Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07262001 Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2001 L CALL TO ORDER Chainnan Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. IL ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Jerry Spieckennan, Bernie Arthur, Jim Irvin, and Frank Benskin; Lyn Hersey arrived at 7:02 p.m. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and City Attorney John Watts. Mr. Youse represented the City Council. IlL .ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Spieckennan made a motion to accept the agenda, and Mr. Irvin seconded the motion. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Spieckennan made the motion to approve the minutes of July 12, 2001 as amended, and Mr. Irvin seconded. All were in favor. V. NEW BUSINESS 180 Dav Time Limits on Recreational Vehicles BCD Director Jeff Randall spoke of his memorandum of July 19, 2001 to the Planning Commission regarding this July 26th workshop, referencing and summarizing Exhibit B (Mr. Forrest Rambo's the letter of May 1,2001 to City Council). He pointed out the City Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Mr. Randall referred to definitions in Exhibit A, PTMC Provisions ofRV Parks, noting the definition of "recreational vehicle" says that the only place they are permitted is in recreational vehicle parks and camp grounds, currently only pennitted in the PTMC code in zones designated public infrastructure and public open space. He said there are no public RV parks in any of these zones in Port Townsend. Basically, what Port Townsend has is a couple of nonconforming R V parks ~~ Point Hudson in a marine trades zone, and Sea View Mobile Home Park and RV Park, partly zoned commercial and partly R~IV. He indicated by City code these can continue to exist as long as they are not altered or intensified in use, so they are legal nonconforming uses. At this time City enforcement of the 180~y time limit at Point Hudson as a legal nonconforming use is questionable since it has never been enforced. He pointed out legal parks in town are at Fort Worden, and a small one at the County Fairgrounds. Ms. Hersey questioned RV parking in the American Legion park at the City Limits. Mr. Randall was unaware ofRV parking at that site, but said it would also be some sort of nonconforming use. Mr. Harbison asked if Planning Commission is to make recommendation at this meeting. Mr. Randall replied it would be good if they could come to a recommendation. The Conclusion in Mr. Randall's memorandum states, "Staff recommends that no change be made to the current PTMC provisions that are applicable." Reasons are listed in the memorandum, and he said there are also several code reasons. Mr. Randall indicated that in Mr. Rambo's letter it is alleged there is case law that says you can't do this, but on the contrary the City has not found anything that says cities are not authorized to adopt reasonable time limitations. He explained Staff recommendation includes the caveat that currently there is no potential for new private RV campgrounds because it is limited to being on public lands, and that he would probably recommend that the PTMC be amended to allow RV type parks through a Planned Unit Development process in such places as residential or commercial land, that possibly the City develop some standards for landscaping, site development, etc. He felt right now it might be overly restrictive. Mr. Arthur asked if they just eliminated this ordinance, wouldn't it Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 July 26, 2001 · · · allow for application for those purposes from any direction? Mr. Randall replied that if they eliminated the ordinance ~~ reference to RV's and RV Parks ~~ he did not think they would be able establish any new RV park. He suggested there are many ways it could be done. Mr. Forrest Rambo, Point Hudson Resort, General Manager Mr. Forrest Rambo said this issue came up here before, and that as general manager of Point Hudson Resort he is familiar with RV park operations, etc. He stated concerns with the Port taking back their property next year, resuming operation of it and their desire to comply with the city law particularly in respect to 180~day maximum limit per stay for RV's. His background includes going back to his 1988 involvement with the National Association ofRV Parks and Campgrounds (ARVC) when he helped draft the first national model code for RV parks covering such things as national electric code, national plumbing code, and concerns that most communities had with public health, safety and welfare. ARVC code has been adopted by communities across the nation, and other entities including the U.S. Forest Service which is a member of ARVC; he said he had asked the City Staff to contact the National Association for response on some specific cities and counties that had challenged these length of stay rules, particularly the 180- day rule. City Attorney Watts replied that they had contacted the National Association. Mr. Rambo said in his opinion that is an irrelevant issue. As in other discriminatory issues, because it happens in other communities, he does not want to spend time talking about whether or not they have case law, whether or not the City is authorized to do this kind of thing. He wants to focus on what we want to do here in Port Townsend. He cited the definition for "Recreational Vehicle" from the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) on the top of Page 2 of Mr. Randall's memorandum to the Planning Commission that says, ". . . is a vehicular type unit primarily designed as temporary living quarters for recreational camping. .." He stressed the word "temporary," and pointed out it doesn't say "exclusively," just like if there was a definition in the WAC of a boat or a vessel, it would probably say something similar, ". . . primarily designed as transport, recreational pleasure. . ." or whatever, but it wouldn't say "exclusively." He asserted that is because there are people all over Washington who are living in their boats, and that in fact the Port of Port Townsend supports the idea and the concept of liveaboards not only in their own marina but on State DNR lands, etc. and gives testimony to the State Legislature supporting that concept. He referred to his comments he handed out to Commissioners and said there is a similar definition on Page 2 pointing out it says, ". . . motor homes and boats. .." He stated in the PTMC a boat is defined as a recreational vehicle, that while it is designed primarily as a temporary dwelling, or what have you, it is not exclusively for that use, and it goes a little bit beyond the WAC in its definition. . Mr. Rambo again referenced from Mr. Randal's memorandum, "A second reason to limit length of stay is that campgrounds/parks are often in public ownership. . . keep parks and campgrounds available for as many people as possible. . ." In Mr. Rambo's written comments he quotes Port policy, "The Port is expected to manage the facilities to provide the best services to the greatest public while respecting the property rights of all patrons and the public." He stated there is a scarce public resource which is boat slips and also a scarce public resource which is R V sites. He said in the broadest context what he is basically asking is that they be treated equally. His difficulty with the Port, although it can set its own policies regarding length of stay, is saying the reason they are doing this is because the City has a rule you can only stay 180 days; he wants to get the City out of this, and the Port to take responsibility for its own policy decisions. Mr. Rambo's references from his handout included: Various definitions from the PTMC Definitions from the Port Townsend Boat Haven Rules and Regulations He found it ironic that also tonight the Commission is going to deal with the question of cottages in Port Townsend, and thought one of the elements in cottages is providing affordable housing. . There was no question in his mind that in Port Townsend the idea ofliving on a boat or living in an RV is an affordable issue. He saw some correlation between such things as affordable cottages, density, infill, etc. Definitions from Webster's New World Dictionary RV and Liveaboard situations He said all are congruent (no matter whether a 40' power boat or 40' R V) except for sewage connections. There is currently no individual sewage connection for liveaboard boats in Port Townsend, either in Point Hudson or at Boat Haven. People who are or who have been long~term RV or boat liveaboards, either in the RV park or in the marina. In his mind, if it is not a threat to public health, safety or welfare, the 180~y rule for RV's comes down to the idea that of being -- these are not people we want to have in our community. Whether they are here building a house, or looking at our community as a future place to live, he felt that was wrong. He thought the City should get Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 26, 2001 . . e out of the business of regulating liveaboards, whether they are in the water or in an R V site, particularly if an R V is hooked up to sewage, has electricity, a place to eat, sleep, go to the toilet, cook -~ then we should be out of that business of trying to control those things. Mr. Rambo said he wants some equity in the policy. He requested the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this 180-day rule be struck. Mr. Harbison asked Mr. Rambo if there is a current enforcement issue. Mr. Rambo replied there is not but there could be, and he does not want to be put is the position of being a liveaboard boater and filing a complaint to the City that the Port is not enforcing the 180~day rule. Mr. Rambo cited from his written comments regarding the liveaboard situation at the Boat Haven which is a grandfathered use, that according to Port policies you can liveaboard in the water for 180 days and also get an extension and live on the outlands for more than 180 days. He said to him that constitutes the operation of an R V park. He asked if it was grandfathered when the shipyard and the boat yard were redone, changing the nonconforming use wouldn't they have to reapply -~ Shorelines, SEPA, etc. He was not sure that had been done. He explained there is not an enforcement issue yet, but in advance of the Port taking over Point Hudson and for sake of consistency between boats and RV's and 180 days for our citizens, no matter where they live, he thought it only fair to do it that way. Chair Harbison opened the meeting for public comment and requested each person's comments be limited to 3 minutes. POINT HUDSON RESIDENTS: Mr. Thomas Rybarski, Point Hudson, #338 Mr. Rybarski said he had lived in RV's for probably 20 years -~ lived on boats. He thinks the Port is missing what an RV'er looks for when he is traveling ~~ #1 water. He suggested that water view is going to be replaced with parking, that they are talking about putting spaces in the back lots by the blackberry bushes. RV'ers come from all over and are looking for water, and he asked how are they going to make money there. He šaid he has been living there for 6 years and has been paying his rent every month ($lOO,OOO/year from the permanent people, which is money in the bank). He said they are satisfied in getting a space in the back by the blackberry bushes, but let them stay longer than 180 days; if they are allowed to stay in the wintertime more than 180 days, why not the summertime? He said they are not taking away from people who come for overnight. There is a lot of room for people -- there is an onflow of people in the summer and they want to go by the water, which he said is fine, but the people who are paying rent are the "permies," not permanent per se because they come and go. He said all they are asking is that they be given a chance to stay. PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND: Mr. 1ill!Y Crockett, General Manager, Port of Port Townsend Mr. Rambo was right when he said the Port has every right to create the policies they want to enact at Point Hudson. That is what they have done; that is what they are doing, and that is all anybody really needs to worry about. They have repeatedly said what they are going to do with RV's including a recent public forum showing maps and pictures. Mr. Crockett quoted from his May 30, 2001 letter to City Manager Timmons: "On March 28,2001, the Port Commission, in open session, passed a motion stating: '...that the RV sites at Point Hudson be used only by the Port of Port Townsend tenants for recreational and non~permanent residential use and that they will not be occupied by a person(s) as a primary residence. Tenants must agree to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statues, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to RV's.'" He further quoted, "It is our intent to establish a specific R V policy with rules governing the length of stay at Point Hudson. We are gathering information from other R V parks in the area to get an idea of how other facilities handle RV's. The length of stay may be different but certainly we will not allow the extended stays we see now at Point Hudson. If any extensions are allowed, they will be on a case-by~case basis with General Manager, written approval required. If an extension is granted, it will be for a specific time frame and not indefinite." (Mr. Crockett said he has the 1970 aerial photograph of Point Hudson and he can show an RV that is still there in the same place.) "No matter what the Municipal Code states, as to the length of stay for RV's, the Port will establish a separate policy that will be of a true transient nature with normal stays far less than 180 days. I do not see the 180~y limit currently found in the Municipal Code as having any impact on what our policy will be." Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 26, 2001 · · · Mr. Crockett reaffirmed it will be a transient facility; they will have RV's. Their intent, as repeatedly discussed at open meetings and forums, is not to violate any codes, laws or regulations and certainly not to exceed the 60 currently grandfathered nonconforming spaces. He said the 180 days means nothing to him as a Port Manager nor to the Port Commissioners, and the one present can speak for hímself. He said it is their policy and they are responsible for it, and they are going to enact it. He also said he felt it was a stretch to compare liveaboards on boats to RV's, and suggested they try to keep in mind if they supported liveaboards it was in the marinas, not out on DNR land. He said they own their tide lands. They also have Port Management agreements with DNR, with the State. They have about 30 liveaboards at the Boat Haven. Their intent at Point Hudson is to treat the moorage as transient, and the RV's as transient; there will be no difference The Port has 20 acres at Kah Tai zoned open space and parks, and in the City code RV's are authorized under that zoning. He suggested maybe they can address longer stays for RV's at Kah Tai, if the City will let them have a couple hundred RV's there, but he did not know if they wanted that either. Point Hudson will be the same for either a boat or an RV. Mr. Arthur asked Mr. Crockett if he could see any advantage of this ordinance being on the books. Mr. Crockett could in the definitions and some other things but wanted some flexibility, maybe in the wintertime when it is low usage to allow such things as a couple months stay, or winter over for 3-4 moths. Mr. Crockett said it was really a City question, 180 days. Mr. Arthur countered that it is two government agencies using the same policy and asked ifthe Port needs it or not. Mr. Crockett replied the Port does not need it, they would establish their own policy. Mr. Harbison asked the status of that policy. Mr. Crockett spoke of several different policies they have gathered from other RV parks, and reported that at the August 8th public workshop at the Yacht Club starting at noon, one of several topics they will be discussing with the Port Commissioners will be operational matters at Point Hudson. He said it would probably be later this fall before policy is written. Mr. Rambo clarified the assertion Mr. Crockett made that he did now know where he got his idea, that at the meeting March 8th it was stated they would abide by all laws ~- federal, state, local, city. One of the laws we have on our books is the 180~y rule. Mr. Crockett replied, as was stated in their May 30th letter, they are not going to exceed the 180-day rule, but he said that is not the reason for the policy. Mr. Bob Sokol, Port Commissioner Mr. Crockett already addressed most things they had already done. Regarding the habitability of an R V ~- he had no doubt you can live in an RV for a long, long time and said he would like to take off for a couple of years and live in one, far more than 180 days. That is not an issue, but he did see two issues: What the City code right now addresses is geography ~~ how long that unit can sit in one particular place. As previously stated, the Port Commission determined they wanted to make this available to the largest number of people possible. He said to do that you need to have a transient marina and a transient R V park. The same decision was made to the marina there, that it would remain a transient marina. Regarding the possibility of wintering over, if you start October ~ March, you are at about 182 days. He said they are looking at making it a totally transient marina. He did not think this is necessarily the place to get into Port polices, except that it relates to what we are looking at, something like Fort Worden's 30 day stay in any 3-month period. There other places you can have 30 days, but no more than 10 consecutive -~ all kinds of combinations. He suggested if there is a hang up with the ordinance as it stands now, boats could be deleted from the definition ~~ from a recreational vehicle; that would separate out a marina from the an RV park. The thing that is missing on Page 5 under motor home is the ability to go outside the arena and go across to Whidbey Island and on the boat home side is the ability to come out of the boat haven or the marina and drive down Highway 20 to wherever. RV's, motor homes, tents and trailers are separate classes of recreational vehicles, so if boats are separated from the ordinance that would probably satisfy some of those concerns. Mr. Rambo clarified that at the bottom of Page 2 of his comments, it says Recreational Vehicle Park Public. The second line says temporary parking in placement of a recreational vehicle on a single site. He said he has been in the business for over 20 years, and what happens when you have rules like this, people will play musical sites -- go from one site for 180 days to another site for another 180 days. That is how RV Park operators get around it. That's how operators of municipal R V Parks get around their own rule. He said he does not want to do that to people. If they are going to want to be there, they shouldn't have to play hopscotch on their sites. He reiterated he wanted to clarify that it says "single site;" it doesn't say "within an RV Park." Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 26, 200 I · · · POINT HUDSON RESIDENTS: Mr. Vernon Cole, Point Hudson, #350 As a citizen, he has been coming to Port Townsend since 1940 taking pilots on to Port Angeles, and he had said when he retired this is where he was going to drop his anchor. He stressed that this was a lovely place, but since the last 4 or 5 years or more he has seen the evolution of this beautiful little town, people wanting to come here because it is beautiful, turning into a Laguna Beach. He decried what people were doing, he did not know if it was realtors or politicians, and the destruction of people who bulldoze the land. He spoke of rules and regulations that are not being held up to, and that they are doing the same thing here. He said you've changed the Port, you've improved the Port for $8 million and asked what we have over there; he sees nothing better there, just worse. (Mr. Crockett responded regarding the number of people who are now working there.) C. Planning Commission Discussion Affordable Housin~ Ms. Hersey lived in the trailer park at Sea Breeze for 9 months when she first came to town. If this ordinance had been in place she could not have stayed there. She would like to see it changed for this and any others that might come along. This is affordable housing. 180~dav Rule Mr. Irvin was confused regarding Messrs. Rambo and Crockett both saying the 180-day rule doesn't affect the policy they are going to make or how it's going to be enforced, and yet Mr. Randall is saying the City Council is asking the Commission to recommend the ordinance be left the way it is or to change it. Mr. Randall replied that Mr. Rambo's first request was for the City to repeal the 180-day time limit. Mr. Irvin, and have no time limit? Mr. Randall concurred. Mr. Irvin asked if it is strictly going to be a policy matter that the Port will decide, is the Commission being asked to set up the City and the Port in a conflicting policy debate? Mr. Spieckerman: It is not just the Port we are looking at. Boats vs. R V's Mr. Spieckennan to Mr. Crockett: Maybe there is a legal aspect to this; there appears to be conflict between the definition of a boat and an RV, would you agree with Mr Rambo's definition? Mr. Crockett: Looking at the City Municipal code, they do have "boat" in their definition. The Fort, and we define RV's in our policy purely as a motorized land vehicle (with wheels) as a separate entity. We operate under RCW. Although affordable is a noble goal, that is the mission of cities and counties, not Port Districts; we can only do recreational vehicles and facilities when it comes to these sorts of activities. You are right, you are looking at the entire city not just Point Hudson when you enact ordinances. I would