Loading...
RES 85-05 SDP FOR WATERFRONT PARKWDT: j t 3/13/8s RESOLUTION NO. 85-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WINSLOW, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SOUGHT BY THE CITY OF WINSLOW FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT WATERFRONT PARK. WHEREAS, the City has made an application for a shoreline management substantial development permit for construct'ion of a floating dock, boat launch and other improvements at the City's Waterfront Park and WHEREAS, the City Council has made findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision, and WHEREAS, based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council finds that the application meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 16.12 of the Winslow Municipal Code relating to substantial development permits, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINSLOW, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby incorporates those findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision dated March 21, 1985, attached hereto, labeled'Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 2. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council approves the application for substantial deve- lopment permit as set forth in the findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision. Section 3. Pursuant to Section 16.12.860(N) of the winslow Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall transmit copies of the original application, affidavit of public notice, site plan, vicinity map, permit and this resolution to the Department of Ecology and Attorney General within 8 days of the Council's final action. RESOLVED THIS 21 day of March, 1985. APPROVED: MAYOR, ALICE B. TAWRESEY ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: March 15, 1985 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: March 21, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-05 - 2 - EXHIBIT A File No. HE 85-2 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION REGARDING THE CITY OF WINSLOW'S APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR WATERFRONT PARK The City of Winslow has applied for a substantial develop- ment permit for construction of a floating dock, boat launch and other improvements at the City's Waterfront Park. The City Coun- cil held a public hearing on February 27, 1985 and March 4, 1985, and based upon the testimony received, the findings and recommen- dations of the Hearing Examiner, the findings and recommendation of the Planning Agency and other materials contained in the city file (HE X-4-S4) APP/SSDP1984~WFP. the Councilm3kes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The subject property involves the 7.8 acre Eagle Harbor Waterfront Park, owned and operated by the City as a public faci- lity. It lies south of Brian Drive S.E. in the City of Winslow. The park fronts for 917 feet on the shoreline of Eagle Harbor. Also involved is a contiguous tract of Washington State aquatic land on which the city acquired in 1975 a 30-year lease from the State Department of Natural Resources. The legal description of this aquatic land tract is contained in DNR Agreement No. 10638, a copy of which is in the City file. The park is heavily wooded with upland developments that include tennis courts, trails, restrooms, picnic areas, and a play area. The waterfront has not been developed, but the shore- line, near the western perimeter of the park, has been used for years as an unimproved "de facto" boat launching area of sorts. The park is designated as an open space recreational environment by the City's Shoreline Management Master Program. II. On March 7, 1984, the City filed an application for a shore- line substantial development permit to construct and operate a boat moorage and boat launching facility and to make certain shoreline bulkheading improvements. The Winslow Planning Agency considered the application at its meetings of March 8, 22 and April 12, 1984. On April 12, the Planning Agency unanimously recommended approval of the application with three conditions. The City Clerk caused legal notices of a public hearing on the application to be published and posted. III. The Hearing Examiner held hearings on May 22 and June 8. At the conclusion of those hearings the Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the project as then constituted. IV. The Hearing Examiner's recommendations were forwarded to the City Council. The Council determined to have the matter studied further by an ad hoc citizen's committee called the Waterfront Park Citizens Committee. This committee was requested by the Council to review the City's proposal and to recommend any addi- tions or modifications to the project that would be acceptable to the general public and which would be in the best interests to the park and the City. - 2 - The Citizens Committee, which was composed of a cross- section of citizens representative of various interests, began by taking a survey of the public's wants, needs and desires regard- ing development of the Waterfront Park. The survey was widely circulated through various means. After soliciting public opinion and after conducting several sessions to discuss the project, the committee recommended certain modifications and changes to the City's original plan, prepared plans and drawings and forwarded its recommendations to the City Council. The Citi- zens Committee also provided comments on an environmental check- list which was submitted to the City's responsible