Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04211994 Min Ag . . . City or Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 \Vater St., Port Townsend. \VA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Special Workshop Meeting April 21, 1994 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 10, 1994 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Acc~ssory Rental Units 1. 2. -3. Commission Discussion Public Comments Commission Direction of Staff V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings April 28. 1994 May· 12. 1994 May 26. 1994 VII. ADJOURN · /'".., e e-- e 'I City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 \Vater St., Port Townsend, \VA 98368 206/385-3000 Planning Commission Minutes Special Workshop Meeting April 21, 1994 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by Chair Pro Tem Karen Erickson. Other members present were Ernie Baird, Lisa Enarson, Cindy Thayer and Bpb Rickard. Lois Sherwood and Mark Welch were absent. Staff memb~rspresent were Michael Hildt and Sheila Spears. City Council members present were Diane Perry-Thompson and Ted Shoulberg. - II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - - A motion to approve the minutes for March 31, 1994, was made by Thayer and seconded- by Rickard. All were in favor. ~ III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail The Commission questioned the Chamber Study that was done about three years ago which was included with packets. Ted Shoulberg. had submitted it. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Accessory Rental Units 1. Commission Discussion and Public Comments The purpose of this workshop meeting is to go through the issues and come to a prdiminary - decision so staff can proceed with a proposed ordinance. Loren Corney asked if a single family residence has to be one structure or can it be more than one? He asked how do you distinguish between duplexes and single family houses and accessory rental units, and referenced a letter (with photos) which showed two units on a 50' x 100' lot with separate electrical meters. Enarson explained that what we are dealing with tonight is what should constitute a legal ARU. · · · ". Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1994 Page Two Assessory Rental Units (Continued) Erickson talked about an ARU workshop that she, Thayer and Hildt attended in Issaquah, and said that ARUs are used only when there is a minimal amount of regulation. Even though ARUs are a good source of affordable housing, it isn't something that a lot of people will seek permits for. She said that some communities have made their regulations less restrictive because citizens aren't taking advantage of the opportunity. Enarson suggested a mission statement first; then other issues would flow. The Commission went through the outline and addressed the following issues: I. Purpose A.3. Enarson suggested "differently abled persons" should be used rather than "elderly." Rickard and Thayer said they don't want to get so specific and suggested just striking the word "elderly." C. Delete. The purpose is not necessarily to avoid the cost of enforcement. ll. What's an ARU? Shoulberg asked what the Commission felt about the Chamber work. Is it too inclusive, not inclusive enough, not enough of what you were looking for? Rickard said he didn't see anything that wasn't already on the outline. Hildt said one concern about the Chamber statement is the reference to low-income housing needs. We want not only to help affordable housing but also to help people have a wider range of options to work out their housing needs. We don't want to state only that it is for some sort of housing shortage; the public perception of that shortage changes. We are looking for a balanced community. Diane Thompson said she likes the reference to all economic levels. ID. Key Issues to Resolve (not listed in priority order) A. Tenant safety - the primary interest is safety. Ai. Baird asked if the City will do an inspection when an ARU permit is applied for and said egress is something for which we should make provision and might require an inspection. Rickard said that the tradeoff is the more the City does to protect citizens then the higher the cost of the permit. . . . ". Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1994 Page Three Tenant Safety (Continued) . Hildt suggested that we just deal with high hazards and not treat conversions like new construction. Key are legal means of egress and smoke detectors (ideally wired-in); another code requirement is fire separation in new construction. Generally other jurisdictions are requiring sheetrock on the ceiling but not on the floor. Staircases are a tough one because 80% of all claims against cities are for this reason. Inspection is the only way to cover this risk. Thayer asked how anybody is going to know what is required. Hildt responded that the options are: 1) follow the book, no arguments; 2) have to know the code but also know why and be able to use judgement; and 3) mood or relation. He said what the public wants from government is that we are objective and consistent, but not mindless bureaucrats. The Building Code allows building officials to use their best judgement. One of the arguments for permitting ARUs is for safety. When there isn't a means for the units to be made legal, then owners won't make existing units safe because they don't want to get caught. A.2. Change may to will. Loren Corney said that the same requirements should be applied to ARUs as for guest units. Julia Cochrane said that she is in favor of requiring a permit but that judgement should be used. There should be an appeal process. She said ARU permits should be posted at the site so that the