hope you wouldn't try to change it so that it's so restrictive you can't allow somebody to come in for 30 days or grant an extra 30 days, etc. Certainly we want something recreational, transient~type facilities only on our property. Mr. Spieckennan to City Attorney Watts: Do you see any conflict that Mr. Rambo has brought up where boats are being allowed to stay indefinitely under the ordinance? How are we dealing with that? Mr. Watts: What needs to be kept in mind here is the City ordinances are not being enforced at Point Hudson because there is a grandfather situation, and likewise it is not being applied to Sea Breeze. That is why people have apparently lived at Point Hudson for years. We cannot enforce a length of stay because of a grandfather situation. It is a hypothetical that does not apply. The is a starting point, because this is all theoretical discussion, because the City's codes are not applicable to a grandfathered, nonconforming situation. Mr. Spieckennan: Basically, are you saying we have something on the books that is rather meaningless because it is not enforceable at the two locations where there are RV's (if defined wheeled RV's) and not enforceable at the Boat Have because it is grandfathered out? (Discussion ~~ County Fair Grounds has RV parking, and State Parks.) So those are not grandfathered. Grandfathering Mr. Benskin: Considering the grandfathered use that is not enforceable, or they are talking about doing, is it correct with the change of usage at Point Hudson, the grandfather status no longer applies? Mr. Randall: The Port is talking about modifying the locations of the RV's, creating a different RV layout. If they did that, they would need to get pennits (we have let them know). The one exception, the zoning code says RV parks must be in public zones; however, our Shoreline Master Program says that overnight recreational facilities Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 26,2001 · · · including campgrounds are a pennitted use in the Urban Waterfront District, which includes Point Hudson. The Port can establish a legal R V park in Point Hudson subject to getting a substantial development permit through the Shorelines Program. The question would be, would the 180-day timeline apply to that use. He did not believe the Shorelines Program has it, but thought if it says overnight recreational stay and our zoning code says campgrounds should be limited to 180 days, there should be some strong argument there should be time limit, this shouldn't be permanent housing. Mr. Watts: Thought there was a strong argument that the City code would apply to a legal confonning use; should the Port change its location of R V's, or its rules on length of stay ~~ say the Port adopts a policy on length of stay, in effect for 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, that would be an abandonment of the long term pre~existing grandfathered use and the Port would not be able to go back in that situation. Mr. Spieckerman: If the Port is going to be grandfatheredout under the current conditions, why are we even talking about this? Mr. Arthur: There is a group of people being affected by this. They have talked to the Port, evidently, and from what we have heard, they didn't get satisfactory results. Then it's been brought up here because the City has an ordinance. Mr. Spieckennan. The point is the Port has been grandfathered out unless they make substantial change. Mr. Arthur: He felt it should be a Port issue. Mr. Watts: The City is not using the policy. The City is really out of it already. The ordinance really doesn't apply to a grandfathered situation. Mr. Arthur: We're talking about it because it's a rule. Mr. Benskin: We should grant Mr. Rambo's request and void the rule. They can pursue it with the Port. It seems like we are chasing our tail here a little bit. Mr. Randall thought the reason they shouldn't eliminate it is because the Port and Sea Breeze are not the only properties potentially affected, although not right now affected because they are legal nonconfonning. The larger question is if we have other campgrounds or RV parks in the City, should people be able to permanently stay for longer than 180-day period, be allowed to site an RV or some type of recreational vehicle there. As the Building Official, he feels rather strongly that they should not. He cited some of his experiences from eastern Washington and the issues of fire, safety and energy. Mr. Rambo was right that the State hasn't regulated length of stay, they have said RV's shall not be in one spot for more than a period of time, is primarily for temporary use; they have left it for local governments, the folks that have to deal with campgrounds as neighbors, etc. In some cities, you can get a water and sewer hookup and have an RV in a residential neighborhood next to somebody's house. That's an option too. He felt, however, that campgrounds should have transient use, a limited length of time. Mr. Spieckennan: Do any of our ordinances limit pennanent structures in any way, like a deck next to an RV? Mr. Randall: The code would be unclear, but his interpretation would be that it shouldn't happen. Ms. Hersey: Labor and Industry code's already set for state that you are not supposed to, whether it's pennanent or living at Cape George Village, you are not supposed to attach anything to your trailers. Those codes are already in place. Mr. Spieckennan: You could have it.5" away. Mr. Randall: Sees the problem that people tend to build