Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03142005 . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF MARCH 14, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this fourteenth day of March, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Waterman & Katz Cedar Room, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, Public Works Director Ken Clow, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PARKING CODE . Eric Toews of Cascadia Planning reviewed the packet materials. He noted that the issue is only off-street parking and loading and regulations would pertain to new development, re-development, change of use, and adaptive development on private property, mostly for the use of customers of the business. Mr. Timmons asked why the "fee in lieu" amount is not more realistic, given the high cost of building a parking structure. Mr. Toews said that the Planning Commission thought this would at least bring in some revenue for off street parking improvements although they realized it wouldn't come close to funding a parking structure. Mr. Toews noted that the current code w~s modeled on the City of Auburn code, which resulted in parking space requirements that were quite high, particularly for Port Townsend, which is not a typical suburban model. It was noted that some concerns from the Downtown Parking Advisory Board included whether bicycle parking would impede pedestrians and how to deal with a massive project if one were proposed for the downtown area. The Advisory Board agreed that the best approach was to let the market function and simply retain an outright exemption intact. Mr. Randall noted that in his eight years of administering the parking code downtown, he has experienced many cases where the parking standards drive the development. . City Council Workshop Page 1 March 14, 2005 . Mr. Kolff asked what strategies could be considered if a project is proposed which requires massive amounts of parking. Mr. Toews noted that there are many other regulations in place, particularly zoning regulations that would be more critical than the parking regulations. Mr. Masci asked that the Council's action docketing the item be included in the final report of the Planning Commission. Mr. Randall explained the differences between Type II and Type III permits. Staff was asked for clarification on the term "served by transit." Mr. Kolff questioned the parking requirements in conjunction with a pre-existing use. Mr. Randall explained this is to provide incentive for those buying buildings to increase use; the idea was not to start at zero as if it were being built today, but to build in some grandfathered allowance to the new use. The ultimate aid is to reduce the need for off street parking and encourage change of use. Discussion ensued regarding the time limit for "grandfathered" allowances. Mr. Toews noted that the amendments rectify the disconnect between the parking code and the rest of the zoning code; staff has tried to organize the table to match as closely as possible with other tables in other parts of the zoning code. . Mr. Randall pointed out the boundaries ofthe National Landmark Register Historic District on the map and stated that there is a written description in the Municipal Code, Title 17. Mr. Masci asked if changing uses due to lack of sale of a building or parking requirements for liveaboards were discussed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Toews stated they were not. Mr. Randall said staff could look into the ratio of liveaboards vs. non-livaboards. Ms. Fenn asked ifthere are standards for parking garages? Mr. Toews noted there was no discussion and that the primary focus of the amendments was to implement the clear policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kolffasked if there are minimum and maximum numbers of bicycle spaces set for home occupations. Mr. Toews answered there are performance standards that address this, there is no bright line nor any specified bicycle-parking requirement. Mr. Timmons noted that more parking is going into inadequately developed streets; either off-street parking should be required or the developer should make necessary improvements to the frontage. . City Council Workshop Page 2 March 14, 2005 . Ms. Robinson asked why health clubs get more parking spaces than libraries. Mr. Toews noted that this did come up in discussion; the rationale was the distinction in type of use, that one is more auto oriented than the other. Mr. Benskin stated that Accessory Dwelling Unit requirements need to be addressed in the next draft. Mr. Timmons asked how the pre-existing use is determined if it has been abandoned. Mr. Randall stated the idea of non-conforming use is only in terms of its parking, not its use. Mr. Timmons asked if this could be phrased more clearly. Mr. Timmons noted that developers seeking opportunities for upper story occupancy want adequate parking assurances but the City is unable to provide those; where is it best to address in terms of providing an option or solution to buy capacity? Mr. Toews noted that a parking and business improvement district is one way to make that happen. Owners will have to tax themselves to make parking improvements; it is possible to make an exemption within commercial districts contingent on signing a no- protest agreement to participate and that was not made part of the Planning Commission's recommendation. . Mr. Masci requested that the next draft include an increased allowance for multi-family dwellings for seniors with care workers, as he is concerned the caregivers will not have enough parking spaces. RECESS Mayor Robinson recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:35 p.m. ENVIRONMENT ALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Eric Toews, Cascadia Planning, reviewed the packet material. He noted that the "best available science" of the GMA is one of the goals of the review; common sense and limited financial and professional resources have precluded a comprehensive review in that sense. Mr. Timmons asked where the burden of proof lies - does an adjacent landowner have to hire an expert to prove to the City he is not affecting a wetland? Mr. Toews stated this is not specified; what is really unclear about the current code is what constitutes "development." . City Council Workshop Page 3 March 14, 2005 . Mr. Timmons asked, for example, if a development is outside the buffer zone, but there is an assessment by someone that the development may adversely impact an ESA, then is the developer subject to the ESA regulations? Mr. Toews stated that a decision made by an administrator would allow latitude where the City could regulate when there was known to be an adverse impact occurring, which wasn't triggered by a permit - the desire is to give the City ability and authority to prevent those situations from happening, not for the purpose of allowing the City to speculate about future potential impacts of a use. Mr. Timmons asked to confirm that this is an expansion of the City's authority under ESA than currently exists. Mr. Toews replied that is correct. Mr. Timmons asked if there is an appeal route for a determination as to whether an interpretation is correctly applied. Mr. Toews replied that the applicant could ask for a written code interpretation, which would be an appealable action. Mr. Randall stated that the burden is initially on the City to say a permit is somehow subject to the ESA ordinance because we think there is likely significant impact, but there is a right of appeal to the hearings examiner once that decision is made. . Mr. Masci asked about wetlands created by City activities. He asked if a citizen could apply to have his/her property undesignated. Mr. Toews noted that identification on the map is not the same as designation; the mapped areas are informational, not regulatory. Mr. Timmons stated that the fact that the applicant must hire their own expert subject to the City's approval should be outlined up front. Mr. Toews noted that it is impossible to have the expertise on staff to make these judgments. Mr. Timmons stated the need to look at the perception that the landowner is guilty until proven innocent must be looked at in a more diplomatic way; citizens may react by asking why they should spend money on an expert to prove the City is wrong. Mr. Toews stated it should be clarified in the code as to where the burden of proof lies, either the City undertaking the evaluation at its own expense or as it is currently, that it is the obligation of the landowner or development proponent. Ms. Sandoval asked how a project could be stopped in the meantime if it hasn't been permitted. Mr. Timmons asked if the qualifications for professionals are clear, if the applicant has met the requirement and hired a qualified person, can the application be accepted at face value or will there be some process for determining whether peer review is necessary. . City Council Workshop Page 4 March 14, 2005 . . . Mr. Toews noted that the current code gives much discretion in deciding ifthe expert's report is up to snuff; if the department feels something is not right, they may send the report out for peer review again at the applicant's expense. Ms. Fenn noted these are not significant changes to the ordinance and should be prefaced for the public with an explanation of where the mandate is coming from; this is a very technical document and she believes the public needs a framework for why we are doing this and how it will affect property owners. Mr. Randall stated the most substantial change in the version relates to wetlands; he does not view this as providing any major change in terms of the average citizen. He also noted the department has been sending out press releases and not getting much feedback. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Toews to supply copies of his overhead presentation. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Attest: /----,-,.'1 ,í~, , -1 / /., ( /#.:t. TX ... f/ . ';~~:;:c~;:cr City Clerk City Council Workshop Page 5 March 14, 2005