Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-23 City Council Minutes Approved o Y 04; City Council Study Session Minutes— November 23, 2009 9cog`s At 7:30 p.m. Mayor Maxwell called the regularly scheduled study session of November 23, 2009 to order. Nick Petrish, Erica Pickett, Cynthia Richardson and Brian Geer were present. Kevin McKeown, Brad Adams and Bill Turner were absent. Mayor Maxwell announced that on December 11, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. there will be a ceremony at the municipal court facility to dedicate the municipal courtroom to Judge Eugene Anderson. The City Council and community are invited. Shoreline Master Program Update Planning Director Ryan Larsen updated Council on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), the July 2008 draft of which is currently being revised by the Watershed Company. Dan Nickel of the Watershed Company was present to answer questions. Mr. Larsen referred to his November 18, 2009 memo to Mayor and Council which outlines nine issues to be considered by the City Council and Planning Commission prior to public hearings. Mr. Larsen selected the first three of those issues to be discussed at the current study session. Environmental Designations: Shoreline environmental designations are governed by guidelines established in WAC 173-26. Mr. Larsen read the characteristics that distinguish natural and conservancy environmental designations. Mr. Larsen then reviewed Maps 14A and 14B which illustrate two options for revised shoreline environmental designations to comply with the WAC guidelines. Mr. Larsen noted that additional alternatives may be proposed during the ongoing deliberations and public hearings. Map 14A showed the entire shoreline of Heart, Cranberry and Whistle lakes and the City's portion of the Lake Erie shoreline bearing the Conservancy designation. Map 14B showed the entire shoreline of Whistle Lake, the City's portion of the Lake Erie shoreline, and most of the shoreline of Cranberry and Heart lakes bearing the Natural designation with the remaining portions bearing the Conservancy designation, which was the consultant's recommendation. In addition, the Parks Department has suggested that a portion of the Whistle Lake shoreline be designated Conservancy. Parks Director Gary Robinson clarified that this was suggested so that existing low impact uses including the maintenance access road and swimming and boat launching area will continue to conform to the SMP. Mr. Larsen pointed out two other differences between maps 14A and 14B in the area of Shannon Point. Map 14B proposes designating more of the northwest shoreline of Shannon Point and the coastal wetland (shown on the map as Lake Shannon) as Natural rather than Conservancy areas. Mrs. Pickett noted that the Shannon Point graduate students are studying whether the wetland (aka Cannery Pond)was once a pocket saltwater lagoon and asked if a Natural designation would make it more difficult to reconnect that wetland with the saltwater. Mr. Nickel said that sort of wetland enhancement was consistent with the Natural designation. Mrs. Richardson stated that areas designated as Natural allow for improvements to environments even if the changes disturb sites temporarily. Mr. Larsen noted that trails, specifically interpretive trails, are permitted in both Natural and Conservancy environments and would allow the Ship Harbor interpretive trail. Mr. Larsen then read the characteristics that distinguish Shoreline Residential and Urban/Urban Maritime environmental designations. Mrs. Pickett asked why the downtown marina areas aren't designated Urban Maritime. Mr. Larsen said they have historically been designated Urban and could meet the criteria for Urban or Urban Maritime but don't have heavy manufacturing or shipbuilding, hence have been designated Urban. Mr. Nickel stated that the underlying zoning influenced the designations in this case, with the MS zone being designated Urban Maritime. Mrs. Richardson stated that the north and south docks have dredged channels up to the shoreline which historically have been used by manufacturing businesses to ship products and suggested that the City may want to preserve that option for the future by designating the areas immediately adjacent to the docks Urban Maritime. Mrs. Pickett agreed. Anacortes City Council Study Session Minutes November 23, 2009 1 Mr. Larsen discussed proposed changes to Shoreline Residential designations, primarily along Guemes Channel. Map 14A depicts an option to retain the current designation of Shoreline Residential along the channel from Ship Harbor east to Lovric's Marina and then from Lovric's to Kiwanis Waterfront Park. Map 14B depicts an alternative called a parallel shoreline designation wherein the first 100 feet from the shoreline would be designated Conservancy and the next 100 feet upland would be designated Shoreline Residential. Mr. Larsen noted that the City Council Planning Committee and the Planning Commission have both expressed concerns about the parallel designations and that a third map will likely be proposed with new options. Mrs. Richardson suggested the City might achieve the same goal of offering more protection to the immediate waterfront at the bottom of the bluff if there were one environmental designation with a different setback instead. Mr. Petrish asked who proposed the designations on the maps. Mr. Larsen explained that Map 14A mostly reflects the current designations from the City's original SMP and that Map 14B reflects the designations the Watershed Company is proposing after reviewing each reach of the Anacortes shoreline and examining them to see how they fit the WAC guidelines; many areas are not proposed to be changed at all. Mrs. Richardson thanked Mr. Larsen for the new maps which help make the SMP process much more understandable. Mayor Maxwell and Mr. Larsen noted that GIS Coordinator Rob Hoxie produced the maps in house. Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix: Mr. Larsen compared Figure 8-1, Shoreline Area Designations, from the existing SMP with the new Table 5.1, Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix, that would replace it in the new SMP. The table indicates which uses are permitted, prohibited or conditional in each of the environmental designations. Mr. Larsen asked Council to consider if the proposed uses for each designation make sense. Mrs. Richardson asked if conditional uses for a shoreline permit could be different from conditional uses per the City's zoning code. Mr. Larsen said yes. Mr. Larsen then discussed the bottom of Table 5.1 which addresses which types of shoreline modifications would be permitted, prohibited or conditional in each environmental designation. Mr. Larsen asked Councilors to review Table 5.1 for accuracy and consistency with community desires. Mrs. Pickett asked why"dredging or in-water disposal associated with restoration" is permitted in all zones and suggested that in-water disposal is not what the City wants. Mr. Nickel said the intent is placement of material for restoration, not disposal of waste, and they will reword it. Development Standards Matrix: This section of the SMP defines setbacks, height restrictions, etc. once shoreline environments have been designated and the permitted uses determined for each environment. New table 5.2 replaces old Figure 8-2 from the existing SMP. Mr. Larsen noted that Table 5.2 does not specify minimum residential lot sizes; those will be determined by reference to the City's zoning code so that future modifications do not require revision to the entire SMP. The items in the table engendering the most discussion are the Shoreline Residential setbacks as all other items are mostly consistent with the previous SMP. One proposed change was a 15' rather than 25' setback at Burrows Bay from Croatian Way to Skyline Way but sentiment has been expressed to stick to 25'. Mayor Maxwell noted the really strong winds from the south there batter anything too close to the shore. Mrs. Pickett stated 25' would be better. Mr. Larsen said a 60' setback is suggested for all other Shoreline Residential areas. In response to Planning Commission questions, the Watershed Company prepared a table reproduced on page 4 of Mr. Larsen's November 18 memo that shows the actual setbacks of all existing residences in the Shoreline Residential environments and calculates average setbacks for each reach. Mrs. Pickett stated her preference for not making existing construction non-conforming. Mrs. Richardson noted that there are setback anomalies in Skyline that were conditions of the plat even though they don't conform to current zoning. She asked if the plat requires a 10' setback but the City requires 25' in the SMP, does the plat condition govern or does the SMP? Mayor Maxwell noted there are homes along the shoreline that were built before the City had zoning at all. Mrs. Pickett asked what the financing implications are if a residence is non- conforming. Mayor Maxwell said existing residences homes would be grandfathered. Mr. Larsen said if a non-conforming house burns down the owner has 180 days to request a permit to rebuild Anacortes City Council Study Session Minutes November 23, 2009 2 with no special conditions but if someone chooses to tear down and rebuild a non-conforming structure in the Shoreline Residential zone the project must meet the new requirements. Mr. Larsen said the SMP includes an administrative process to allow somewhat lesser setbacks if certain conditions are met, otherwise a shoreline variance from the City would be required. Mrs. Richardson gave a hypothetical example of decreasing a setback from 50' to 40' if a homeowner agreed to plant the shoreward 20' of the property with native plants. Mr. Larsen pointed out that such mitigation is described in more detail in his November 18 memo. Mrs. Pickett asked about remodeling or additions to a non-conforming residence. Mr. Nickel stated that if the changes don't increase the nonconformity(for instance, adding onto a house on the upland side) a shoreline variance would not be required. Mrs. Pickett asked that such cases be handled administratively rather than needing shoreline permit variances. Mrs. Richardson said that some other jurisdictions have minimum setbacks but actual setbacks depend case by case on specific mitigations and environmental enhancements the homeowner undertakes. Mrs. Pickett encouraged the City to make it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing and use administrative processes wherever possible. Mr. Larsen proposed to bring the SMP back to Council at the December 14 study session with some specific questions and to get some general direction from Council on how to proceed with these issues. Water Treatment Plant Expansion Update Public Works Director Fred Buckenmeyer presented