Decision on North Bend hotel amendment delayed again
March 11, 2010
By Dan Catchpole
UPDATED — 2:00 p.m. March 11, 2010
After months of delays, North Bend City Council voted to wait a little longer to vote on a proposal to amend the city’s development regulations to allow a hotel to be built south of Interstate 90’s Exit 31, at its March 2 meeting.
Following statements from opponents and supporters of the motion, the council decided to split it into two separate motions. It will vote on them at its March 16 meeting.
Opponents said a hotel would hurt property values, increase crime and be a nuisance.
Supporters said that it would help businesses and bring in tax revenue for the city.
The council will vote separately on the hotel amendment and on stricter design guidelines for hotels, which were recommended by the city’s Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend its adoption with the stricter design guidelines to the council in October.
The commission added the design guidelines to encourage a building that blends with the surrounding area, commission head Gina Estep said.
The proposal was submitted by the property’s owner, George Wyrsch, who owns several businesses in North Bend.
The parcel in question, located at the corner of Ribary Way and Bendigo Boulevard, is currently zoned Interchange Mixed Use. Earlier this decade the city prohibited hotels on property zoned as IMU located south of I-90.
Opposition to the proposal has come mostly from Forster Woods, a residential development next to the site.
A hotel, opponents said at the council meeting, would increase crime in the area, lower property values and be a nuisance to them and others.
“It really comes down to the issue of public safety versus private property,” said Doug Weinmaster, a Forster Woods resident.
North Bend needs a hotel, but south of I-90 is the wrong site, he said.
Many opponents said they are concerned that crimes would be targeted at children.
“If one child is hurt because this hotel goes in…then anyone who votes for this hotel is morally responsible for the fate of that child,” said Jean Hoedl, who opposes the proposal.
“Crime will go up. Mr. Wyrsch and the hotel will be the victims,” said Sgt. Mark Toner, North Bend’s police chief.
Based on comparative analysis he did to similar cities across the country, any increase in crime would be directed at the hotel, such as guests refusing to pay bills, then at customers.
“I can’t find any reason, from the police department’s perspective, to oppose it,” he said.
That was not enough for some opponents.
“I can’t believe that putting a four-story building next to the interstate won’t increase crime,” Weinmaster said.
Other opponents expressed their frustration with the process.
“Does anyone listen to 215 families? Do you listen to Mr. Wyrsch? City Council, please listen to us,” said Patty Brown, a Forster Woods resident.
Not every Forster Woods resident opposes the proposal.
A hotel would be “best for the whole city and not just one neighborhood,” said Rick Oakley, a Forster Woods resident.
As a police officer and father, he said, he isn’t worried about any increase in crime.
Supporters of the hotel said it would bring in tax revenue for the city, and help downtown businesses and Snoqualmie Valley’s tourism industry. Finding a nice room to stay is too difficult for out of town visitors, said several supporters, including two event planners.
“How can we have tourism without a hotel or motel?” Bob Yerkes asked the council.
Since the Snoqualmie Valley Chamber of Commerce began tracking travelers’ requests 15 years ago, better accommodations have been in the top five every year, said Fritz Ribary, the group’s executive director.
Several council members said they liked the guidelines and wanted to ensure they were adopted, even if the hotel proposal was not.
During discussion following public comments, council members expressed ambivalence about the vote. Even Councilman Dee Williamson, a Forster Woods resident, said he is “sitting on the fence on this issue.”
Like other council members, he said before making a decision he wants more data on potential effects, such as on property values and traffic.
The controversy over the proposal could be all for naught.
“Hotel developers know very well about the Wyrsch site” and other potential sites in North Bend, Councilman David Cook said. “They’re not interested in any of them.”
The city doesn’t have the population numbers that developers are looking for, he said.
Cook, a commercial real estate broker, has talked with hotel developers about another site in North Bend in the past.
Hotel tax revenue
North Bend collects six different taxes from hotels and motels.
- Property tax: $1.45 per $1,000 of assessed value
- Sales tax: $0.085/$10
- Hotel/motel tax: $0.10/$10 of room fees
- Business and operations tax: $0.02/$10 of gross receipts
- Utility tax: $0.60/$10
- Franchise fee: $0.50/$10
Dan Catchpole: 392-6434, ext. 246, or editor@snovalleystar.com.
