The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01191995 Min Ag . . . ) City of PQrt Townsend Planning Commission 540 \-Vater St., Port Townsend, "VA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Revìsed) Specìal Meeting January 19, 1995 I. ROLL CALL II. COMMUNICATIONS: Current maìl III. OLD BUSINESS I A. Proposal to amend Tìt1e 17 of the Port Townsend Munìcìpal-Code (Zonìng) to define and allow accessory dwellìng unìts ìn sìngle-famìly resìdences _under . certaìn prescribed condìtìons and safeguards. 1. 2. 3. Staff Report (Hìldt) Public Comments Commìssìon Discussìon and Conclusìons IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Agenda ìtems for regularly scheduled meeting of January 26, 1995:. 1. Port Townsend Busìness Park, second amendment to PUDA. 2. Parkview Plat, amendment to the voluntary mìtigation agreement. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings January 26 VI. ADJOURN . .-- . - , City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 \-Vater St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Specìal Meeting January 19, 1995 I. ROLL CALL II. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail III. OLD BUSINESS A. Proposal to amend Tìt1e 17 of the Port Townsend Munìcìpal Code (Zonìng) to . define and allow accessory dwellìng unìts ìn sìngle-famìly resìdences under certaìn prescribed condìtions and safeguards. 1. 2. 3. Staff Report (Hìldt) Publìc Comments Commìssion Dìscussìon and Conclusions IV. NEW BUSINESS V. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Schèduled Meetings January 26 VI. . ADJOURN · ~ , , ";4. :, Plannìng Cómmìssìon Mìnutes January 19, 1995 Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 19, 1995 Specìal Meeting I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Vìce Chair Karen Erìckson. Other members ìn attendance were Usa Enarson, Cìndy Thayer, Mark Welch, and Ernìe Baird. Loìs Sherwood was excused. Staff members present were Mìchael Hìldt and Pam Kolacy. II. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail Addìtionalletters regardìng the subject of accessory dwellìng unìts by Bob Wheeler, Dìrector of Publìc Works, and Julìa Cochrane were dìstributed to Commìssìon members. All other communìcations were ìncluded ìn the Commìssìon packets. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Proposal to amend Tìt1e 17 of the Port Townsend Munidpal Code (Zonìng) to define and allow accessory dwellìng unìts ìn sìngle-famìly resìdences under certain prescrìbed condìtions and safeguards. 1. Staff Report (Hìldt) Mìchael Hìldt presented Draft #2 of the proposed amendment and a memorandum to the Commìssìon whìch elaborated on varìous ìssues addressed ìn the amendment, specìfically, tenant safety, parkìng, owner-occupancy, addìtional entrances,· outbuìldìngs, neìghborhood sensìtivìty and character, tourìst use, home occupations, and administration and enforcement. He noted that the amendment had been prepared ìn response to a changìng housìng market, and changìng communìty needs. Allowìng accessory dwellìng unìts wìll provìde another legal option for those with affordable housìng needs, particularly elderly people who would lìke to remain ìn theìr homes and first-home buyers who may be better able to afford to buy property ìf there ìs potential ìncome from a rental unìt to defray mortgage costs. Hìldt gave a brìef hìstory of the process leadìng to the draft amendment, notìng ìt started early last sprìng and has ìncluded trainìng for Plannìng Commìssìon and Cìty Councìl members, as well as Plannìng Commìssìon hearìngs and workshops for the publìc. He noted that an ìmportant emphasis in the trainìng sessions was a realization that other dties which have enacted this type of ordìnance have not had an overwhelming number of applìcations, . .' . " Plannìng Commìssìon Minutes January 19, 1995 Page 2 probably ìn part because the ordìnances have been too complex and costly for applìcants. In lìght of thìs, the P. T. Plannìng Commìssìon dìrected staff to keep the ordìnance as sìmple as possìble, wìth a mìnìmum of process and regulation. The Commìssìoners brìefly dìscussed Bob Wheeler's memo, whìch addressed Publìc Works Department concerns about accessory dwelling unìts. Hìldt said most of the concerns seem to be covered by exìsting regulations, and ìn regard to densìty, noted that although the ordìnance would create separate unìts, that does not necessarily mean there would be more people living on each lot than there are wìth only sìngle famìly resìdences allowed. Enarson questioned whether the language of 17.16.050 (1) regardìng the outward appearance of the resìdence was clear enough and also whether ìt was too subjective. Commìssìon dìscussìon resulted in a decìsìon to change that provìsìon to a sìmpler and more specìfic statement. 