Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08302001 Min Ag . . 'e CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 6:00 pm (Please note change in time) August 30,2001 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: August 9,2001 V. New Business Open Record Public Hearings 1. Proposed Amendments to PTMC Title 17, Personal Wireless Service Facilities A. BCD Staff Presentation B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action 2. Proposed Amendments to PTMC Title 17, Home Occupations A. BCD Staff Presentation B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action 3. Proposed Amendments to PTMC Title 19, SEPA A. BCD Staff Presentation B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VII. Upcoming Meeting: September 13,2001 Workshop on Comprehensive Plan Amendments: #4, Remove FUGA Language #5, Review & Amend FUGA Language VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 30,2001 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Jim Irvin, Frank Benskin and Lyn Hersey. Bernie Arthur was excused; Jerry Spieckerman arrived at 7:49 p.m. Also present were BCD staff members Jeff Randall, John McDonagh and Jean Walat. GeoffMasci attended and spoke as a private citizen. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Benskin made a motion to accept the agenda as amended; Mr Irvin seconded the motion. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Irvin made the motion to approve the minutes of August 9,2001 as amended and Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was no unfinished business. VI. NEW BUSINESS - Open Record Public Hearings PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PTMC TITLE 1.1 PERSONAL WIRELESS FACILITIES. CHAPTER 17.08 (DEFINITIONS) AND CHAPTER 17.78 (WIRELESS FACILITIES) Mr. Jolm McDonagh made the staff presentation explaining the issues and draft amendments to the two chapters presented in his August 23rd Staff Report to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that wireless facilities are changing very fast, and that BCD was requested by local providers to accommodate those changes. Mr. Randall noted these amendments will carve a narrow niche for the small wireless facilities. Mr. McDonagh indicated the SEP A review was done at the same time as the Home Occupations amendments and there were no comments from the general public. The question was raised how this holds up in places that have CC&Rs. Mr. Randall answered that it doesn't affect them. He said the city does not enforce CC&Rs; that would be the property owner's responsibility. Chair Harbison opened the public hearing. There was no one commenting either in favor or against the proposed amendment. . COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Benskin asked how long this action would apply. Mr. Randall replied that it would probably be no less than 6 months. Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 August 30,2001 · · · MOTION Mr. BenskinForward to City Council the amendments proposed by this draft to PTMC Chapters 17.08 (Definitions) and Chapter 17.78 (Wireless Facilities). SECOND VOTE Ms. Hersey PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5 in favor PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PTMC TITLE 1.1 HOME OCCUPATIONS; CHAPTERS 17.56 (HOME OCCUPATIONS); 17.76.040.A.3 (SIGNS) AND 20.01 (LAND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Ms. Jean Walat made the Staff Presentation stating these proposed amendments were being brought forward to address Comprehensive Plan policies regarding commercial activities in or near residential zones and in response to direction by Mayor Masci. She said in looking at the Comp Plan and how home occupations were visualized as fitting in within the city she identified common goals and that there should be a distinction between residential and commercial, but also that more opportunity should be provided for home occupation. She referenced Exhibit D of her Staff Report, noting the chart compared home occupation ordinances from other state and national jurisdictions. There were two letters of response to the SEP A notification in February, Exhibit B. Ms. Walat pointed out major changes that resulted from feedback of the first draft of the proposed code amendments discussed at the April 26, 200 I Planning Commission workshop: Maior Home Occupations: added as a new level and handled as Type III permit which would go before the hearings examiner and require a conditional use permit. Size of business allowed/relationship to size of residence: major home occupation -- will not specify how large the business may be. Will depend on the zoning and building code's provisions for such things as how much ofthe lot will be covered, setbacks, etc. Must the business owner Q! !!! emplovee live ill! the premises? No change (both minor and major). Could conflict with Policy 7.14 that states there should be distinction between residential and commercial districts. "Home" is seemingly part of the definition of home occupation. Residential character of the buildin2:: Clarification -- "Exterior modifications must be residential in appearance. " Number of non-resident emplovees allowed: changed from "3 non-resident employees" to "3 full- time equivaleni (FTE) employees to regulate total hours rather than number of employees. (Jefferson County allows 4 non-resident employees.) Proposed Major could indicate specific number, or decision by the hearings examiner with input from the neighborhood. Traffic issues/Number of permitted vehicle tri )s/dav: Minor -- changed from 5 to 8 reflecting 1 customer/client visit per hour per day. Major -- Option 1) 12 