official. V. The City's Responsible Official issued a negative declara- tion on February 14, 1985 and a final declaration of nonsignifi- cance on March4, 1985 . VI. The modified proposal consists of a floating dock with space for 10 to 20 boats situate at the west end of the park. There is a boat launch on the easterly portion of the park with parking space for 5 to 6 trailer/car combinations. Existing commuter parking is available for additional parking. The project also consists of construction of additional trails and a bridge over the west slough, construction of a bandstand and view deck. The particulars of the proposal are more specifically set forth on that certain plan dated January 16, 1985, and contained in City File No. (kIEX-4-84) APP/SSDP 1984'WFP. - 3 - VII. The floating dock is designed and intended for moorage on a short-term basis. The City has no intent at this time to charge rent or impose fees for the use of the moorage spaces on a regu- lar basis. The City may seek donations for use of the moorage space. VIII. Based on the Citizens Committee's survey and the testimony received, there is a need for a public boat launching facility in the Winslow area of Eagle Harbor. The boat launch is designed to serve primarily the Winslow and Central Island residents. It is small scale and designed to operate at low tide. Parking will be on a first-come, first-serve basis. Enforcement of the no park- ing regulations on surrounding streets and areas will prevent overcrowding and congestion. IX. The Citizens Committee's survey and the testimony indicates that there is a need for transient moorage in the Winslow area of Eagle Harbor. There are commercial marinas on both sides of the City's park presently but their suitability for transient moorage is unclear. The park is the last undeveloped waterfront area in the City. The City's proposal will allow greater viewing by the public of the waterfront and access to the harbor itself. - 4 - The floating dock is low profile and will not obstruct views from the uplands. The City's proposal involves removal of under- brush which will allow more sweeping views of the Harbor and water from the upland areas. XII. The proposal will generate improvement in the economic wel- fare of the Winslow business community. In addition the recreational facilities of the City will be greatly expanded to the benefit of the citizens. XIII. The construction of the bridge over the west slough will connect the only marine commercial center of the City with the commercial uses and moorage planned for the park. XIV. The City Council finds that the proposal as modified by the recommendations of the Citizens Committee will not have a signi- ficant adverse impact scale. on the environment due to its limited XV. Any conclusion of law that is deemed to be a finding of fact herewith is adopted as the same. From these findings, the City Council comes to these - 5 - CONCLUSIONS Section 16.12.860(M) of the Winslow Municipal Code provides that the Council may modify or reject the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner and prepare its own written findings and conclusion in support of its decision. This decision must be made within 60 days of receipt of the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner or within 30 days of completion of any additional public hearings held by the City Council, whichever is later. The Council's action is within 30 days of the additional public hearings held by the City Council. II. Pertinent governmental regulations include the City's Shore- line Management Master Program and the State Environmental Policy Act. III. The applicant for a substantial development permit must, pursuant to Section 16.12.869(K) of the Winslow Municipal Code demonstrate the following criteria: 1. The development is consistent with the goals and poli- cies of this Shoreline Management Master Program. 2. The development is permitted by the general regulations set forth for the use or activity. 3. The use or activity is permitted by the regulations set forth for the specific environment in which it is to be located. - 6 - 4. The development will not cause a use or activity acces- sory to the major use or activity which is not consistent with the goals, policies and regulations of the Shoreline Management Master Program. There is no question that the City has met the last three of the criteria. The specific policies relating to the open space recreational environment are set forth at section 16.12.590 of the Winslow Municipal Code. All of these criteria have been met by the City's proposal including specifically use policy 3 which states "development shall be planned so as to maximize public visual as well as recreational access to the shoreline." The testimony from the public and the Citizens Committee demonstrates that the public's ability to view the shoreline from the uplands area will be enhanced and not detracted by the proposal. IV. Any finding of fact that is deemed to be a conclusion of law herewith is adopted as the same. DECISION Based on the foregoing, the City Council concludes and determines that the application for a substantial development permit as recommended by the Citizens Committee and as more par- ticularly set forth on those certain January 16, 1985, and on file with (HE X-4-84) APP/SSDP 1984 -~FP, i'sapproved. maps and diagrams dated the City under File No. - 7 - Approved by the City Council this 21day of March, 1985. Mayor, Alice B. Tawresey ~/ ATTEST: Clerk/Treasurer - 8 -