Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09041997 Min Ag ;. . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Community Center (corner of Lawrence & Tyler) September 4, 1997; 7:00 p.m. Joint Workshop Meeting with City Council Land Use Committee and Planning Commission I. Roll Call II. Discussion of locating high tech businesses in former bed & breakfast locations 1. Staff Report, (Freeland/Randall) 2. Commission/Land Use Committee Discussion and Conclusions III. ADJOURN , .. . . 4 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION and LAND USE COMMITTEE Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center by Land Use Chair Ian Keith. Others members in attendance were Bill Davidson, Land Use Committee; Planning Commissioners Cindy Thayer, Karen Erickson, John Boles, Craig Johnson and Joseph Finnie. Lisa Enarson, Planning Commission, was excused. Not in attendance were Kathryn Jenks, Land Use Committee, and Lois Sherwood, Planning Commission. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland and Jeff Randall. II. DISCUSSION -- Locating High Tech Businesses in Former Bed & Breakfast Locations 1. Staff Report, (FreelandJRandall) Freeland stated that City Council set high technology as a priority and directed the Planning Commission to prepare an ordinance to allow such businesses to locate in former bed and breakfast (B&B) inns. He indicated this meeting is to air the issues and think about all the surrounding issues that need to be brought out, that after tonight there can be direction regarding an ordinance. The following questions were posed: ~ How will historic structures be impacted by the land use? ~ Will an alternative supply of high tech business locations undercut the downtown area? ~ With a loss of B&B inns will there be damage to the economy? ~ What change in character will result in residential areas? ~ Is there need for more commercial zoned areas in the city? ~ How can this change be accomplished without a Comprehensive Plan amendment? (Most important) Randall summarized the issues and criteria outlined in his memorandum of August 29, 1997, to the Planning Commission and City Council Land Use Committee. Chair Keith opened the meeting to public comment, limiting discussion to 5 minutes, each participant. Dr. Phyl Speser Distributed flow chart of "hoops" his company Foresight Science & Technology has been going through in pursuit of locating his high tech business in a former B&B inn. He referenced a motion made in the July 7, 1997, City Council meeting in which he indicated Council approved City of Port TòWns8nd RECEIVED DEC 1 1997 1ui1", & COINIøRÏty DIY....., . . . Planning Commission & Land Use Committee Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 Page 2 going forward with preparation of an ordinance to allow this use of B&B inns. He also referred to Land Use Minutes that predated the July 7th City Council meeting. Speser said he has been working on this proposal for two years. He said he recently went to the Mayor who thought it was a good idea and took him to Freeland. Speser severely criticized what he alleged was Freeland's answer, "We won't do this because it is too much work." Speser explained that this would have less impact than B&Bs; there would be no foot traffic. He stated his company does not need retail space, but needs to be near US West to access their communication lines. He complained that his information did not make it into the Planning Commission and Land Use Committee packets; not even the ordinance. He said both sides need to be in the memo. Speser's Action Recommendations: ~ Reprimand staff members Jeff Randall and Bruce Freeland for not putting proper material into packets and Michael Hildt for not enforcing the wishes of the City Council ensuring that if Council takes a vote, staff complies. ~ Review and reconsider the process. ~ Personnel Manual -- Make sure: 1) top job of staff is to serve the public; 2) staff shall be fired if directives are not carried through. ~ Approve what is recommended. He spoke about not intimidating citizens under the constitution of this state -- you play the game, but staff doesn't have to play the game. Bob McKenna He indicated the town is coming together, and is shocked at the article in the newspaper. He said he took a poll and has not found one person in favor of Mr. Speser's request; residents in the Historical District are against it. The Historical Society, Main Street, the Economic Development Council, are all complete victims, and he does not think they are going to find someone in favor. McKenna said the idea that the high tech has less impact than B&B inns is nonsense, that parking is not the issue. He noted that once a B&B inn is lost, it is lost forever, and the history is lost forever. He said if there were no commercial areas in town, he would be on the opposite side. Planning Commissioner Boles asserted he was a little uncomfortable if this represents a single request and asked if it should be quasi-judicial. City Attorney McMahan said this is not tied to a specific piece of property and if being implemented on an area-wide basis, it would be treated as a legislative matter. If this were for one specific B&B inn, it would shift to quasi-judicial. " . . . '\ Planning Commission & Land Use Committee Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 Page 3 Boles asked if it would be handled once per year, and McMahan replied that all rezones are considered annually. Bob Sokol, Owner of B&B Inn Indicated he spent a lot of time as a council member working on the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Comprehensive Plan will show a lot of time was given to cottage industry. The vision was for small business of minimum impact. He referred to Port Townsend's Home Occupations ordinance, which he said is an exceptional one. He noted he spent a lot of time on the Land Use Committee talking about Land Use issues which the Comprehensive Plan has covered including neighborhood commercial and neighborhood serving mixed use centers throughout residential districts where businesses