Comments
2 Responses to “Decision on North Bend hotel amendment delayed again”
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
I challenge those deciding the issue to help find the answers to the following 20 questions:
1. Should the proposed zoning change be made to enable, encourage and promote building a 6-7 story, flat roof, concrete buildings at the bottom of exit 31?
2. What would be the visual impact of a massive building that high anywhere in North Bend?
3. As the highest building in the city, let alone the valley, wouldn’t it obstruct views from almost anywhere in the city?
With about 8 foot ceilings, and the permitted flat roof, wouldn’t a building 55 feet high be about 6-7 stories high? Now think of the tallest buildings in the entire Snoqualmie Valley. The Casino at 1-3 stories, the Salish Lodge is 2-3 stories. No building in the valley is even close. You would have to go to Eastgate to find a building that tall along I-90. Ok, in your imagination, now take one of the large Eastgate buildings, or better yet a local building say, Safeway, make it 6-7 stories high, and put it across the street from your own bedroom window or anywhere in North Bend.
4. Wouldn’t it simply not fit, to say nothing of trashing most of your views, peacefulness, and the property values of 250 homes across the street?
That is what is at the heart of the controversy of the current property owner’s proposed zoning changes between bottom of the Exit 31 roundabout and the bedroom windows of the existing homes.
5. How does a 6-7 story, concrete, flat roof, box building, regardless of the use, (a hotel is not required, only one of multiple possibilities) at the very gateway of the city enhance our rural character? It would absolutely dwarf any and every building not only at the exit, but in the entire city of North Bend.
6. If the highest existing building at Exit 31 is only one story high, how does making a change to allow construction of the tallest building next to the freeway between Eastgate and the pass, impact the hard fought Mountains to Sound Greenway idea, or enhance the “gateway” to a city trying to promote itself as rural and recreational when a neon sign at the top of any 6-7 story building that massive would be seen 24-7-365, from almost anywhere in the city, while dominating and destroying the current views from Rattlesnake Ridge, and the top of Mt. Si, looking down at the city.
7. How does construction of a massive multi-story building and paving over a parking lot for a hundred plus cars on a tiny piece of environmentally sensitive property that contains two streams forming the headwaters of Gardner creek, has established breeding grounds for bullhead trout, three wetlands and a steep slope, protect our environment?
8. How does constructing a massive concrete box, lighting up 100+ rooms in it, putting up a 24-7 neon sign 7 stories up, preserve our nighttime view of the sky from anywhere in the city?
9. How does expanding south of the freeway and putting yet another high volume business out of town, by the freeway, help revitalize downtown North Bend when we should be maintaining and enhancing the current zoning codes that promote new businesses be built in place of the derelict building at the stoplight and promoting local mom and pop bed and breakfasts throughout the valley trying to make a living?
10. Where is the voice of the Chamber of Commerce about supporting existing businesses and their buying local theme instead of selling out to national chains?
11. How does adding hundreds of more cars to the interchange and hundreds of pedestrians to the roundabout help our traffic flow problems and protect the safety of our existing citizens?
12. How does the proposed change not absolutely trash the carefully crafted, hard fought, compromise IMU buffer zone created less than 10 years ago, to address the continual use conflicts between 24-7-365 commercial businesses and the residential houses with children’s bedroom windows across the street? In fact the IMU has already been undermined by a recent change that allowed higher buildings North of the freeway and now is in danger of being compromised yet again for South of the Freeway.
13. Why is it suddenly ok to permit massive concrete buildings, hotel or not, crammed on a few highly sensitive acres between the roundabout and the bedroom windows, just to appease one property owner anxious to sell out to the highest bidder of any nation brand hotel chain?
14. Why doesn’t any building that massive, bringing with it the increased traffic, fire, police, water, and sewer demands and costs, belong, if anywhere, out by an industrial area such as “truck town”, or better yet, in downtown North Bend in place of some of the derelict buildings in the city where it could help revitalize the down town instead of once again driving another nail in its coffin.
15. Why is the debate about a “good old boy” building a hotel, instead of about the massive scale and pulling the common sense teeth out of the zoning code to permit massive concrete boxes south of the freeway or revitalizing downtown or avoiding the creation of an even greater perpetuating conflict between incompatible uses?