these things, and tend not to ask permission. It becomes an enforcement problem. Mr. Spieckennan: I personally see the need for such an ordinance. For instance at the fairgrounds, as a citizen of Port Townsend I am not terribly excited in that turning into a Sea Breeze. Ms. Hersey: When I left Sea Breeze, I moved to the fairgrounds, and lived out there for probably 6~8 months. I got special permission from the gentleman who ran it, and there maybe were two other people he allowed to be out there. A couple of issues, when we look at 180 days, what about people who are camp hosts; do you have to get rid of them after 6 months and bring in another camp host to finish out the season? The fairgrounds ~~ if they want to allow people to stay there on a regular basis, they couldn't after 180 days. Anybody coming in and building a new campground, especially if it is a private R V park, going to make a living by putting in an R V park and we limit it to 6 months, what are they going to do in the winter to try to make money? Mr. Spieckerman & Mr. Randall: This ordinance currently refers to public property. Ms. Hersey: This would be a first step, then if we go to the second step of allowing that, we would have to come back again and possibly readdress it. The second thing is, we also have people who live in RVs on private property in the city. The theory, it is not allowed but it goes on all the time, do we have the law in place that we can kick them out? Mr. Spieckerman: This is public property only. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 26, 200 I · · · Mr. Harbison: The recommendation the City Council is asking us for affects only PTMC 17.08.060, which is the 180 days on public property. Mr. Rambo: Mr. Arthur's question is right on the mark. The reason we are dealing with is because it affects the lives of citizens in this community. There are 24 RV's at Point Hudson right now that are occupied long term by people who are contributing members of our community. The City, Council, Planning Commission, Staff is here to serve the citizenry. We can't just say those folks don't matter, so we are going to do this, or ignore it. One of the reasons he brought it up is because at a City Council Meeting they were saying, in April the Port is going to take the property over so they shouldn't get involved in it anyway. The property at Kah Tai could be available for an RV park, but what if the Port wanted to sell that to a private developer who wants to put in an R V park, or if the Port gets the permits and sells it to somebody to operate it, what are we going to do then? He sees the task of the Planning Comnîission addressing this issue as going beyond just the next 6 months with the Port issue and looking at the broader issue of how are we dealing with RV's in the community, where they're sited and how long they can stay. He cited the enforcement issues in Eastern Washington and said if we are not going to enforce laws, why have them in the first place. The function of government is to not create laws that restrict what people can do, but to protect the rights of the people. What he thought what they were saying is they are taking away the rights of people just because they live on Port property; he did not think that was right. He thinks we need to prepare for the Port takeover of Point Hudson and have some long tenn RV policy in place for private entrepreneurs in establishing new RV parks. Mr. Harbison: Thinks that has been peripherally addressed. He spoke of the issue of affordable housing as well as people who occasionally migrate but stay in one place over a period of time, and he did not see that these two things are incompatible. He sees this addressing geography, that it's a public property question, it is keeping the public property available in a more consistent way to the public. He thinks they all feel there is work to do identifying what can be done in terms of long term stays. In tenns of what tllÌs does, it does offer what seems to be appropriate protection at this time. Mr. Rambo: Protection against what? Mr. Harbison: Said that perhaps protection was the wrong word. It does allow a more appropriate access for the public to public property; he saw that is the intent of this code. Mr. Rambo: If you do that, then you have to apply the same logic to a boat slip; a boat slip is also a public resource. Mr. Arthur: Spent many years in the Port District. Thought there were a couple of things that go on that are pretty high standards and perhaps not really "Port Townsendish": at Point Hudson, there have been pennanent residences for many years in some fonn of mobile vehicle, a living accommodation. He did not know over the years that has affected the influx of RVs, and the influx of people who came for a day or two or weekend. Fort Worden ~- the fairgrounds, the same way. Seemingly opportunities, he did not think hurt the community, or all tax payers of Jefferson County - it fills a need. He asked if we are doing something here that is unnecessary just to exert power over people? Or can we say there is flexibility in this community for all kinds of people to be here and to succeed. He feels he wanted to agree with refining this code over a period of time, so it allows for other opportunities for long tenn residential uses of smaller vehicles (such as fire safety, policeablility, etc.) but does not like being in the middle of an argument between people who are presently living at the Port and Port policies. He knows there is plenty