visits/day; Option 2) prohibits "traffic incompatible with the neighborhood." Mr. Benskin: Asked if you have a problem do you stop the person's business, address the problem and resolution and continue? Ms. Walat: Felt thatìs~e difficulty with having a standard, "incompatible with the neighborhood." She felt cuttingit back could also be difficult; that is one advantage but does offer more flexibility. The difficulty with establislúng a specific number is that it is objective and someone has to be counting it; it is not generally the way the City operates. Mr. Randall: Another reason for suggesting a non-number -- there are so many different situations, i.e. increased traffic at a home occupation on Lawrence Street might be fine, but not one of the gravel roads. Suggested regulation by reasonableness at time of application and some sort of annual license where you can review and modify it if the original permit becomes excessive based on complaints. Ms. Walat: Puts more of a burden on the neighborhood, both before and after the permit is issued. Mr. Benskin: Asked if there would be a notice to the neighborhood before the permit is issued? Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 30,2001 · Ms. Walat: Replied it would -- a Type III would have a notice to the neighbors as well as a public hearing before the hearing examiner. Mr. Randall: Type! -- like we have now. No notice, just document the business. · Where in the City home occupations mav be located: Major -- changed to say anywhere, but reviewed for potential traffic impact at CUP review by hearing examiner. Hearing examiner to determine cumulative impacts (Exhibit E). Parking; number of employees; number of trips are all related. Parkin2: Eliminates limitation of "one employee parked on-street," but CUP could require off-street parking. Mr. Irvin: Who is the decision maker? Ms. Walat: Major -- hearing examiner. Minor -- BCD Director. Off-street parking could be required for either major or minor. Prohibited activities: No major changes. Eliminated prohibition of storage of more than one inoperable vehicle. Comme.·cial visits: Requirements loosened to allow average of2 visits per day and exempted U.S. Postal Service. Sina2e: Requirements loosened based on surrounding home businesses and bed & breakfasts. May want to confonn to a provision in the Sign Code that allows up to 24 sffor a conditionally allowed use in a residential zone. Ms. Walat: If you allow a 6 x 4 sign, it is a pretty big sign. Mr. Randall: A COUlIllercial monument sign on Sims Way for a single business can't exceed 12 feet. Noise. vibration. etc.: Added "natural or mechanical." City does not have a noise ordinance; Washington State has a limit on noise emitted at the property line. (Exhibit F) Mr. Randall stated the draft ordinance as discussed has been provided, but that he talked with Mayor Masci today and he suggested some other slight modifications. Mr. Randall hoped what the Commission would to do tonight is to discuss the issues raised by Ms. Walat or any others they see, and come to agreement on the issues and the process. He felt there were so many issues they had to come to consensus on before word smithing. Chair Harbison opened the public hearing and called on Mr. Masci to give testimony. Those speaking: · Mr. Geoff Masci, Private Citizen. He pointed out that the Planning Commission is the agency that can craft this and help our community. He urged them to allow themselves a paradigm shift of monumental proportions; basically reject the ordinance as it stands; craft a new one with the help of possibly a citizen work group, members of your own Commission and Staff; and rephrase it in the context that it requires a business license, not a ConditionalUsePermit (CUP). He said specifically that to allow tlús to continue, this home occupation ordinance will always be tied to a CUP which means it goes as a profit; which means it is an unnecessary burden to the title of profiting, if it would be sold to someone that didn't want to do it and still be there. It would also be opening the door to questioning grandfathering. Mr. Masci said we are in an economically depressed area, that all of us have given lip service to economic development and economic opportunity. By creating further economic barriers to economic expansion, however small, we are creating an hostile environment to business and a soft business, the very type of business we are trying to attract. Home occupations are traditionally very small businesses, and by creating burdensome legislation, we are legislating against the successful survival of those businesses Planning Çommission Minutes Page 3 August 30,2001 · · · which means they won't expand. They won't hire new people. We have created barriers to their hiring, and by their nature they stay in a gray marginal economic zone; they will not earn $250,000 to $300,000. By keeping this a CUP process, you are depriving the city of much needed B&O revenues, also current revenues that could accrue from legislativeness to a business license mechanism. He believes it should stay under the purview of Building and Community Development Department (BCD) and not go under Finance, where business is now. It would be a very simple thing to administer. He said the last he spoke to the Commission he discussed creating an application process. A person would apply, state their business, and upon completion of whatever criteria are in the ordinance they are informed of, they would work with one of the planners and be granted a conditional business license say over a period of over 3 years; then you would be able to track that business for