could come and operate. Sokol said he does not see how this request could be handled any other way than a rezone, and is astonished we are here talking about an ordinance. He said that everything that has been done has been clearly within the framework of the participation of the Comprehensive Plan. He declared that turning B&B inns into other commercial businesses throughout the town, would kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and said B&B inns should stay as they are now. Paul Boyer, Chairman Historical Preservation Committee (HPC) Quoted from directions of the HPC as relates to historic issues and noted the committee's first opportunity to comment was when Mr. McKenna came before the HPC. He urged that before an ordinance goes any further, the HPC review it. Nancy Scott Stated she has had an application in to the city for 2 years and has spent thousands of dollars. She said the city has put in an enormous amount of effort to put together a Comprehensive Plan. She challenged the City putting something ahead of her application to change the Comprehensive Plan when they don't have time to complete her application She asked if it makes sense to stop what they are doing and make exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan when they haven't even had time to implement it and see if there is enough commercial space. End of Public Comment Thayer asked if before proceeding with the discussion they could raise procedural questions regarding Erickson's inquiry if this takes an ordinance. Chair Ian Keith agreed they should discuss if a Comp Plan amendment is required. ~,".'-""o . . . Planning Commission & Land Use Committee Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 Page 4 Q. Thayer: Asked the reasoning behind City Council's direction to Staff to draft an ordinance. Once that direction was made, how does it not happen? Whatever we decide tonight, if it should not be done or whatever, does it go back to City Council for another motion to not direct Staff. Boles: In the context of Erickson's question, if City Council wants to go by their direction of drafting an ordinance, how do you intend to fit it into the proper procedure for either a rezone or an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, as clearly spelled out in Chapter 20? A. Keith: Those are not the only two possibilities. There is also the possibility that this be added as a conditional use that doesn't require either a rezone or a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Freeland: There are two parts to the question -- 1) Drafting an ordinance. He said Staff has never refµsed to draft an ordinance; he had come here tonight to solicit their input on the content of an ordinance. There is no refusal at all by Staff to draft an ordinance. 2) Comprehensive Plan. His recollection of the Land Use Committee was a somewhat different proposal to allow these uses on a broader area basis. He said he gave an opinion at that meeting that this is an issue that probably reqµired a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He indicated the Committee agreed it was of the magnitude that they felt uncomfortable without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He reported a suggestion that came to the group to try dealing with the B&B inns as something with a small enough scope that didn't raise the Comprehensive Plan issues. The Land Use Committee thought that was probably a reasonable proposal. He said there wasn't any analysis of the Comprehensive Plan; there was no reading of the Plan to see what the policies say regarding this issue. Freeland said he thought it useful to actually read the Plan and bring it so it could be looked it in this meeting, but perhaps that was presumptive and he shouldn't have done that. In his judgment it was still an issue that needed to be resolved. Keith: There were a lot of quotes from the Comprehensive Plan being used as part of the argument over this issue. He said there are some very clear things in the Comp Plan that support this, and they appear in tonight's memo, that there are also some things which would not support it. He said the concept was, this would be a very limited impact to a limited number of sites and at a low enough level that at that time did not involve a Comp Plan amendment. Erickson asked Keith if he is talking about all B&Bs in referring to limited sites and how many there are? Keith replied it is any B&B or any building that has had a conditional use permit as a B&B; it was estimated they numbered probably 20 or 30. Freeland told them he could read the Comprehensive Plan both ways on this issue, and felt that they, the drafters, were probably in a better position to say if they were satisfied, knowing it would be a controversial issue. He said they thought the air ought to be cleared. . . . Planning Commission & Land Use Committee Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 Page 5 Chair Keith said it is his feeling this is something that could be considered as an ordinance allowing a conditional use without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Thayer and Boles disagreed with the concept. Boles suggested the focus of this workshop as being two-fold: ~ Which procedure should this come under, and whether or not they agree with that; ~ What form would they pursue Keith said if they were to agree that it cannot be done without a Comprehensive Plan amendment, they can all go home. Boles concurred they need to decide. Erickson said she did not understand that was the decision they were coming to make tonight and would need to study it. She questioned what prompted City Council to get to this point of decision, other than language interpretation. Keith replied that reading the Comp Plan language, his understanding of the intent clearly supports a use like this, and there are other things which don't. He said they have to weigh both sides. He said he thinks one will always find some ambiguity in the Comp Plan. Discussion ensued. Q. Thayer: Will our decision be made by a motion? A. Keith: That is a good question; this being a