of room down there, if it was properly used for RV's and transients and long term people. It's a good place, a wonderful place. When they put liveaboards down on the docks at the Port, the reason was to cut down vandalism. Those people watch for things that were happening on the docks. He said he thought they should eliminate the 180 days. MOTION: Mr. Arthur Recommend the City Council remove the 180~day limit on public property recreational parks. SECOND: Ms. Hersey Discussion: Mr. Irvin suggested this might be opening Pandora's box and does not think they should be in between an elapsing lease which is going to bring in some new policy and perhaps get into an enforcement issue. To fix something we are not sure we are trying to fix by eliminating or adding selectively without going through a more protracted look at all of the phases, we are rushing to do something that might not serve a purpose. Mr. Spieckennan agreed. Whether 180 days is reasonable or not for a particular piece of public property, this is not something they should negotiate here. If the fairground, the Port or Fort Worden wanted to allow for extended stays, it should be a conditional use. The Port should apply, or the fairgrounds; say we have the ordinance here and they have people who want an extended stay. Make the onus on their shoulders to request this be done. We should Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 26, 2001 · · · take a more serious look at this, not just say we should eliminate that. If the Port wants to come forward and say we are going to set aside this particular section for extended stay without limits, he did not have any reason the City should forbid that. Mr. Benskin: Mr. Crockett stated that is not going to happen. Mr. Crockett inteljected, not necessarily, that changes with Port Commissioners. Mr. Spieckennan: We are talking about two different things here. We are talking about the ordinance, and we shouldn't confuse that with Port policy. Port policy is their business; the ordinance is our business. He asked City Attorney Watts if he was right. Mr. Watts replied that was fair. Mr. Spieckerman: Said they should not merge the two. If the Port said they would like to have permanent residents set aside in this particular part of the park, on their property, then the City should consider that. He would personally have no problem with saying go ahead and do that, but was unsure how to approach it ~~ eliminate it or not. Mr. Benskin: We are talking about two separate issues ~~ Mr. Rambo's issue of eliminating the 180-day policy not enforceable at this point in certain locations that are grandfathered out, but we are talking about one of them tonight. To eliminate something that doesn't work, replacing it with something that does work, seems logical. If we are going to regulate mobile home parks, we might need to study it and come up with something that works for the whole community. Keeping something on the books that doesn't work at this point, seems to be a moot point. He said he thinks they should recommend it be struck and also recommend that there be some workshops and provide some input as to the ordinance. Mr. Harbison asked Mr. Benskin if he could clarify what he feels does not work. Mr. Benskin replied the point that it's not enforceable. Mr. Harbison: Clarified it's enforceable in other locations; it's not enforceable in the two locations that are grandfathered. Mr. Benskin: Suggested to replace it with something that is enforceable in all locations. Mr. Spieckennan felt that rather than striking this particular clause, they should revisit the ordinance as a whole and see whether or not it is appropriate to change. Ms. Hersey: Has always had a feeling that government never gets rid of laws, just adds layers to mistakes, or whatever came before it. Would like to see government move to a point that maybe they start from the beginning. So, maybe this is a good step; let's get rid of it, and at some point, when it is a necessity to have a law that restricts, come back and address it. We put laws on the books and ordinances that are never enforced, then replace them with more. Would like eliminated; when we need, go back to it and let's address tllis law. Mr. Spieckennan disagreed with that on the basis, when you see the problem you end up with the same situation, as they are seeing now ending up with having it grandfathered out. Then it's too late to address the problem. Ms. Hersey: It wouldn't matter anyway; the Port is going to have their own set of rules. Mr. Spieckennah was trying to separate Port policies from the ordinance that covers the rest of the city. He thinks they have to do that; they are not addressing the Port's policies here, they are addressing the laws of the City of Port Townsend. If they wait until there is a problem and then address it, you end up with the same situation that they are not enforceable. Ms. Hersey said she disagreed completely. When you have a problem is when you make a law that can resolve the problem. If you don't have a problem, why make a law? Mr. Irvin: That ordinance is on the books for a reason, and did not think they should strike down something without replacing it with something else. That's not an improvement. To take it away might be worse than deleting it, and he thought they should put it back in a knowledgeable fashion so they do address the entire spectrum they have been talking about. Ms. Hersey again said she did not think they need it at all. Irvin said he understood, but