The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About040715 Final Minutes - Housing Workgroup COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING WORKGROUP MINUTES DATE: START TIME: LOCATION: April 7, 2015 9:03 a.m. City Hall, Conference Room 3 Members Present: Richard Berg (Architect), Robert Gray (City Council), Kay Kassinger (Peninsula Housing Authority), Ian Keith (1996 Update), Jamie Maciejewski (Habitat for Humanity), Kathy Morgan (OlyCAP) Guests: Katherine Baril, Doug Frick (Planning Commission), Rick Jahnke (Planning Commission), Pete von Christenson Staff Present: Judy Surber (Planning Manager), Lance Bailey (Community Services Director), Amber Long (Deputy Clerk) Topic Recommendation/Action Follow-up (if needed) Welcome & Introductions Comprehensive Plan Overview Judy Surber discussed the Comprehensive Plan update process and the role of the five workgroups. She described the four fundamental concepts of the Comprehensive Plan: maintaining small town character, achieving better balance between jobs & housing, accommodating the City’s share of county-wide growth, and providing public facilities & services within the City’s financial resources. She described the Comprehensive Plan as a “living document” that has been amended since 1996. She noted that the scope of work includes “state-mandated” revisions and, resources allowing, optional amendments selected locally. The workgroups need to identify any additional optional themes. Changing Circumstances & Emerging Trends Ms. Surber reviewed trend data detailed in the meeting materials. Optional Amendment Themes Ms. Surber discussed the preliminary optional amendment themes: planning for transition and community resilience, revisiting the mixed-use center designations, policies & capital improvements that support families & youth, reviewing Howard Street zoning, and, as recommended by Land Use workgroup, jobs/housing balance. Ms. Surber stated that the update process could include “placeholders” 1 Revised 5/12/15 Topic Recommendation/Action Follow-up (if needed) for future action on other optional themes. Why Are We Here? Ms. Surber reviewed the overall goals of the housing workgroup and presented questions from staff for the group to discuss. Forming a Scope of Work – Group Exercise During discussion, members made suggestions Workgroup members were asked for input on optional theme(s). Members including: generally agreed that diversity of housing types in Port Townsend is good, but supply is low, particularly affordable housing. Kay Kassinger clarified for the -Shared-amenities housing (e.g. boarding group that “affordable housing” means that someone who makes 80% of the house). Youth seek single-room in walkable area’s median income could afford to buy or rent a home. For home purchase, location. PHA considers $180,000 affordable (inc. land and construction). Affordable rent: -Co-housing/Cluster/Community housing $625 for a one bedroom - cost here is about $800-1,000.(it was countered that this is not always an inexpensive option, parking regulations can Members expressed the following concerns regarding housing issues: be an issue, and the private individual units tend to be large) -Lack of affordable housing options - cost is market driven, PT is an attractive -Reassess development standards (e.g. place to live parking, sidewalk requirements) -Lack of Federal/State funding for subsidized units -Consider making impact fees proportional to -HUD requirement for mix of units and commercial uses creates barrier square footage of housing. -Inability to maintain long-term affordable housing -Revisit ADU regulations (i.e. owner- -Impact of too few rentals, particularly on seniors and youth occupancy requirement for rentals) -Lack of rentals in City causes people to seek rentals in County (Jefferson, Clallam -Allow duplex-like structures on a 5,000 sf or Kitsap Counties) and then commute, leading to more car-dependent culture lot with both sides sold individually (zero -People without perfect credit or with criminal history have difficulty renting lot line) and address in code how to prevent -Second homes or vacation rentals are vacant much of the year instead of being each side from further development available for long-term rental by locals -Consider stormwater issues, particularly -Cannot find commercial partners for mixed-use centers (can get funding to build with high-density housing, and landscaping centers but not to operate them) for stormwater -Shortage of affordable rentals -Quixote Village model as possible way to -Rental costs are so high that renters cannot save to buy a house address tent cities -Vouchers – long waiting list and difficulty finding an affordable rental that meets -Self-built “tiny homes” (it was thought that 2 Revised 5/12/15 Topic Recommendation/Action Follow-up (if needed) voucher requirements the NW School of Wooden Boatbuilding -Modular/Mobile home parks are not an affordable option – members noted might be doing workshops) development costs, long-term heating and maintenance costs, and difficulty -Integrate manufactured homes into obtaining loans. neighborhoods with single-family homes -Tent cities discourage occupants from seeking help with finding employment or -Assess infrastructure in low-income areas more permanent housing; concerns about seniors living in current tent city and possibly devote more funds -City development standards increase costs – some may be “over protective”. -Micro apartments/Single Room Occupancy -Disagreement among participants regarding whether the Comprehensive Plan’s (SROs) might be a good option for single encouragement of higher density housing actually reduced unit price (particularly adults (young/seniors) but are not good for because of stormwater issues). Shortage of transit service and child care impacts families affordability. -Review of parking regulations (e.g. breaks ndrd -Use, cost, and availability of 2for senior citizen or special needs housing; & 3 floor spaces of downtown buildings -Recession – the loss of capital and student debt consider discouraging parking instead of -Need for a local lender with reasonable rates requiring it) -Building Code can be a disincentive (e.g. sprinkler requirements) -Consider allowing no sidewalks in small -Rents for downtown upper-stories units are high for rundown buildings developments to keep costs down -Convert large Victorians to multiple Members noted Port Townsend’s numerous philanthropic retirees as a positive. units/rooms -Incentives (e.g, tax breaks) for owners of The members brought up Air B&Bs as an issue for the community to address, and Ms. units/landlords of Section 8 units), not just Surber stated that the matter is already being discussed by the Community builders in order to maintain long-term Development/Land Use (CDLU) Committee. affordability -Provide infrastructure improvements: Ms. Surber asked if there was general consensus of the new “Jobs Housing Balance” streets, sidewalks, regional stormwater theme. Members agreed and encouraged support of all ages – this theme overlaps facilities, sewer upgrades “support youth and young families.” -Reconsider regulations regarding tilt-up construction -Mixed use – residential component should be optional Public Comment Katherine Baril stated that many people, Ms. Baril Due to the small size of the group, public comments were allowed throughout the particularly young people, are looking for mentioned 3 Revised 5/12/15 Topic Recommendation/Action Follow-up (if needed) general discussion. shared housing options; however, these options that need to be walkable, as public transportation is Snohomish inadequate. Also, a new issue that has County has emerged since the 1996 plan is the loss of a climate investment capital due to the recession. change fee on large Pete von Christenson stated that land is a big houses, and issue. No one needs a 5000 sq. foot home. He Ms. Surber proposed fees on houses over (for example) asked her 3000 sq. feet. to send the wording if she could find it. Ms. Surber offered to follow up with Ms. Baril regarding use of downtown upper floors for office/retail space. Next Steps: Judy Surber described the process for developing a scope of work, including a Town Meeting and Hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The workgroup will meet one more time, likely in the fall. Next Meeting: To be determined 4 Revised 5/12/15 Topic Recommendation/Action Follow-up (if needed) Adjourn: The meeting ended at 11:05 a.m. 5 Revised 5/12/15