complaints or injurious activities in the neighborhood. Each year you would have opportunity to renew it; they will be paying renewal fees each time, and you be able to control impact of the business on the neighborhood, if you found it was getting out of line. You could write in a caveat that after they receive their permanent license, that at the end of the 3 years you could intervene if their thresholds were achieved. He indicated this would allow more vitality, but would also tend to protect the neighborhood character, the peace and comfort of people within the area. Mr. Masci asserted that by treating it as proposed, you are creating a discriminatory tiered system where home occupations have more onerous burdens to meet than bed and breakfasts which are also within residential neighborhoods and can be higher traffic business. He said having lived in them, though not now, he feels he is a good advocate of this because be has experienced the whole gamut of how this system operates, to the very restricted and also the impact that other businesses surrounding himself created. He noted they are not as much problem as people maintain. There are places where home businesses are not appropriate, e.g. Spruce Street between Center and Redwood; you wouldn't put a home business there because no one would find it, and also have a gravel road. By making it a business license you could mitigate the issuance based on conditions of the license you imposed at the time it was granted with a site visit. A person would have to submit a proposal and they would be held to the standard they established themselves. It would be a cooperative working relationship rather than viewed as a punitive regulatory environment. He said Ms. Walat worked on this and came up with some incredibly great ideas and he saluted the Staff for its involvement. He indicated he had not just recently become involved in this issue, but has been working on it for approximately 26 years. When he was elected, it was put on directive but somehow disappeared in the records. It is something they are just getting into now; it is not something that was born out of a bright idea he had a year ago. Mr. Masci referred to the comparison chart, Exhibit D in Ms. Walat's Staff Report, and said it is a wonderful idea but points out something that is very pertinent. Other than Jefferson County itself, none of the other cities are comparable to Port Townsend. They are all located in affiuent areas contiguous to high trained, high industrial areas and consequently do not compare to what the State declares a depressed rural economy. He noted we are facing a shutdown of 110 jobs at the mill potentially within the next 12 months; some of the people may wind up needing a home occupation. If we are faced with a 400 person layoff, 400 jobs lost, home occupations may be a safety net that provides some people with the ability to make a living. His data was taken on the issue of Jefferson County and Port Townsend non-resident employees was taken from the comparison chart. He pointed out there are some excellent points in Ms. Walat's report. He made comment on the following: Maior and minor is a good step of trying to classifÿ, but if you go to a business concept, create the business license paradigm, you don't need the major and minor classifications. They are all the same, so it's simple to administer. Size of business allowed in relationship -- it will be dependent upon the architecture of the structure being proposed rather than specific square footage. He cited his own home business and said he started in about 260 square feet; it grew through the bottom floor of his business until it was 1356 square feet. The way his architecture was, he had a 900 square foot apartment on top where he lived, and when his daughter left for college his business expanded into her apartment in tile back. He took over the whole floor; it was still too small for his business. Also, at that time, he had about 3.5 FTEs because the nature of the work. Off street parkin¡?;. If his house were to have been used to the maximum because of its zone (R-II at the time), he would have been allowed nine onstreet parking spaces. With all of his staff, all of his vehicles, himself, all of his patients coming, they never exceeded six to seven in any given hour. After Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 30, 2001 hours there was no impact, whatsoever. He spoke of the size relationship relative to the architecture. He feels they need to discuss these things, because if they do switch to a business license paradigm, Staff needs criteria to do mitigations in order to issue those licenses. Business owner living on the premises. He said that is a very good idea; however, unrealistic if you start on a shoe string, a person starting out, a person on the other side of the bell curve, retiring and moving. You may inadvertently be like Colonel Saunders, become very popular and hit upon an idea that is successful. He suggested allowing something like an initial residential requirement for 2 years, or a person must reside in the house 3 out of 5 years of the initial application period. He cited examples of people starting a business, an architect, a doctor, or lawyer. The business takes off, then they want to move away from the business because living by the business is troublesome, but that has become the identified place of business, not as a commercial intrusion, but as a home occupation. He said if you buy a house on Hastings, move there and commute into your business, that's great because you are paying two property taxes, are still paying a business license fee on