impacts exist. The environmental checklist contained no evaluation of the following: what level of increase can be anticipated with regard to exposure of toxic materials, spills, fires and explosions? What emergency public services are available to handle any spill or other emergency involving toxic materials? What odors can be expected? What are the surface air patterns over the City? What efforts would be utilized to insure that odors would not become a problem for the other property owners in the vicinity? What sig- nificant increases will there be in traffic and noise? What if the traffic situation is such that no reasonable water dependent uses can be made of the property given the current infrastructure plan? These issues haven't been discussed, but this plan amendment is being pushed through in less than 30 days. There is no consideration of the economic impacts of this proposed amendment. When the amendment is submitted to DOE for approval, they will have to consider the economic values associated with it. He then read a new State regulation which may apply regarding the adoption of methods and procedures to assure that economic values are given appropriate consideration. Since Mr. Jones was notified by the Mayor Pro-Tem that he had used up his time he stated that he would submit further comments in writing. In summary he raised an issue with regard to lead agency. The City prepared the amendment, the environmental checklist and issued a DNS. He stated he feels this is sort of like asking the fox to watch the hen house. Bob Ricard stated that performance standard 1 (page 7) says that "development should be limited to these uses. " He feels this is a misprint and should possibly be "those uses." He then suggested that performance standard 1 says that development should be limited to those uses which can be classified as water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment. That performance standard conflicts with primary uses allowed in the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront which are not in one of those categories. He suggested that this performance standard be reviewed to see if it is too rigid. He then related what the activities of the Point Hudson Steering Committee have been, and reported on the results of a tourism survey done by Main Street. Karen Erickson presented pictures of the AIaddin Motel and the fish farms to illustrate a joint water-dependent, water-enjoyment use of one building. She asked that the Council and Commission delay a decision on this amendment until all the concerns and questions can be answered or at least be looked at. She asked why this ordinance doesn't deserve the same public involvement and discussion as the waterfront plan and the access plan? In finding 7 it states that traditional fishing and boat building repair businesses are often displaced by economic pressures through tourist facilities and residential development. Is this describing Port Townsend? She asked where this has happened in Port Townsend? 'Jot 18 fAÇ;f on 1-025 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 15 She reported that she does not know of one water-dependent or water-related use on private property outside of the Port District or public land, that exists today or that has existed for the last twenty years, except for Paradise Bay Sea Farms that rent space from her. She reported that they moved the majority of their operation out to the Glen Cove Industrial Park a year and a half ago. Since that time the building (7,000 square feet on the water) has been up for rent. No one wants it. She asked who is going to get these uses to fill up the waterfront buildings? There is no demand. She continued by noting that it is impossible for her to bring in an water-enjoyment use on her two lots. If she built a three story building with a water-enjoyment use on the first floor and residential uses (condominiums and transient accommodations) on the upper floors, the City's parking requirement for the first floor is all that could be met. Most water-enjoyment uses bring in large numbers of the public. She has talked with some boat builders who would be interested in a large boat repair and marine ways that go out to the tideland on this property, but the City's height restriction on the waterfront is 35 feet. This use needs at least a 60 foot high building. The City Council is going to have to give the waterfront property owner the tools to provide what this ordinance is requesting. Without new zoning codes, changes in height restrictions, changes in parking restrictions and other building restrictions and possibilities to compete with the Port, the plan will not be implemented. She concluded by noting that one of the first changes she would recommend is in the Port Townsend Municipal Zoning Code to allow boat building and repair in C2 and C3 Zones. She has not had boat building allowed on her waterfront property in at least the 28 years she has owned it. Bill Massey stated that he is very concerned about the minimum 50% of total ground floor area of buildings being reserved for water-oriented uses. He suggested that this may be accommodated by paraphrasing 9(b) (Incentives to protect and encourage piers and wharves) to say that a new wharf or walkways and park areas be constructed to substitute for a one to one replacement of the 50% floor area. He stated that he doesn't feel that 50% is economically viable in any situation. Dave Robison then read a letter from Gregory Easton, Property Counselors, dated October 26, 1992 (City Exhibit #12). The Mayor Pro-tem reported that the letter from Craig L. Jones and Associates has been entered as Exhibit 13 and then closed the public hearing. Dennis McLerran responded to several of the issues raised in the testimony. Mr. Huff's letter suggested a possible violation of the Open Public Meetings Act and public notice. The Shoreline Commission stated at it's public hearing, that a public meeting would be held at City Hall. He continued to explain how the meeting was advertised. With respect to statements made by Mr. Jones, Attorney for Norm Sather, SEPA rules provide that the lead agency determination is made early in the SEP A process. In this case there had been communication between County and City staff with respect to the environmental review. The City initiated the amendments and normally the initiating agency is the preferred lead agency. There was no challenge of the lead agency status. He then reviewed his interpretation of the State Economic Policy Act and how it or other State laws mayor may not apply to the adoption of this amendment. He noted that the City will discuss this issue with the State Department of Ecology after local action is taken on the document. He then reviewed case law with respect to whether the review of socio- economic impacts are required in the threshold determination process. In response to a question from Chairman Dennison, Dennis McLerran explained that the public notice for this hearing was only published twice. He reported that there were at least three consecutive weeks in which publication of this hearing did occur. There were five consecutive editions of the Port Townsend Leader that had specific notice published regarding the date of this hearing. The Shoreline Act (and the associated Washington Administrative Code's, WAC) only require a single public hearing. Jean Camfield reported that the City Council will continue their meeting to Wednesday evening for consideration of this amendment. The County Commissioners have tentatively Vût 18 rAG- 00102(; · , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 26, 1992 Page: 16 scheduled final consideration of this amendment on their November 2, 1992 agenda at 2:00 p.m. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: ATTEST: ~ B. G. Brown, Member /..,..---... --~\ Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board 'Jot 18 rAG! 00.1 027'