he felt they did. Mr. Arthur asked when the ordinance was written; that might tell why it was done. Mr. Rambo repli~d it was about the time Point Hudson Company applied for a permit to expand the RV park to the back field -- right around that time. Mr. Arthur said he agreed with a lot of what was being said, that in his experience of doing business, it's very difficult with every jurisdiction (when you go to the Port and you have to deal with Shorelines, city, county, state, federal, long shore, etc.) and has always said is not this agency with the elected officials the responsible party. There are three elected officials that run the Port with the assistance of all their staff, and now we are making rules that apply to the Port who is making rules that apply to the same piece of ground and the same residents and these same people. They have to go to all these meetings to protect their own interests or to vocalize their need for this Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 26, 200 I · · · particular ground to live on that they have selected over the years ~~ you can call it grandfathered, or anything you want. It just isn't right to take all these people and eventually wear them out with meetings and with rules and regulations. They should have one rule and one regulation and one responsible agency to deal with. We have here a result of that kind of legislation. Maybe it needs to apply to the fairgrounds or some other place that everybody is concerned about, but in reality, as he remembers it, the ordinance is rather intended to specifically affect that piece of property. When those people talked about this at the meetings, it wasn't about any other place; this is a direct result of Point Hudson Company applying to move and to expand the park. He said he didn't agree with it. He asked regarding an alternative motion, you could just say you want to leave it the way it is. Mr. Spieckerman suggested to amend the motion saying they revisit the 180~day rule along with something along that line. Mr. Arthur asked about making an amendment that said they recommend that the 180~day time limit be suspended and they further review the issue based on the whole community. Mr. Harbison pointed out they are making a recommendation and the amendment is starting to be a little contradictory to the motion. Mr. Arthur called for the question. VOTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO A TIE; those opposed were Messrs. Spieckerman, Irvin, and Harbison Following discussion the following motion was made: MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Recommend City Council review the 180~rule with consideration of removing it and other issues relevant to RV and other mobile parks MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Mr. Randall pointed out that right now R V parks are only on public property; what happens if an applicant says they know Point Hudson may be changing, there may be a need for additional R V spaces and they would like to build one some place. BCD would have to say they are sorry, but they can't unless they rezone some property public and do it on public land. It is an awkward zoning issue now. He thinks it is an issue that the City is basically zoned out to RV'ers. CONSENSUS: The Planning Commission could not reach a consensus regarding the ruling. Mr. Randall stated he would provide City Council with the minutes, and would report that based on the infonnation they have on the current status of R V parks and the situation at Point Hudson, the Planning Commission was split on the 180-day time limit. There was further discussion on broader city policies on RV parks and interest in looking at those issues. VL UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cotta2e Home Ordinance (continuation from previous workshop) BCD Director Jeff Randall made his presentation stating that the SEP A is now complete. One letter was received from Mr. Richard Berg, Exhibit D. He said they can now proceed with public hearing. Discussion followed regarding the constraints of the ordinance and the concept of cottage housing. It was again noted it is not meant to be affordable housing, but smaller houses on less land and co-housing with shared land. The development by Townsend Bay Builders west of Kah Tai was also discussed. Ms Hersey brought up the issue of using percentages in relation to lot coverage. Comment from the public included Mr. Duke Rhodes who asked regarding placement of cottage housing in the R-III zone. He cited what he considered a great cottage development built in Seattle in the 1920's at Pine and 22nd Streets. He stated they are very dense, very nice and mature. He suggested being able to use a mix of development to accommodate such things as slopes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 26, 200 I · · · Mr. Richard Berg explained comments from his letter in regard to SEP A. He discussed such things as flexibility in cottage sizes to adjust to lot shapes, setbacks, roof pitch. He asked that they eliminate language regarding square footage. There was further discussion regarding flexibility and how to incorporate these suggestions. VIL UPCOMING MEETINGS August 9,2001 - Comprehensive Plan, ADUs. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS ~~ There was none. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Arthur and seconded by Mr. Benskin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ~{4~ð Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 26, 200 I