the business, and the business license permitting procedures have guaranteed that your impacts are not adverse to the region. You have already eliminated the adverse responses. Resident employees. He agreed the exterior modifications should remain residential. Non-resident employees. Currently the proposal is to go to 3 FTE non-residents. If the County has 4 and you go to a business paradigm, and a person looks at that and realizes tlley have a greater çhance of success in the County, they will relocate their business and tax dollars to the County instead! of the City. He said that puts us in an adverse economic situation with the County; we should be equ~valent or a slight degree greater than the County, either 4 FTEs or 5, but certainly not less. Ifwe get dd ofthe major and minor ideas and just make a business model for this, it would work. I Customer trips/day. Option 1-- eliminate entirely. With mitigation you can determine impaclOf travel. If traffic exceeds what tlle residential zoning use requires, you need to mitigate; less th n that, there is absolutely no reason to. He said this would be especially pertinent to residential zones (R-II, R-III and R-IV). Option 2 -- "Traffic incompatible with the neighborhood" would also be phrased in a positive statement, "compatible with neighborhood." He felt that was a very, very good approach and applauded Ms. Walat for the idea because it is consistent with the City Council's plan of making roads and improvements in the town relative to the neighborhood character as opposed to an arbitrary Port Townsend standard like San Juan Avenue was. He declared that what we would have then is a business model that is compatible with tlle neighborhood, that gives instruction to the Staff on how to police this issue and also gives the City an ability to intervene if things get out of hand. He said they always want to give them that opportunity, but they don't want to give them a sledge hammer capability. They want to create a friendly environment so people will feel compelled to be successful. Parking. .He reiterated that "no more than one employee can park on the street," is totally unrealistic. He explained that in his case he had a beautiful yard, 100 year old trees, but was told he had to bulldoze his yard, cut down the trees, pave and put in stormwater drainage. He was then involved with two City organizations, Public Works and BCD. Then he had to replant his yard after he cut down his 100-year-old trees to fit off street parking for 11 spaces when he was already allowed 9 and actually had room for 20. He thought off-street parking is something that could be relatively related to the character of the neighborhood; if the neighborhood is a gravel street, you are not going to put a high- traffic, high-impact activity there. If he sees 35 patients a day, he is not going to go on a gravel street, but for his naturopathic colleague tllat might see 5 patients it might be appropriate on a gravel street. Ms. Walat asked for clarification if that would be left to the discretion of the applicant? Mr. Masci replied, no; if you go to a business paradigm, the person who is the enforcement official would question as to the specific nature of tlle business that is being proposed. He said businesses are not cookie-cutter objects; traffic patterns and needs are entirely different for each different health care discipline, i.e., medical doctor, consulting surgeon, internist, naturopath, massage therapist, or physical therapist. He said the person's business philosophy will also mitigate that and you can take statements, or you can ask the person if they will be willing to limit their amount of traffic. These are all mitigation abilities; the mitigation would be contracted with the City, and the home occupation applicant would be able to choose something that the City would then be able to enforce. It would be a cooperative rather than punitive thing; you would be trying help them and they would be trying to help the City. You learn a lot about the business and still get the tax. Commercial visits. Unrealistic -- an average of 2 visits/day is not feasible. Plamùng Commission Minutes Page 5 . . e It does not happen that August 30, 2001 · · · way; business does not operate that way. He has had every one of them -- UPS, FedEx, Pony Express, etc., come to his office during the day plus the Post Office, and the courier from the hospital -- that is 6 in a nonnal day. If you have someone that needs something, an emergency medicine, you are going to exceed that quickly. He suggested leaving commercial visits to whatever happens, because it happens in a residential neighborhood based on need. This is not a commercial business; it is a home occupation. UPS is on a hot schedule and is out of there; the impact is going to be fine. You cannot legislate the way business operates. Signage. This is fine; he thinks the wording 16 square feet is maximum. It allows Staff to say, you have one sheet of plywood, cut it up anyway you want -- until it equals 4 x 4 feet, however you put the pieces together is fine. He said this is a home occupation. He did not know how to address whether it's illuminated or not because people have illuminated foliage, and the requirements of the occupation should be no different than what is normally allowed in a residential neighborhood as it exists. He indicated he did not illuminate, yet various bed and breakfasts did, and he was surrounded by a sea of light and traffic from other people. He said B&Bs in this instance were the egregious violators, not home occupations in the neighborhood. He stated other businesses were in that neighborhood, and still no one knows they are -- 2 blocks from his house, yet they are not registered, do not have a business license. We are missing that revenue and the economic ability to allow people to succeed. Mr. Masci asked that they turn around and think that rather than enforcement punitive activities, how can we empower people to be successful without damaging the neighborhood. He felt that is a better direction, and he urged the Planning Commission to reject the ordinance as it is, make a recommendation to City Council that they instruct the Commission to create possibly a citizens work group with Staff or themselves to craft an ordinance based on a business permit model and to utilize all the work that has been done. He thinks they have the raw materials to make a really terrific, ground breaking home occupations ordinance. He said there are communities in the State that do regulate this by a business ordinance; Mr. Watts is looking at them now and that information will be available to the Commission soon. He again commended Ms. Walat for her good work. Mr. Irvin: Said to Mr. Masci he understands the paradigm shift he is proposing, but asked what will this more fully do if we create a business license ordinance, insofar as the reassignment of decision making responsibility and swap out of responsibility within BCD? Mr. Masci: He felt it was two-fold. Regarding decision making -- it is an internal matter; stay away from a hearings examiner. When you get into CUP review (Types I, II, III), you have to go to the hearing examiner on these. The hearing examiner does not reside here; they are an impartial person. He said this is an intimate issue. You have a review process every year up to 3 years on a license. He felt you did not need to notice the neighborhood, treating everybody equally in this; the first year you can notice the neighborhood and collect complaints and then do a review. You are creating a contract with person up front; there is an enforcement component with that, but you are collecting fees to mitigate that. The rest of the monies are generated by a business licenses and B&O taxes are going to go into city coffers. You are increasing the city revenue stream which is flat or slightly downward. Increasing the tax base encourages success. As far as regulatory, there will be some review within BCD; BCD is tlle correct place for that. Mr. Irvin: You said you wouldn't put this is Finance; are you setting up BCD in a competing mode in any way in any part it? Mr. Masci: No -- jurisdiction over home business, business licenses. Ms. Walat: The Finance Office gives out applications and when they come back they send them to BCD to check zoning and see if it is a home occupation. It goes back to the Finance Department and they issue the business license. She questioned what they are talking about; it sounds like a conditional use pennit in the kind of evaluation required by Staff. Mr. Masci: The difference is tllat one is revokable and one is not. The City can revoke it if it is an egregious violator; the city's police power is given some teeth. Mr. Irvin: Is an advocate of objective standards. He believes they set themselves up for failure if they wait until the problem has to be defined; this ought to be a part ofthe conditioning process. When you get an application, there ought to be guidelines understood. Mr. Benskin: Asked regarding the Hearings Examiner, if it is the same one they use for other issues? Mr. Randall concurred. Mr. Benskin asked at $800 - $1500 an incident, who is paying each of these? Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 30, 2001 · Someone replied that the taxpayer pays. Mr. Benskin noted it gets pretty expensive to the City to detennine what this applicant is going to have to do. Mr. Masci: Someone comes to the City requesting a home occupation; they would need to have a business license that is a specific home occupation license and it costs a specific amount for the privilege of the City allowing you to operate a business; here are the conditions under which you operate. He said instead of costing the city $1500 for a hearing examiner, the person pays for the privilege and the ongoing renewable fee Secondly, as time goes on, the amount of Staff time devoted will peak and descend. It also allows people an out; this is a very vocal town. His proposal allows for people to intervene, to complain and to have differences heard because there will be a review on an annual business. Mr. Harbison: Who are you proposing as decision maker? Mr. Masci: The Building Official or the Staff person, home occupations technician. That would ultimately allow the appeal to go either to the City Manager or the City Council. Mr. Randall said appeals on administrative decisions go to the hearings examiner. Ms. Hersey: Asked if the system changes, could they also tighten and scrutinize a CUP? Ms. Walat: A Conditional Use Permit, or once you have an Home Occupation Permit, as it is now, you have it. It is only a one-time thing, unless they are not meeting the conditions of the CUP as proposed. Ms. Hersey: Said in Ms. Walat's proposal, there would be a set of criteria to continue to meet. She asked with yearly review, how could you keep it from tighter or looser scrutiny and control? Mr. Masci: You cannot make a legislation that a future legislative body cannot undo. It would go through channels of Planning Commission, or whatever. But it is against the law to bind legislative bodies to current legislation. It would not matter with either proposal. It is not a legislative issue, it is a business and tax revenue issue. · Ms. Barbara Pastore, Jackson