16. How does the proposed change help create a the livable community laid out in the city’s own Long term Vision Statement, and numerous other city goals, instead of fostering emotional sympathy for the current owners, who by the way, had applied before to cram a service station, mini-mart, motel, restaurant, and convention center, all at once on the same piece of property, by paving over the wetlands which fortunately, was judicially denied by a hearing examiner as an illegal attempt to put economic gain ahead of city laws?
17. Why is it that the questionable economic gain to the city debate, does not factor in the increased infrastructure costs to the city and the decrease in taxes from the devaluation in property values of the 250 homes across the street or the fact the owner could recoup their investment by using the property as a sending site in the existing Transfer of development rights program thus making a profit and preserving the land as open space. That would be a true act of citizenship.
18. How is it that the city’s decision makers continue to be blinded by the dazzling carrot of “creating revenue for the city coffers” being dangled yet once again, which has proven bogus again and again, for instance, the fact that all the “potential revenue” gas pumped at the stations at Exit 31 has not generated a single dime, since it is exempted from city taxes by state law, and the “multitudes of high paying jobs” carrot offered by Nintendo when it was built proved rotten to the core?
19. How is it that their continues to exist the mythical perception that this is the only place in the city that a hotel can be built, when in fact almost all of the commercial land undeveloped and developed in the city is already zoned to allow for a hotel and in fact, just last week, the owner of a piece of commercial property currently zoned for hotels, widely distributed a letter offering to sell their commercial property to any buyer willing to build a hotel on it?
20. How is it that several members of the city council and planning commission who will be making the decision, have not already legally excused themselves from the process, given they may have a potential personal financial conflicting interest in this zoning amendment to say nothing of an appearance of fairness concern.
This is not about heart strings or purse strings, it about being strung up by our collective amnesia and collective apathy. Democracy is not a spectator sport, it is time to step up, answer these questions and take strong stand against this amendment and as staff recommends, revise the building regulations instead.
I wish to share an open letter I have emailed to all North Bend City Councilmembers regarding the changes to allow the highest building in the valley to be built south of the freeway:
Dear Councilmember
First and foremost thank you for the personal sacrifices you are making to be on council. I understand fully your position and dedication as I too served in your shoes in almost the identical situation several years ago.
I bought the third house built in Forster Woods in 1993 only to read a month later about the massive development being planned 40 feet from my new bedroom window. Because of that, I have been involved in valley politics now for over 17 years, owned 3 other homes, served on numerous valley boards, committees and organizations and, attended too many city meetings to count.
After being elected to council with no opponent as several of you have been, I joined the work in progress that took many years to eventually create the “buffering tools” that today address the incompatible use issues throughout the city. Tools such as the Transitional Area Overlay District, the Urban Separator Zone, the Transfer of Development Rights and yes, the Interchange Mixed Use Zone.
These were developed with extensive research of other cities codes, countless revisions, public hearings, numerous compromises with the developers and serious consideration of the entire Comprehensive Plan and Vision Statement, not to mention years and years of input from citizens, developers, professional staff and elected officials locally and beyond.
I would respectfully recommend that before council reaches their collective decision on this issue which has the potential of undermining the integrity of these tools, that you review carefully the “whereas” sections of each of these pieces of legislation or at least request a staff report over viewing them collectively. Additional insights can be gained from the “finding of facts” surrounding this issue including the legal decisions, for over the last 17 years.
Ironically we were faced with almost the exact same dilemma and set of issues you are currently facing. I submit that the solutions you are seeking to the incompatibility problem already exist in your current codes without this amendment and in fact the amendment if adopted will increase exponentially the incompatibility of the uses for generations to come.
Please be perfectly clear, the proposed comprehensive planning amendment before you is not about a hotel or no hotel for North Bend. It is about compatibility and livability. It is not about heart strings or purse strings, it about being strung up by our collective amnesia of past history of the parcel, the zoning history of the city, and yes, it is about our collective apathy, which on any issue that spans over a decade, the average citizen’s energy and resources to stand up and be heard and organize a resistance, pale in comparison to the deep pockets of developers and their lawyers.
I would suggest you request staff to provide you a comprehensive briefing of this history going back to the original zoning decades ago.
Democracy is not a spectator sport, it is time to step up, answer the tough questions and take a strong leadership stance against this amendment on behalf of the citizens whom you are sacrificing to represent, and as staff recommends, revise the building regulations exclusive of the building height and zoning change issues, which should each be considered separately.