legislative matter, it will go to the Council for final decision. Q. Thayer: Can one of us make a motion and get it on the table for discussion? A. Keith: Or make a recommendation of the Planning Commission present here. Q. Boles: Asked McMahan what process is there to determine whether it is tantamount to an amendment of the Comp Plan or not; what body would consider this? A. McMahan: Explained they had previously held joint meetings for the draft land use control ordinances that were extremely productive to Staff in getting the whole process going; more often than not they came to consensus that gave Staff clear direction to take back to the Planning Commission and then to Council. He said from this body he envisions a motion to come back to Council that would direct Staff to prepare an ordinance to send to the Planning Commission and start the process; because there is a fundamental issue whether this is consistent with the Comp Plan, it is a little hard not to do it that way. He suggested making a motion to Council that Council make a decision. One choice of motions would be to find this matter inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and not move ahead with an ordinance; another choice would be, to find it to be consistent with the Comp Plan and direct Staff to draft an ordinance. Freeland: Said they need to clear the air on the issue, and if there is not consensus, they could . . . Planning Commission & Land Use Committee Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 Page 6 probably move on to the details of the substance of the change and send that issue to Council for resolution. He said Council may have already resolved it, and maybe this was an inappropriate thing to raise, but he did it out of a sense of conscience. Thayer indicated it was difficult for her if there is not consensus, but a majority who feels it is inconsistent for them to move forward. She asked to make a motion and get this on the table. Chair Keith stated this is not a body that can make a decision in that way. She said she understood that and referred to McMahan's statement that since they won't get consensus, to make some sort of motion with a recommendation to Council. Keith concurred. Davidson asked if it would be a motion ITom the joint group, and Keith replied in the affirmative, but said it is not a body that would make a decision, just a recommendation. Thayer then asked why this meeting is being held. Boles replied it was to scope out the issues and to consider what problems were implicit in possible conditional use ofB&Bs. He noted the need for more debate and more airing, and suggested Council slow down to see how these different bodies see it. Thayer asked for a straw poll. Keith said if there is not consensus he thinks they should continue to discuss the substance of it, even if they agree to disagree. Straw Poll: 4 in favor -- Do as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2 in favor -- Do as a Zoning Code Revision, as a conditional use permit 1 Abstained 2. CommissionlLand Use Committee Discussion and Conclusions Chair Keith requested they proceed with the substance of the matter. Freeland presented a list to gather comments from the joint group. For verification, he repeated what he understood as the basic concept: to allow low impact technology uses in former B&B inns as conditional uses on the theory these are uses that will have no more impact than a B&B inn would have had. His yardstick was: seeking to have uses no more impactful than the B&B in different places. There was concurrence. It was asked, should it be a specific B&B, to which there was also concurrence. Components: 1. Parking: ~ Require no more parking spaces than had existed as a B&B. 2. Traffic: ~ No more traffic trips on the street. Boles, including service trips? . . . Planning Commission & Land Use Committee Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 Page 7 3. Number of employees ~ According to specific building. Formula based on number of guest rooms, or usable commercial square feet, or a ceiling if feasible. ~ Multiple buildings. Freeland to address conditions. 4. Reside there ~ Finnie: Change of use doesn't require residence any where else in city. Boles: except for home occupation. ~ Yes-4; No-3. Freeland to bring alternate drafts. 5. Deliveries and shipments ~ Limit deliveries to or shipments from the building. Need to separately limit if already addressed in total trips? ~ Limit outside of business hours. 6. Category of Uses -- High Technology/Low Impact ~ No sales of goods from the site. ~ No client visits. (Electronic commerce.) ~ No incompatible uses. 7. Conversion ITom B&B Use ~ Limit conversion possibility 8. Limit per block or area ~ Concentration issues, cumulative impact. Boles: Do an inventory and see what pattern is, what sizes are, etc. Freeland: Just counting full B&Bs? Yes 9. Other? ~ SEP A review: impacts that need to be mitigated by the provision of the code ~ Pollution ~ HPC review: of ordinance and each individual occupation in the historic district. ~ Hours of operation: Concerns in coming and going at unusual hours for high tech business. Erickson--Foresight suggested during normal business hours. Freeland will draft. ~ Restraint on physical plant: Expansion. Outside control only. High Tech -- external electronics also. Freeland: Can bring back with an ordinance. ~ Sinage: not for a specific house. There was consensus that the components described the kind of ordinance desired. Boles said he would hope in drafting an ordinance they would also consider the Staff Analysis in the memorandum of August 29, 1997. Chair Keith asked if there is any debate about substance of this regarding the comments? Thayer replied she thinks that should be in a Public Hearing. . . . Planning Commission & Land Use Committee Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 Page 8 Public Comment Dr. Speser He explained there are things he cannot guarantee with his business: ~ No client visits -- his client is the Office of Naval Research. Cannot forbid them to come in. ~ External electronics -- requires an 18" satellite dishe. You can put the same kind of thing on the house next door. ~ No sales -- Ships out documents. ~ Hours -- 90% of business happens during business hours, but may occasionally hit after hours to solve a problem. Mr. MèKenna Said he is leaving this meeting in astonishment. He said four Planning Commissioners wanted this left to a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He said they are trying to pigeon hole this thing, and it reeks of discrimination, and it will be challenged. Will a petition signed by 100 people in the historic district do anything, or is this a "done deal?" Thayer replied there will be public hearings and public testimony at those meetings if it comes to that. Ms. Nancy Scott What was the intent here? The state came up with a GMA and after lots of hours, the City produced a Plan, though imperfect with provisions for change. You are talking about this because Council decided it was not a substantive change, but what you are talking about it is a substantive change; it is a zoning change. She said she is very confused. She said Mr. Speser gave his long list of credentials, and she perceived that was able to look at the document, sit back and say, "How can I get my way;" that he did not want to go in and buy that house and ask for a change of use and wait for the change. She continued that somehow he figured out with this ordinance he was going to be able to come in and make change that would slip through the loophole. She asked how else can this be defined than an amendment. She said Speser is asking us to change the whole residential historic district and suggested he is wanting to locate next to US West and save thousands of dollars. She said she is just as eager to have reasonable economic development in this town, but it is not fair to make exceptions to this rule. Ms. Barbara Marsaille, as a citizen Things involved here: 1. Grounds maintenance (to add to this list) -- difference with a business and a B&B. 2. American Disability Act -- Modify with ramps; area free bathrooms on the first floor; ways . . . Planning Commis~ion & Land Use Committee Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 Page 9 to get a wheelchair into the bathroom -- mainly destroying the original interior integrity. She indicated this can be controlled with zoning, that a B&B owner does not change walls unless carefully putting in a bathroom, in order to maintain the historical integrity of the house. 3. Requirements -- enforcement in this town is a joke, except for life safety. 4. If you want to do this, why don't you require the house be built after 1950? Thayer said all the public testimony refers to a specific house; what we are dealing with is not a conditional use permit for a specific house. Sokol There is one true thing, there is no such thing is a standard B&B. Every B&B is different; you win never be able to write an ordinance to cover everything. Said he can't see anything other than a Comp Plan change. He said we are going to narrow it, and narrow it, and narrow, and basically what we get down to is a specific place, one non-standard building somewhere in this town. There are B&Bs which are not historic buildings, so you can't limit it to that. Each individual case needs to be determined on its own merit, a specific request, a specific business for a specific type of use, and a specific building and do it under the Comp Plan as a rezone. Peter Badame, citizen What I have seen here tonight is a mockery of the judicial process. This really is a quasi- judicial matter. Why are we trying to place this within the context of a B&B? Why not any other structure within the historic district or residential area? It is quasi-judicial, but you are not admitting to it. A larger issue is looking at the economic reality of Port Townsend, and the changing economic world, of which Port Townsend is a part. This issue really needs to be addressed -- how do you accommodate businesses and economic forces such as what Phyl Speser is proposing? Some of the questions he raises with his proposal are good ones. Perhaps the Comprehensive Plan does need to be changed to address that kind of economic activity. You don't want to discourage that kind of economic activity, but shoehorning it into a B&B as a conditional use, is all too convenient, and not really appropriate as you go through the processing. Bedame said he found it very elucidating what went on here in terms of the dynamics, based on the request of City Council to Staff to come up with a very specific product. Sheri Stewart, as citizen on Economic Development The intent of home businesses and cottage industries was not to have businesses with 12 or more employees. She said there are very few business in the downtown district that have 12 employees. She said, however, it was the intent of the Economic Development subcommittee to make allowances within our community for businesses such as Foresight, and we recognize that . . . Planning Commission & Land Use Committee Joint Meeting September 4, 1997 Page 10 is a very valuable contributor. It is important for Foresight to be considered somewhere. Freeland asked, "Is my next step to bring back an ordinance. Do council members want to sit in on this?" He said they could draft an ordinance within the next week or two and could bring it back to Council. Thayer replied that he asked their input, and said to take the straw vote back to City Council. Keith said he would like to have the whole Council have a look at this. Finnie said four members of the Planning Commission feel this needs to be a revision of the Comp Plan. Keith said they are going to have to go back and say that and ask what do they want to do. Boles suggested City Council look to the intent in the Comp Plan and how specific opportunities such as this can be commercial without opening up a whole new avenue. Boles said he doesn't think Freeland owes an apology; there was concurrence. III. ADJOURN The chair adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. J4t~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker