Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091406 Minutes CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Third Floor Conference Room Thursday September 14, 2006, 7:00 PM Meeting Materials: EXH. I J. Surber, Memo to Planning Commission: SMP Ecology Review Status, September 14, 2006 EXH.2 Table of Contents from Housing Needs Assessment Report Draft EXH.3 R. Sepler, Memo to Planning Commission: Transient Accommodations and Tourist Homes Proposed Approaches, September 8, 2006 EXH. 4 R. Sepler, Memo to Planning Commission: Transient Accommodations and Tourist Homes, September 8, 2006 EXH. 5 Agenda I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL The following Planning Commission members were present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, George Randels, Julian Ray, Liesl Slabaugh, Cindy Thayer and George Unterseher. Roger Lizut was excused. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Randels stated that before proceeding with the planned agenda, he wished to make a comment about the Upper Sims Planning Meeting held on Tuesday, September 12, 2006. He reported that the meeting was well-attended and productive, despite an attempt to disrupt the meeting by a few individuals. He commended Mr. Sepler for his comportment, frank words, and contribution to the meeting. Chair Randels asked for any proposed changes to the agenda. There were none. Chair Randels moved for acceptance of the agenda, as written, and Liesl Slabaugh seconded the motion. Motion approved, all in favor. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 14, 2006 Page] of] 0 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 10, 2006 Page 4: .. . something to lose, not something to "loose" Page 5: has not "have" Page 6: spelling of Aldrich's no occupancies should be no vacancies Page 7: Ms Sandoval.... ..referred to "County's Comp plan Page 8: quoting Mr. Randels - relies solely on complaints Page 4 second paragraph: on the lot Mr. Randels moved that the minutes of August 10,2006 be approved, as amended, which was seconded by Mr. Ray. The minutes of August 10,2006 were approved, all in favor. August 24, 2006 Roll Call omission - Ms. Thayer was present for the entire meeting and should be listed. as present in the Roll Page 2 reference to Western Washington Growth Management Board (WWGMB) should be changed to Western Washington Growth Management Board ("Board") Page 3 note - suggestion to add lengthy document was considered unnecessary and was withdrawn Page 8 change mute to moot Page 10 "Ms. Thayer..... ..add draft before ordinance Page 11 At Mr. Sepler referred...... 2.0 should be R-1I1 and R-IV Page 10 7.0 off street parking which has not yet been initiated Page 12 Add Uptown before Charette Ms. Thayer moved that the minutes be approved, as corrected, which as seconded by Mr. Emery. Minutes of August 28,2006 were approved as corrected, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Before turning the presentation over to Ms. Surber, Chair Randels said that he had a question about enforcement, either in the SMP or SMA. He reported having noticed a boat tied to an eel grass buoy off Union Wharf during the Wooden Boat Festival on the weekend prior to the meeting. He suggested, for that event in particular, that the harbor should be patrolled by someone deputized for that purpose. Mr. Unterseher noted that the signs do say "voluntary". Ms. Surber explained that the federally funded pilot Eel Grass project was managed by the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee, of which she happens to be the Chair. She confirmed that compliance is volnntary, and that the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 14, 2006 Page 2 of 10 emphasis ofthe project has been educational. She said that earlier ideas to deal more actively or directly with boat owners had been discouraged by local business owners and the previous City Council. She noted that even without enforcement of any kind, there is fairly high compliance. Mr. Emery suggested a warning such as "Caution, Caution - not a mooring buoy". Ms. Surber said that she had been expecting the North West Maritime Center to put their mooring buoys in, so that there would be an obvious place to anchor, but those buoys had not been installed yet. SMP Status Update (Judy Surber, Senior Planner) Judy Surber distributed a brief memo (EXH 2) with the status, as she knows it, at the Department of Ecology (DOE). She said that she and Jeffree Stewart are in regular contact, at least three times per week by phone. She pointed out that because Port Townsend is an early adopter the DOE is fumbling a bit on how to get this done, what format this should be in and things of this nature. Therefore, she had provided a suggested format of how the revisions should be presented to us. The decision letter will be coming with three attachments; the findings and conclusions; the required revisions, which are of greatest interest to the City, and the recommended revisions. She suggested a table format to them, similar to what was done in the past, to make it easier for the Planning Commission to zoom in - it will be by chapter, topic and page, with underlined text that is suggested, with the rationale for the change. There will be two different tables: one for required and one for recommended revisions. She said that many of the revisions had come from her, identifying things to Mr. Stewart that she believed should be reworded. She said that she wants to avoid some headaches later on, and she wants to see it implemented the way it was intended. So, as these changes are found they are passed along to DOE. Peter Scowland is giving some oversight for Jeffree Stewart. Mr. Scowland is more familiar with the policy and Mr. Stewart is used to being a current planner and reviewing at the project level. In speaking with Peter about the anticipated timeline, he assured her that meetings were starting to occur and the process was moving up the ladder. She said that they will be meeting with Gordon White on September 15 and from there it goes on to the director, Jay Manning. IfMr. White or Mr. Manning has any concerns, they will be addressed as revisions. "He did say the end point was one to two weeks out, so that's why it says September 26 for the decision letter." She said, "That is what we are anticipating, based on the current situation. " Mr. Randels expressed his disappointment and dissatisfaction with the delays and inability to be able to set a firm schedule. : Ms. Surber noted that as soon as the City responds to DOE that they have accepted all the required revisions, the document becomes final. Therefore, she plans to have a final document with the revisions available in concert with the City letter of acceptance. VII. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes- September 14, 2006 Page 3 of 10 Housing Needs Assessment (Judy Surber, Senior Planner) Ms. Surber distributed the Table of Contents from the Housing Needs Assessment Report (EXH. 2). She said that she would provide just a brief overview on the purpose, process and organization ofthe report. For the report, there is one more set of revisions to incorporate, based on a meeting earlier in the day with the Housing Advisory Group. The revised report will be e-mailed to Planning Commission members; hard copies will also be available on request. Regarding the schedule, Ms. Surber said that the grant deadline is such that it requires her to present the report to City Council on October 2, 2006. The purpose of the report is two-fold: to document housing needs in East Jefferson County and to identify strategies for tackling those needs and seeking innovative measures based on the community's specific needs. Solutions need to be tailored to individual communities. The Housing Advisory Group has been working for about eight months with City and County staff (Ms. Surber and Brett Butler, respectively). Tom Beckwith is the primary consultant, and Rick Sepler has also been involved in several meetings. The project started out with data gathering: census, surveys, focus group interviews, several public meetings and City/County permit data systems. Most of the information was compiled and placed in the appendices, and is the basis for the narrative text. Ms. Surber reviewed the organization of the Report, which had also been described by Mr. Beckwith at a prior Planning Commission Meeting. She mentioned strategies in place, including bonus densities, clustered housing, cottage housing, ADUs, etc. She said it was important to the group to promote integrated housing, rather than a segregated approach. She said that the group had considered new approaches developed and explored in other communities. Those approaches, such as sweat equity and community land trusts are described in Chapter 4. Chapter 5, Action Plan Implementation, is key chapter for the entire document. An Action Table includes 42 individual action items, ranging from public education to development of a Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN). She noted that the advisory group included lenders, non-profits, city/county staff, Chimacum School Superintendent, EDC member, Jefferson County Home Builders representation, and others who appreciated the opportunity to network and supported continuation in the future. Mr. Emery added that having completed this stage, it will be important to keep up the momentum on implementation. Chair Randels asked Mr. Emery if the advisory group was reasonably satisfied with Chapter 5. Mr. Emery said that they were in agreement and had helped to write and edit portions of the report, including the executive summary. Ms. Surber said that the group had wanted to identify near term actions that could be started immediately. Staff had assisted in that effort to identify things that could be done with existing staff and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 14, 2006 Page 4 of 10 resources. Several of the items mentioned were: defining minimum densities in R-III; recruiting limited land equity partners; retain public properties that have the potential for affordable housing sites in the future; and encourage sweat equity programs, as well as home builder's green housing guidelines. She noted that holding down transportation, day care and energy costs contributes to the overall cost and affordability of home ownership, i.e. a holistic approach. Mr. Unterseher asked for more information on the recently announced sale of surplus property by the City. Ms. Surber explained that the County planned to sell property it owned within the City limits. She and Mr. Emery said that the advisory group said that the action plan calls for retention and assessment of such parcels. There was a brief discussion of particular land on Redwood St. and also a non-wetland tract near the golf course. Ms. Surber noted selected facts from the report. It is estimated that there were between 2,000 to 2,600 households, or 18 to 23% of all households, in Jefferson County in critical need of housing assistance of some form or another in the year 2000. The consultant conservatively estimates that there will be between 3,000 and 4,000 households by 2024 in that same situation. Between 1,000 and 1,500 more affordable housing units would need to be provided to meet that need. The next steps are to incorporate the recent edits from the advisory group and distribute the Reports to the Planning Commission, in advance of the meeting on September 28, where there will be an opportunity to discuss it. Due to the time constraints, Chair Randels requested that staff prepare a draft of a letter that might serve as a basis for a transmittal from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Ms. Surber and Mr. Sepler agreed to provide the draft letter to be discussed at the September 28 meeting. (Ms. Thayer said that she would not be able to attend the meeting on September 28.) Mr. Unterseher asked if there was one key factor that stood out as the major cause of housing cost escalating here. Ms. Surber said that there were five factors noted by builders' survey. Mr. Emery interjected that the cost of materials was rising, but that the price ofland was the most significant factor at an average of 10% per year. Ms. Surber added that the City building inspector and others have cited materials costs as rising dramatically, particularly in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and massive rebuilding efforts there. Ms. Surber thanked Mr. Emery for his help in reviewing the work of the Housing Advisory Group. Debriefing on Upper Sims Public Workshop (Rick Sepler) Mr. Sepler was asked to comment on the results of the workshop mentioned by Chair Randels at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Sepler noted that the attendees ranged from total newcomers to people who had participated in other planning efforts over the years, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 14,2006 Page 5 of 10 e.g., the 1992-3 Gateway process or the charette led by Dan Burden 15 months ago. He said that one ofthe most awkward things about any process was the need to start off with that uneven background, and to manage the mixture of attitudes and expectations that may have arisen from past experience. He cited the PDN (Peninsula Daily News) which reported that after the few who were upset had left, the remaining 60 people participated meaningfully. He said that he thought the results were generally good. Briefly, some of the outcomes were: "roads are important" (extend Howard St. and build improvements to Sims Way) and "providing infrastructure will allow other goals to happen". Ms. Surber added that safety was another big issue. In terms of next steps, he said that it is very important "to get to the meat", while still accommodating and assimilating those who are either new or negative about the process. He said staff would work with the consultant to develop a very fair comparison of alternatives. He said he believed that it was possible to get agreement on the general scheme, i.e. building Howard St. though to Hastings, and making improvements on Sims Way. He said that he would be visiting and working with businesses on Sims Way to develop their understanding and participation. Mr. Sepler noted that the potential cost of the project far exceeds the currently available funds; business and property owners need to understand the potential returns of the project if it is properly planned, funded and managed. He added one interesting point: there was great interest in a traffic circle at Mill Road and SR-20. Mr. Ray voiced a suggestion for future planning workshops: an introductory briefing for those attending for the first time to orient them and diffuse possible misunderstanding. Mr. Unterseher suggested a one-page summary of past processes and outcomes to help level set attendees. (Chair Randels explained that he had introduced the above topic out of order, as it should have been held until the end of the meeting.) Tourist Homes and Transient Accommodations - update on directed research (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Sepler began by explaining the content and purpose of the two memos that had been included in the meeting packet (EXH. 3 and 4). He recalled that City Council had asked the Planning Commission to revisit the issue of whether or not tourist homes should be allowed in accessory buildings constructed after June I, 1989. He reported that a search of The Leader archives had not indicated any other significance to the date, other than it being the date of adoption. Mr. Sepler said that the staff recommendation was #1, EXH 3, which is to provide no change. He said that staff could see no need. Approach #2, used in Cannon Beach, would be to allow a limited number of units on a conditional basis. He cited the difficulty of determining the number of units that should/would be allowed. Approach #3 would be to allow conditionally with no limit on number. Mr. Sepler reviewed the pros of increasing transient accommodation stock, and potential financial benefits to property Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 14, 2006 Page 6 of 10 owners. The cons include increased potential for cumulative impacts, and likely traffic and noise issue. He said that the basis for this is the research material provided in EXHA, and based on interviews. He noted that the last type of accommodation filled in Port Townsend is Bed and Breakfast, although this is a small niche market. Nationally, there is a trend of decline in B & B businesses in parallel with the rising costs and limitations on prices by what the market will bear. Also, there is a low repeat customer base for this type of accommodation. Discussion: Mr. Emery reported on conversations at the Housing Advisory Group meetings about the 1989 date. He said it was supposed that the ordinance was in consideration of the limited number ofB & Bs that did use ADDs (caretaker houses or carriage houses) at the time. Mr. Randels asked if the City database have any information about how many such uses there are and when they operated? Mr. Sepler said that the data is limited to what was presented at the previous meeting, and that relates to those currently in operation. Ms. Thayer said that she would like to move that the Planning Commission recommend alternative #1 - No Change. Ms. King seconded the motion. Mr. Randels said that he agreed with that in terms of policy. However, he thought that the wording of the existing ordinance apparently allows for confusion, and prompts erroneous interpretations. Mr. Sepler said that the sequence would be to select one of the alternatives and staff would come back at a later date with specific language. There was discussion considering whether or not the date and grandfathering should be dropped altogether. After further discussion, it was realized that over time the number of instances that are protected under the 1989 date would diminish and eventually disappear. Ms. King said that the language could be changed to specify "being used as a tourist home prior to 1989", since the use and not the date of construction is the true issue. Ms. Surber said that she had been given an overview of the 1989 date 13 years ago by Michael Hildt. He had said that it was important to have a variety of housing types, to have affordable housing stock integrated into the community, and how they saw new construction for that purpose to be consistent with community goals. However, new construction for the purpose of transient accommodations was seen to be somewhat contrary to those goals. So, they were willing to accept the existing construction, but not new construction. After additional discussion considering whether or not to add a friendly amendment dealing with rewording, or to first deal with the policy only, Ms. Thayer called for the question. Mr. Randels requested a restatement of the motion. She restated her motion as follows: "/ recommend that we adopt alternative #1, that is, to recommend no change to the policy." (Ms. King had already seconded.) All were in favor, and the motion was approved unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 14, 2006 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Sepler moved to Issue #2: Should transient rental of single-family homes, apartments, accessory buildings and condominium apartments be allowed? He reviewed the limitation that such dwellings could not be rented for a period ofless than 30 days, and cited the reasons for that. He briefly reviewed the relevant factors cited in EXH. 3. He said that staff recommendation was for alternative #1, no change. Chair Randels suggested that perhaps the list of accommodation categories should include ADUs located within the primary residence, and possibly ADUs constructed post-I 989. After a brief discussion determining that those additions were not needed, Ms. Thayer said she would like to make a motion. She moved that the Commission recommend Alternative #1, No Change to the transient rental policy for single-family homes, apartments, accessory buildings and condominium apartments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ray, and approved unanimously, all in favor. Mr. Sepler proceeded to issue #3: What is the best method for the Citv to enforce adovted transient accommodation rezulations? Mr. Sepler acknowledged that this was a difficult issue. He said that it was likely that City Council would see greater pressure to enforce these regulations. He noted that the Planning Commission could encourage enforcement, although they do not have a designated role in establishing staff or funding priorities. He noted that it is actually of benefit to existing legal accommodations to eliminate unlicensed accommodations. Therefore the staff recommendation would be to establish an Annual Transient Accommodations License Fee, the proceeds of which would fund enforcement. Mr. Sepler pointed out that advertising is essential to this type of business; it is relatively easy to find the violators. Mr. Ray asked how the regulations would be enforced. Mr. Sepler said that it would be City Council's decision, but that a series of escalating fines was a likely vehicle. He said Port Townsend is unique in that, currently, a violator is given a one week grace period before a penalty is given. Mr. Randels said he believed that the fines must be substantial, and referred to a newly established fine in Seattle of $5,000. Mr. Emery said that he believed the County was also considering new measures to deal with transient accommodations violations. Ms. Thayer said she believed legitimate bUSInesses would welcome these enforcement steps. Mr. Sepler said that he expected some operators to object on the basis that they could not afford to pay their mortgages without the transient accommodations income. Ms. King pointed out that they may rent out a room, but they may not rent the entire house for less than 30 days. Ms. Slabaugh said that since the regulations are not changing, it was not as controversial as it might otherwise be. However, she believes that most people do not understand the conditions and restrictions, and that some education and time is advisable before clamping down. Mr. Ray agreed that some outreach to clarity the regulations, reasons and intentions would be needed. Mr. Sepler said that staff is receiving 6-10 inquiries per month about the regulations, including many from non-residents who are considering property purchase here. Mr. Randels asked about the existence of non-conforming uses that do not fall within the tourist home or related categories, such as the apartment above Elevated Ice Cream or above Grover's Gallery? There was a brief discussion considering them as apartments or Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 14,2006 Page 8 of 10 hotels, when established relative to the regulations that apply, and commercial location. Mr. Randels noted that certain condominiums downtown have been marketed with the implicit message that they can be used for transient accommodations. Mr. Sepler suggested that staff would bring the results of additional research to a future meeting. There was a brief discussion about trading houses or allowing non-owners the full use of a house for less than 30 days, and whether or not this should be specified as an exception. There was also a brief discussion about fractional ownership or time sharing, and the distinction between that and co-housing. Mr. Sepler said he had asked John Watts to look into the legal issues associated with fractional ownership. Mr. Ray moved that the Commission recommend the establishment of an Annual Transient A ccommodation License Fee, and that the funds be applied to enforcement of the transient accommodations regulations. Mr. Ray accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Randels to recommend all escalating fine system "with bite". Mr. Emery reminded about the potential to work with the County on related regulations and Mr. Sepler said he would make a note of that. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thayer and approved unanimously, all in favor. Chair Randels said that, unless inums out to be a very complex or difficult issue, he thought the time-sharing category should be addressed along with transient accommodations. Mr. Sepler said that he had already spoken informally with Mr. Watts, and would pursue that issue. Possible CTED (Community Trade and Economic Development) Short Course Date and Revised Schedule (Rick Sepler) Mr. Sepler said that he was attempting to schedule this course, which deals with land use law, zoning, and a special topic, perhaps teardowns. He said that it would be one evening, and take place in Port Townsend. Phil Olbrechts would be the attorney presenting and there would be other experts. Most of the Commissioners indicated interest in attending. Mr. Randels suggested Thursday December 7 as a possible date; Mr. Sepler agreed to check on that and inform further via e-mail. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS The agenda indicated that the September 28, 2006 meeting would include: Housing Needs Assessment; Upper Sims Way Workshop debrief; SMP Workshop (Tentative); and Interim Ordinance Workshop. Mr. Sepler handed out a revised schedule. Mr. Randels asked about the Interim Ordinance Workshop. Mr. Sepler said that the intention was to work through the list of ordinances, with the exception of item 7.0 which will be dealt with at the Uptown Charette. IX. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 14, 2006 Page 9 of 10 There were no additional communications. X. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer moved to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM. ~"'1 // k~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 14, 2006 Page 10 of 10