Beginning in 1993 and continuing for nearly 7 years, Mr. Wyrsch fought the city and its citizens during an extended process of applying for permits to build a motel, gas station, convention center, restaurant and convenience store on the very same tiny piece of property now in question.
Obviously by attempting to cram that much development at that incompatible location away from existing downtown, away from the existing services North of the freeway, and instead, adjacent to existing bedroom windows, backyards and a school bus stop, the motive was perceived by the citizens, staff, members of the council, and the mayor, as predominantly profit driven.
The cost of that proposal and the current one was and still is, not only permanent destruction of the valley viewshed, but the expense of livability of neighboring residents, the destruction of three wetlands and two streams, to say nothing of increasing traffic, raising safety concerns, increasing light pollution, noise pollution, and trashing any hope of preserving the vital gateway image to mention only a few of the downsides of this issue.
As a result, at the end of a multiple year battle where staff and council made several forced compromises to allow the developer to profitably develop his property while ignoring the voices of some citizens and satisfying the needs of others, his permitting variances was granted. The rationale was that the standing city codes appeared to have several loop holes allowing exemptions and variances which
the developer argued for adamantly and consideration needed to be given to the continuing threat of possible law suits from both sides. When all was said and done, the compromises solved nothing as a hearing examiner ruled that the city was in violation of the law by granting the developer the variance required to so drastically over build the small 9 acre, environmentally sensitive, incompatible lot, for purely economic, profitability reasons.
As a result of that legal finding, the Council, Administration and staff after several additional years of work, created city wide, several “buffer tools” and zones to fairly and equitably deal with the problematic areas where two incompatible zones are adjacent to one another. The Interchange Mixed Use Zone was only one of these.
It protected property owners right to develop in a multitude of ways, but also protected the livability of residents with conditions such as height, density, hours of operation, pedestrian friendly orientation etc.
Current members of your council further added to the property owner’s side of the equation by amending the code even further and allowing motels north of I-90 and raising the allowable height.
Now the citizens and the city find themselves once again being pressured to compromise yet again on the same piece of property, by the same developer for an even more detrimental result for even more profit. The focus clouding arguments before you this time, have been very carefully, strategically and purposefully created to shift the focus away from the issues of protection of citizens, preservation of our rural character and promotion of the city’s image to ones of “false scarcity” of hotel or no hotel, and “false emergency” of now or never.
This discussion and decision should be about protecting, preserving and promoting our city and valley not about lining the pockets of the developer proposing the amendment.
It should be about the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of North Bend, not about the profitability of national hotel brands, which will suck the majority of revenues generated vs. promotion of bed and breakfast’s which prevent revenue leakage and enhance livability. It should discussion about preservation or permanent destruction of the valley viewshed, arguably our most valuable valley resource, from the freeway, the city, or atop Mt. Si, which can be destroyed forever with a single building, not just primarily about the convenience of housing a few out of town guests for a few nights.
The issue should be about the wisdom of enabling massive multi-story concrete boxes, in pre-built incompatible areas, creating even more perpetual conflicts between neighbors, and businesses, not about sacrificing everything for an absolutely non-binding “intention” presented in spell binding full color photos by an owner who already has the property up for sale, with a perpetual desire to increase the potential commercial value of one parcel for a future owner, at the cost of devaluing 250 existing homes and creating a permanent incompatibility issue for the city.
This decision needs to revolve around the imminent destruction of the rural character of the valley through the extensive light pollution, no matter how artificially mitigated that will result from a lighted sign atop a building that will be arguably, the tallest building next to the freeway between Eastgate and the pass, to say nothing of the effect on the entire city’s pristine night sky destroyed forever by the light from hundreds and hundreds of motel room windows even with every curtain drawn all the time.
The environmental preservation focus should be on the given problematic development of the parcels inside the IMU zone south of the freeway, which have existed since the property was purchase by the current owner over two decades ago, namely the two streams, three wetlands and steep slopes located on a tiny piece of property which is the very fragile headwaters of Gardiner creek and spawning habitat for Bull head trout. These very issues resulted in a legal ruling that the parcels in question could not be developed at that density. Now after 7+ more years of natural growth, expansion of the wetlands, enhancement of the stream habitat and increased wildlife habitat, the justification for this amendment is the intentioned possibility of even denser development on an arguably even more environmentally fragile parcel.
The spotlight of debate needs to illuminate the fact that the developer had the right and the commercial zoning to develop the property in a multitude of ways including a hotel before, the land on which the Forster Woods neighborhood is located, was even part of the city, before it was even zoned residential, or was even developed, before Rock Creek Apartments were even zoned High density residential, before they were built. The developer made a personal choice not to develop at that time, but wait for a more profitable opportunity for a increased density at a later time. And yet even today, currently, even without a single change, the property as a result of the well crafted, well compromised well balanced IMU, is and has for many years been commercially zoned for a multitude of both profitable and compatible uses that already mitigate needs of both parties, while valuing both livability, and profitability i.e. allowing two story buildings, yet having a height restriction, allows multiple daily uses, yet discourages 24/7/365 and night time uses, encourages profitable and yet beneficial neighborhood services such as a day care center etc. Current landscaping of the Forster Woods Residential Community, after 17 years of growth is now of sufficient height to effectively mitigate one story commercial development on the site with minimal impact to the existing families.
Yet there has been no compromise made by the developer on that side of the equation, no proposal to develop at a lower density, but rather instead, only an amendment request to increase the value of the land and increase the incompatibility problem while waving a convenience carrot at the general public.
Still overlooked and yet to be laid on the table before the council, by either the staff or the planning commission, is the Transfer of development Rights provision created at the same time as all of the other “buffering tools” or the additional 4 to 1 ratio that applies to only a limited number of areas in the city, one of which is the IMU zone south of the freeway, giving the developer additional financial incentive to gain added density ratios for development in more compatible areas of the city. It was created for this exact situation and yet the majority of council and public appear unaware of it.
The real issues around this amendment have been hijacked by a false “forced choice” illusion of hotel or no hotel. The vast majority of commercially zoned property in the city already permits hotels. A prime parcel north of the freeway is currently up for sale by an owner that is anxious to sell to a buyer who wants to build a hotel. There currently exists, many bed and breakfast businesses and already built motels currently listed on freeway signs near the city, that will suffer financially if a massive national chain hotel is built. There is no guarantee at all, that a “respectable” hotel would be built even if the outside conforms to current or future building codes. The only goal this amendment would achieve might possibly be an increase in land value of the developers parcel.
The dilemma is really about timing and reality, as it now exists. It is about the, overbearing massive size needed to maximize profits of an individual developer at a common sense, totally incompatible location. A hotel or any building that massive should have been built before the houses went in, before the Rock Creek apartments were built, before the Mountain to Sounds Greenway concept was developed, before the appropriate low one story outlet mall and commercial area was designed and built north of the freeway. Investments can go both ways. It is not the responsibility of the city to maximize the profit of a national brand or a single developer at the cost of permanently destroying the livability for an entire city and valley to say nothing of the permanent destruction of the city’s most valuable resource, its unique natural rural environment and viewshed.
The argument about development rights is mute. The IMU zoning has since its creation, and still does, allow multiple, profitable business opportunities and a generous TDR incentive. The reality still exists, that a massive multi-story building has not fit, does not now fit and never will fit on this parcel or any parcel South of I-90.
Shouldn’t these issues and numerous more, be seriously researched and addressed by the City Council of North Bend before changing the building zoning codes and creating permanent incompatibility conflicts?
It takes leadership and vision to balance the needs of all stakeholders in the city’s future, and at the end of the day it is critical to give added weight to what is best for all of the citizens now and in the future. Businesses unfortunately come and go at an alarming rate. Numerous cities throughout the nation bare witness to massive buildings that once held hope, but are now abandoned by national chains after reaping profits at the expense of a community’s livability.
An incorrect decision on this amendment could have permanent destructive impacts for decades to come and change the very heart and soul of this city’s rural character.
It should also be an added footnote, that in most cities nationwide, incompatibility issues seldom disappear, and in fact often result in extensive public battles, most likely accompany lengthy permitting battles and eventual propagate litigation on both sides with the city caught in the middle footing the financial bill.
And as a bit of self-indulgence and a final explanation point, if the citizens as a whole need it, the city currently has a standing provision for a citizen referendum process that is applicable to this very issue. I would submit that is the last thing this city needs at this time on this issue.
I encourage you to preserve and strengthen the Smart Growth “buffer tools” that are already part of the Comprehensive Plan and code, not destroy them.
I encourage you to do the homework and research required to understand fully the need to reject this proposed amendment.
Respectfully,
Jack Webber