an update on the plans for the water treatment plant expansion and upgrades. This same presentation has been made to all the City's major water customers. Mr. Buckenmeyer reminded that the City has water rights to 55 million gallons per day(mgd)from the Skagit River plus an additional 21 (mgd)of interruptible flow. Anacortes is the largest single source of potable water in Skagit County with approximately 56,000 customers including Anacortes residents and businesses, the towns of La Conner and Oak Harbor, the Swinomish Tribal Nation, Skagit PUD and the Shell and Tesoro refineries. The refineries are by far the largest users and account for approximately 69% of the water produced. The plant has two 36" pipelines that carry water across the valley and interties to major customers. The plant is currently certified by the state Department of Health to produce a maximum of 30 mgd. The current average demand is 21.4 mgd with a maximum demand of 29 mgd. HDR estimates that by 2019 those demands will be 26.9 mgd average (38.1 mgd maximum) and by 2029 will be 28.7 mgd average (41 mgd maximum). So, within ten years the plant will be operating beyond its rating. Mr. Buckenmeyer next reviewed the needs driving the upgrade project including an aging and flood-vulnerable electrical system with inadequate backup generation. Mrs. Richardson asked why the intake structure is on the opposite side of the river from the plant, requiring double pumping. Mr. Buckenmeyer explained that the intake is on the outside bend because it is the deepest part of the river and least likely to silt up but the plant is on the inside bend because that is the safest place. The project is also driven by the sedimentation basins which are only rated to 20 mgd; after that the filters are doing all the work to clean the water. Once in 2009 the plant had to curtail production because the filters couldn't keep up. This is what DOH is most concerned about. To provide context, Mr. Buckenmeyer noted that the raw water the PUD has to treat that comes from Judy reservoir has 0.5 NTUs before treatment whereas the Skagit River water that comes into the Anacortes plant has 600-6000 NTUs before treatment. The City's plant has to remove a great deal of sediment to achieve its actual average of 0.03 NTUs in the finished water. The existing sedimentation basins and filters don't have the capacity to increase production. The plant does need to expand its production capacity to meet the projected demand for the next 20 years and to perfect the City's water rights. The plant also needs to be redesigned to protect the clearwell from both flood and seismic events and the clearwell itself needs to be expanded to meet increased production and storage needs. The whole plant also needs to be updated to current seismic codes. Anacortes City Council Study Session Minutes November 23, 2009 3 Mr. Buckenmeyer summarized the features of the new plant: an upgraded electrical system and increased backup generation capacity which will all be located above 100 year flood level; replacement of the sedimentation ponds with a much more efficient sand ballast process; a new and improved rapid sand filtration system; a new 2.1 million gallon storage tank with space for a second 1.1 million gallon tank; a new high service pump station that will handle 43 mgd with provisions to add more pumps to achieve 54 mgd; and modifications to the processing of residuals to improve the quality of water discharged back into the river. Importantly, the existing plant must continue to operate without interruption while the new one is constructed. The estimated construction cost is $55M for Phase 1. Phase 2 would add the increased pump and water storage capacity. The City considered leaving some components out of Phase 1 but all the components are necessary and it is more economical to construct it all at once. The refineries inquired if the City could sell them water that has only been pre-treated, not treated to drinking water standards, but Mr. Buckenmeyer explained that would require a dedicated new pipe across the valley and a dedicated new pump station which would cost up to $40M. The existing plant would still need modification to address the electrical, seismic and floodplain issues so overall that option would not save any cost. The target project schedule calls for final design and permitting by April 2010, bid and contract award by May 2010, begin construction in June 2010 and completion by June 2012. Mrs. Richardson asked what all is included in the cost estimate. Mr. Buckenmeyer said the$55M is "above the line" construction costs and the total cost could be $65M including sales tax, permits, etc. Actual cost will depend on bids received. Mr. Petrish asked how the project would be funded. Mr. Buckenmeyer replied municipal revenue bonds would be issued; water customers would pay their share through rates. Mr. Geer, who is on the Council Public Works Committee, stated that other designs were diligently examined and considered and the one presented this evening is the best option. Mayor Maxwell summarized that the plant is running right up against Department of Health water quality standards and plant capacity so the City needs to take action. There being no further business, at approximately 8:55 p.m. Mayor Maxwell adjourned the regularly scheduled study session of November 23, 2009. Anacortes City Council Study Session Minutes November 23, 2009 4