Street She said she thinks this is a great idea that would give a lot of flexibility to home occupations. She mentioned having different owners and being transferable. Ms. Walat: Said as it is written, the home occupation is not transferable to another person. It is valid only for the property address set forth on the permit. She asked if the question is, if the property were sold would it be transferring to another person? Mr. Randall: Typically, home occupations don't run with the property owner. Typically, CUPs run with the land. If someone buys your Conditional Use and wants to operate it just as you did with those conditions, you can do that. He concurred with Ms. Walat that is just typically how it is done; you can write any way you want. Ms. Pastore: With a business model, for a neighbor you could input into the process; you don't necessarily have that under the present system. If the neighborhood changes, because of the new process you have potential to adapt with the changes. She suggested that along with city taxes, under the umbrella of city you would also get city protection. · Ms. Walat: Said that is a good point. She thinks Mayor Masci made some good points. She said one, after 3 years you are rather home free. She questioned 3 years; in the life of a business, you can expand it, change it. Mr. Harbison said 3 years is definable under the model if they choose that. Ms. Walat replied that if you say the business license is renewable every year, that puts a bigger burden on the Staff; someone has to pay for that. She does not see that 3 years is a magical number. Also, the idea that you can start living there, and then move out of the residence doesn't seem in keeping with what a home occupations is. Ms. Hersey: Suggested that maybe it is in keeping with the business practice that after so many years, if you don't make it you close down your business. Ms. Pastore: Interjected -- 5 years. Ms. Walat: It is not so much that it dies, but when it grows it is the most impact on the neighborhood. After 3 years you don't judge it anymore. Mr. Masci: The caveat (in 3 years, here is your permanent license) -- we have the ability to review it if it passes a certain threshold of complaints. So now we have the ability to go in after the 3-year period with complaints in the neighborhood, saying maybe this is not such a good idea -- going from 25 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 30,2001 · patients every day to 100, all these numbers you gave us, this is different from the original agreement. You gave us these numbers, maybe you should think about buying an office down town. Ms. Pastore: Or this is such a hot idea that now we have six people on the street, all very small, but the whole character of our neighborhood is changing. Mr. Benskin: After the 3-year period the nature of the neighborhood business would be regulated by input from the neighborhood itself? If you don't hear from the neighborhood, it's working. It doesn't have to be on a yearly or a bi-yearly basis, just whenever the complaints reach a certain point? Ms. Pastore: Suggested those businesses have the protection of the City, e.g., a particular type of business in the neighborhood needing fire protection. We want to give them some services and support in exchange for their taxes. Mr. Irvin: Said his impression, though maybe wrong, is that more cottage industries fail than succeed. If you consider the number that fail, consider the number that don't cause any noticeable impact, what you have left are the ones that succeed. It is kind of a question if they succeed long enough to cause a problem before they move out and build a real commercial business as opposed to ones that hang around, don't grow and continue to cause a problem in the neighborhood, and he again felt it more strongly if he were living somewhere and someone built an edifice and succeeded and left that edifice, as opposed to such things as the number of trips. He would like to see a product that comes out of a committee that essentially takes all the fodder that has been provided and see if they can come up with an equivalent product that is business license oriented as opposed to the ordinance as it is exists and is being proposed to be modified. Ms. Hersey: Said she would be interested in seeing examples of other cities. Ms. Walat: Explained that Mayor Masci had said she had put everything in the comparison chart, but because she had come from the East Coast, she had included cities that were similar to Port Townsend and clearly fit within the range. They looked at other places.. Ms. Hersey: This is what our Comp Plan has required for Economic Development, that we really stress cottage industry. She said if they can do it in an orderly fashion and make it a better win-win situation with the City and the citizens, it needs to go forward to see if this is an opportunity to enhance it even more. · Chair Harbison closed public testimony at 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Chair Harbison told the Commission he felt they should address each ofthe areas of issue here and others that have been raised. He said it may help to Í1ûonn them as they approach those, if they can arrive at a consensus from the Commission present whether there is interest on their part to further explore the business license based regulation of Cottage Industry, or whether they feel that following with BCD in the CUP process is a more appropriate way to do that. Chair Harbison called for a consensus: Make this a business-license-based process that includes BCD and essentially extends the business license as has been discussed to include these other issues. There was general agreement, but Ms. Walat asked for clarification regarding what is meant by business-license-based as opposed to a home occupation pennit. · Chair Harbison was concerned if this has been on the City's table for awhile, about clearly communicating to BCD what some of the options were, some of the options the Council felt for them to proceed on. He said their study meetings have been going on since April; this has been a discussion item before that, so there has been some fair amount of work and effort on the part of Staff to follow and try to craft, for Commission's input, and this is the process they are moving forward. He stated his concern that they had some other options to look at, and among all of them they did not find a way to open that door. He said it clearly has need of a definition. Mr. Randall explained what BCD has done is follow a fairly conventional method that is in City Code, one that was pointed to as a possibility by the Comp Plan -- explore the CUP process. He thought Staff had done that pretty exhaustively, and what they are hearing from the Commission and from Mr. Masci is that doesn't feel like it is the right direction. He thought he was hearing there is a new process that Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 30,2001 · · · could be created, or morphing the existing home occupation process into something a little new -- using the business license a little differently; using public notice a little differently; tracking complaints a little differently to create this new thing. He said typically with new ordinances, a really new type of ordinance, they get a group of people together; assign a staff person; state what exists, some of the issues and what other places are doing. He noted he was not aware of the business license jurisdiction Mr. Masci mentioned, but he was sure if the City Attorney found something he would forward it to BCD. He thought if that was the model they wanted to pursue, creating tlùs new tool, to make a recommendation to City Council that you have explored CUP options, Staff has prepared some different options. You don't think this is the way for this; you think they should create a citizen committee to study this matter and consider extending the home operation administrative permit, linking it to the business permit option and seeing what they can come up with to encourage more intensive use of the home occupation but tie it to a business license model. Mr. Harbison told Ms. Walat he may have mis-spoken that he said it is based on the business license. He clarified that what he meant is that is the entry point in the way to the process. There was considerable discussion regarding such issues as the following: Having a Type II CUP process and not goingtluough a hearings examiner. Violations and the Complaint process. Notice to neighbors. Advantages of a revenue stream. Chair Harbison suggested they not consider forwarding this ordinance to City Council, but to indicate there are questions that need to be responded to. Mr. Randall noted tlley are talking about significant change, and they do not have the process. He said they need a citizen advisory committee. They are doing a lot of speculating and they need to get a group together for their input. He felt that is where it should go. Mr. Irvin tl10ught he understands tlle principles. He thinks this is acceptable and far more liberal than before, that he could live with it or could compromise with some of the issues, but they should give it some consideration. At 8:00 p.m. Chair Harbison called a recess to brief Mr. Spieckennan on the proceedings. At 8:07 p.m. he reconvened the meeting. Mr. Spieckerman indicated this ordnance regulates everything with so many variables. He suggested splitting it, one to deal with physical aspects and one that deals with business aspects. Ms. Hersey felt they should continue, so tlley do not loose any time, but have a committee to explore cottage business industry criteria as to location, nature of the business and impacts to the neighborhood. MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Recommend not to adopt the draft amendment to PTMC Chapters 17.56 (Home Occupations); 17.76.040.A.3 (Signs); 20.01 (Land Development Administrative Procedures), but instead form a citizens advisory committee to further review and investigate the issue of possibly linliing with a business license, and also looliing into other alternatives. SECOND VOTE Ms. Hersey PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5 in favor BCD Director Randall asked for a couple of Planning Commission volunteers to serve on a citizens committee. Ms. Hersey and Mr. Spieckerman volunteered. Mr. Benskin commended Staff's good work on the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 30, 200 I · · · PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PTMC TITLE ~ SEPA BCD Director Jeff Randall stated this amendment would raise the threshold for the number of dwelling units exempt from SEPA review for any proposed project from the current number offour. If you are building four houses on a street that are exempt from SEP A review, it would still require building and street development permits, but would not have to go through the environmental checklist and review. He went on to explain that the State also has a flexible threshold that allows a community by ordinance to raise the threshold for SEPA exemptions; for dwelling units the maximum is 20. Legally, the City of Port Townsend could choose to say the construction of20 dwelling units, whether in a single apartment building or broken into multiple houses, is exempt from SEP A review. It doesn't require an environmental checklist, a threshold determination, or a public notice for SEP A. Staff recommends raising the exemptions from four to nine; Mr. Randall explained the logic. State law also exempts short subdivisions, a division of land into nine or fewer lots, from SEP A review. Staff feels it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan where it talks about streamlining the permit process, making it as efficient as possible to encourage development of new housing. Mr. Randall noted it doesn't necessarily make housing cheaper, but that SEPA is a time consuming process that adds approximately 2-3 months to a project because of public notice and appeal timeframes. Mr. Randall stated one thing SEPA does provide that he feels the public appreciates is public notice. If this amendment is adopted, public notice would not be required. It would still be subject to multi-family design review, a staff review process where the applicant provides a site plan and shows such things as conceptual landscaping and what the building will look like. Staff reviews in conjunction with the adopted multi-family review standards; but without SEP A, the neighbors would never be informed of the project or that there is a public notice process. Mr. Randall asked if the Commission feels public notice is needed for the extra five to nine unit projects. He explained ways to achieve public notice: Notice for projects posted 14 days before being built; Public notice for multi-family design review in process; or you can determine it is not significant for nine units or less. He pointed out there are requirements in their development standards for stormwater, traffic, water, sewer, and design review and that they never use SEP A to impose more conditions. What they would be losing in the four to nine unit project is public notice. Mr. Spieckerman asked what kind of public notice is possible to be included? Mr. Randall replied SEP A provides two public notices in the newspaper and a mail notice to people within 300 feet, which totally costs approximately $400. Mr. Randall questioned without SEP A would the public notice be just to let them know that something is going to happen? If there were no multi-family design review, what would give opportunity for comment? He replied to questioning that Staff would listen to comment regarding modifications if they felt it was consistent with the guidelines they were trying to achieve, that feedback could be very valuable. Mr. Spieckerman was inclined to eliminate the SEP A review and still keep the public notice but questioned public notice 14 days before they start building. Mr. Randall suggested multi-family design review applications which would apply to construction of buildings containing five to nine units. He stated multi-family design review is the pennit they have to obtain, but now that review is Type I with no public notice, that possibly they could make it multi-family design review that is not subject to SEPA but with a public notice. The following was suggested: multi-family design review for five or more dwellings, 20- day public notice, the same as a SEPA review. Mr. Randall said neighborhood comment can be valuable and explained the three different kinds of notice: 1) published notice in the newspaper; 2) posted signs on the property; 3) mail notice to the immediate neighbors within 300 feet, which is probably the most effective notice. Chair Harbison asked if there was public testimony. Mr. Glen Norcross: Said he had always been a firm believer in public disclosure, comment, and review for multi-family. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 August 30, 2001 · · · MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Recommend adoption of the SEPA Dwelling Unit Exemption Ordinance as proposed for multi-family projects exempt from SEP A, providing a 20-day public notice through posting and direct mailing to neighbors within 300 feet. SECOND VOTE Mr. Irvin PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5 in favor VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS September 13, 2001 Workshop on Comprehensive Plan Amendments #4 Remove FUGA Language #5 Review & Amend FUGA Language Mr. Randall reported this workshop meeting is expected to be large with participants to include County representatives. Mr. Benskin requested any available information prior to the meeting regarding the Cottage Home Industry ordinance. It was determined correspondence could be sent if information becomes available. Discussion regarding recent and other upcoming meetings: Jefferson County Planning Commission-- Mr. Randall and Mr. Spieckerman attended. Mr. Randall stated there was good discussion regarding Major Industrial Developments (MIDs). Jefferson County Housing Authority -- Mr. Randall noted the meeting regarding affordable housing included several different organizations; he pointed out they are interested in the City's 5-Year Comprehensive Plane Update. Jefferson County Planning -- October 3, 7:00 p.m., WSU Office VIII. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. /$4h Larry Harbison, CffiIirman ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2001 Page 11 . r;hc- . . GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Port Townsend Planning Commission Open Public Hearing - Proposed Amendments to: PTMC Title 17 Personal Wireless Service Facilities PTMC Title 17 Home Occupation PTMC Title 19 SEP A August 30.2001 Date: Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No r: ß~\t-) '\rv\~Œ. ?'~~+"ThÎ'--' \~ð ~.4f- ~r ~l ~ I . nO. G~ (\j~ . lU'1('V .- ~Ð ~ Pr- v