2. Publìc Comment Scott Walker questìoned the requìrement that electrìc meters not be placed ìn front of the unìt sìnce there may sometimes be no choìce. Hìs other concern was the maxìmum lìmìtation of an ADU outbuìldìng to 800 SF may be too hìgh. He encouraged a smaller maxìmum to encourage less population densìty. Barbara Wìllìams, Board Presìdent of Famìly and Frìends, a group home for four developmentally dìsabled adults, questioned whether the home manager's apartment would be consìdered an ADU ìf ìt were to ìnclude a kìtchen, and whether the unìt would then be ìllegal because an owner was not resìdìng there. Hìldt said that special needs housìng would be addressed soon ìn the Comprehensìve Plan, and that· it may be best to forego the kìtchen until that particular need was addressed. He noted that allowing a corporation to be consìdered an "owner" for resìdential purposes would be complìcated and make some neìghborhoods uncomfortable. Walker questioned the enforcement process. Hìldt replìed ìt would be the Cìty's usual practice of sendìng a letter gìvìng 30 days I notice of any ìnfraction and then turnìng to the courts ìf the ìssue couldn't be resolved. Jan Zimmer, Cìty Plans Technìdan, presented some concerns that had been brought to her by members of the publìc. Erst, she asked why the AD Us would not be allowed in a P-1 zone, although sìngle famìly housìng ìs allowed uncondìtìonally. Hìldt thought thìs was an oversìght and Commìssìoners recommended addìng the P-l zone to zones where ADU s would be allowed unconditìonally. ~ ~ , ...... Plannìng Commìssion Mìnutes January 19, 1995 Page 3 Zimmer said another concern was that the restrìction for an outbuilding ADU of 50% of the total floor area of the main prìmary resìdence would lìmìt the sìze of many ADU outbuìldìngs because homes are becomìng so small. It was suggested that a cap on the amount of space be the only restrìctìon. Tìm Caldwell also addressed the language regardìng outward appearance and added that there mìght be some enfor~ement dìfficulties ìf separate meters were not requìred. 3. Commìssìon Dìscussion and Conclusions Keith asked if other cìties have passed ordinances as unrestrìctive as this. Erickson noted that most cities were trying very hard to assure no change ìn neìghborhood character, but that they found it discouraged applìcations. Safety requirements were discussed and it was suggested that the ordìnance lìst specìfically the means of complìance with safety issues. Hìldt noted that there would be some discretion by the buìlding official if there are different ways of complying wìth a standard. Enarson noted that the size restrìction requirement in Section 3, #4 could unnecessarìly lìmit the size of the ADU by.includìng the entire buìlding in the allowable calculated area. For example, an ADU unit buìlt over a garage would be lìmited just a portion of the 50% total floor area allowed for the outbuìlding. She suggested a change in language to allow the total floor area of the ADU rather than the total area of the outbuìldìng should be less than 50% of the total floor area of the main residence. Commissioners had further discussìon about impact fees and allowable size for outbuìldings. They noted that ìt is anticìpated that most ADUs wìll be ìn existing homes rather than outbuìldings and that it is not expected that there will be a number of applìcations large enough to result in serìous density ìmpacts. It was once again emphasized that the primary reason for the ordinance is to provide another alternative for affordable housing and that this should remain the prìmary consideration. Enarson still supported charging impact fees for new dwellìngs, as a relativély small part of buìlding cost. There was some discussion of whether new units should be considered in a different way than exìsting units. Baird once again noted that if the intent is to increase the stock of usable rental unìts, it should be done in as many ways as possible. He does not belìeve imposition of an impact fee will promote the use of the ordinance. Enarson clarìfied that she is not proposing that conversion of existing outbuildìngs be subject to impact fees, that there is a clear distinction in her mind between new separate buìldings with ADU s and that those proposing new construction probably do not have an affordability ~ ~ ø \, '4t Planning Commìssion Minutes January 19, 1995 Page 4 issue. She noted the option still exists to run spaghetti lìnes, but those who choose not to should pay impact fees. Baird supported the idea of giving a choìce between separate hookup or spaghettì lines. Hìldt noted a change that should be made to Section 4 because it does not ìndicate that the indicated unìt does not connect separately to cìty water and sewer servìce. Motion was made by Thayer to recommend to City Councìl for approval of the proposal to amend Title 17 of the PTMC (zoning) to define and allow accessory dwellìng unìts in single- family residences under certain prescrìbed conditions and safeguards with the following changes to Draft #2 of the proposed ordinance: 1) add P-1 zone to zones where ADUs would be allowed; 2) ìnclude an explanation of what would be inspected and complìance required to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy; and 3) change the provìsion that descrìbes the outward appearance of the residence to a simpler and more specific statement. Seconded by Baird. All were in favor. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Agenda ìtems for regularly scheduled meeting of January 26, 1995: 1. Port Townsend Business Park, second amendment to PUDA 2. Parkview Plat, amendment to voluntary mitigation agreement. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next meeting is scheduled for January 26, 1995. Hìldt noted that the amendment would be considered by Cìty Council on February 21, and Commission members are welcome to attend the meeting. VI. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ah!.Ù~_~~_---------- Pamela Kolacy Ó .. . . Guest List Meeting of: Purpose: Date: PlanninG Çommission - City of Port Townsend Accessory Dwelling Units January 19. 1995 Name ¡please print I Address Testimonv? YF5; NO Â~·Lf¿';A./~ /r [\Y'l\ ,,- \0À. 6D w .(;,ù-- cÞ ~L¥v\ 'S-\. I PI