public knows it is a safe unit. Julia also suggested that public information at the tenant level would be helpful. A.3. New units will have to meet code. Existing units won't be required to be reframed, rewired and insulated to meet the current code. Hildt said that in existing buildings if the wall is already covered with sheetrock then it wouldn't have to be opened up and insulated. In a garage you fill the cavities but don't have to fir it out. If it has existing wiring you don't have to re-wire it, but if the wall is wide open and you are putting in new wiring, then it has to meet code. Shoulberg said the intent of this is to make sure there is flexibility. B. Parking Commission comments included: 1) If you require off-street parking you increase impervious surface and also some streets in town won't allow for any more on-street parking; 2) No additional parking requirement should be made because it makes affordable housing · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1994 Page Four Parking (continued) cost more; 3) If you are converting an existing unit, then the density probably does not change much because you are changing a bedroom to a kitchen. If you change a garage then there may be a change; 4) Since these units will more likely be occupied by lower-income people then these people most likely will be using public transportation or bicycles and not cars; 5) Conversion of a garage must not realize a loss of off-street parking; 6) Since off- street parking is required in new construction it needs to be addressed in ARUs, otherwise that original parking requirement (established in August 1971) may be eliminated when an ARU is added if the parking isn't addressed in the ordinance; and 7) Parking means outside of the structure, not inside the garage. Loren Corney asked for clarification of the parking requirements for Bed & Breakfasts. Hildt explained that the parking requirement allowed for the number of off-street parking spaces being reduced by the number of on-street spaces that are available. Corney said the ARU ordinance should not be less restrictive that what is allowed for Bed & Breakfasts. Shoulberg said he would rather not have cars dictating the housing situation but prefers to take the risk and see what happens. C. Owner-occupancy Hildt suggested that the wording in the ordinance should be primary domicile, and the owners have to live there the majority of the time. Thompson said that she knows of several situations where the - owners do not occupy either of the residences and said that it is not reasonable to ask the owners to move in now. Rickard suggested that an existing unit should be brought up to safety standards and grandfathered, but when it sells the new owner would have to move into one of the units. Shoulberg said that he differs with Thompson and that we cannot condone an illegal situation by zone. He suggested that the owner shouldn't have to live on the site, but only on the same city block. With contiguous property you could have control and management capability. Thayer asked about the units that have been around forever. Hildt said that under today's zoning there are many things that became illegal but there is a whole chapter in the Municipal Code that grandfathers those existing units if they meet certain conditions. This is called a legal non-conforming use. Those units have to have been continuously used since August 1971. He said that when you pass a law you can make a decision whether everyone has to comply within a certain amount of time. . . . . .. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1994 Page Five Owner-occupancy (continued) Shoulberg asked if an owner lives next door to a lot that has - two existing units would the Planning Commission feel that this is OK. The Planning Commission said no. Julia Cochrane said that she has friends who live in houses that other members of their families own so they are not owner-occupied but in reality they are their homes. She said it is cruel to keep a house vacant and keep someone from having a place to live. It is safer for the community to have someone living in the house rather than leave it vacant. The City shouldn't force units to be vacant. Julia said she would rather have a duplex next door than have a vacant house. The Commission discussed how much time out of each year (e.g. 6 months) an owner would have to live in the house to qualify as owner-occupied. Shoulberg said that the City cannot enforce how long the owner has to live in the house. Hildt said that the reason for requiring owner occupancy is because owners have a bigger stake in the neighborhood than renters. The neighbors feel they have a common interest with the owners, and that only appears to work if the owner is there a majority of the time. Hildt asked: 1) Do you allow house sitters in the owner's unit? 2) Is there a minimum size for an ARU?, and 3) Does the owner have to live in the large half? Enarson pointed out that the purpose of an ARU ordinance is to encourage home owners to create ARUs and said we want to make it easy for them. We have to have some direction to help them and need ordinances in place for the enforcement aspect of this. She said if the owners aren't there and the place is falling to pieces then this is a problem. We have to be able to discipline the owners who are abusing their rights. We need flexibility in the ordinance for various situations. Hildt said the owner-occupancy could be no minimum time spent there, but that it cannot be rented out when the owner is gone. Thayer said there needs to be some flexibility for sick or dying people. C.2. The Commission liked the last sentence, "A lengthy, but reasonable time to correct the problem might be the solution." Thompson stated for the record that she was not encouraging the use of illegal units. She said that once the ordinance is in place then a person who has an existing legal unit that isn't owner-occupied shouldn't be required to move into it. e. e . Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1994 Page Six D. Additional entrances Commission comments included: 1) Additional entrances shòuld not face the street so that it appears to be a single-family residence; and 2) Appearance is what we are after. E. Outbuildings Garages should be convertible to ARUs. Loren Corney disagrees and said this is allowing the City to go to all R-II zoning. He asked if the City would be charging impact fees for ARUs. Commission comments included: 1) Detached units (conversi~ns or new construction) should be less than 50% of the size of the main house. If an existing structure is converted then no more than 800 sq. ft. or 50% of the size of the main house, whichever is less, may be converted; 2) If the accessory unit is within the main house it doesn't matter what the size of the ARU is; 3) The total outbuilding can be no more than 50% of the main house. That would include the garage and the unit above; and 4) Architectural conformity should be a requirement. Hildt said the City does not get into design review of residences. With the ARU ordinance we are trying to make something easy and cheap and if you say it must be architecturally compatible then you are making it hard and expensive. Hildt asked if you have an existing garage that is more than 50 % of the size of the house, are you going to disallow them to convert? For outbuildings that are constructed after the date of this ordinance then that 50% and 800 sq. ft. comes into play. This doesn't apply to existing buildings. Entrances on the side or rear of outbuildings present no problem. E.2.b. Shoulberg suggested that if an existing garage has windows or doors on a non- conforming setback then it should be walled-in for privacy for the neighbors. There needs to be visual and sound privacy. The intent is to avoid a conflict with the privacy of the tenants and the neighbors. Hildt said if windows or doors in a unit with nonconforming setbacks look out onto somebody's yard, those windows should become translucent. Julia Cochrane said if the main entrance of an ARU is 10 feet away from your house (neighboring property), it is a big issue. It is a real intrusion on your privacy. Frosted glass doesn't do any good with open windows. . e . Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1994 Page Seven Outbuildings (continued) Extra sensitivity is required when there are conversions in units which have non-conforming setbacks: One requirement might be that the entry has to be on the side of the unit towards the main house rather than the neighbor. The abutting property owner shouldn't get the brunt of the traffic from the ARU. An entrance door on a detached ARU cannot be any closer than 5 feet from a property line unless it can be proven to the Director that there is no alternative. Thompson said the people who need the units the most won't be able to afford them if this procedure becomes too costly. If side setbacks are nonconforming then front entrances on ARU's need to be looked at; just don't make it to where they cannot make it into a unit. E.2.c. New buildings may be constructed on the lot as an ARU as long as setbacks and percentage of lot coverage requirements are met. Shoulberg said he would like for residency to be established for a year before allowing an ARU to be added to a lot. F. Neighborhood density and character None of this is a problem and doesn't need to be dealt with in an ordinance. There was some discussion about whether or not allowing an ARU in a building that has a Home Occupation Permit would affect the character of the neighborhood. G. Effect on property values GA. The benefit of policing is not warranted for something that may happen in a limited number of cases. Hildt said under present ordinance a unit has to be rented out at least 29 days to the same person, so no additional language is necessary. Thompson said the value of the neighborhood should not be effected. Clarification was made that an ARU is accessory to a single-family residence, including legal non-conforming units. IV. Administration and Enforcement Suggestion was made that abutting property owners be notified as a courtesy after an ARU has been approved. A one-year grace period could be allowed to bring illegal units into conformance. · · · · .- Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1994 Page Eight V. NEW BUSINESS Hildt asked for some time on drafting an ARU ordinance because of time demands. V1. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings The April 28 meeting has been cancelled. Rickard announced he will be out of town until May 20. Baird said he may miss the May 26 meeting. VIII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn was made by Thayer and seconded by Baird. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00. ~~ Sheila Spears Planning & Building Assistant essentially duplex zoning because absentee landlords would use as investment property. b. Neighborhood concerns about tenant responsibility (noise, junk, etc.) are often ameliorated if the owner will live there. It is assumed that the owner will assure tenant responsibility in most cases, if s/he is on the premises. 2. But, owner-occupancy requirement can cause enforcement problems if the owner leaves or di City would be in the unfortunate position of having to close the aD<..rtment in order to enforc, the owner-occupancy requirement. A lengthy, but reasonable time to correct the problem might be the solution. Two years? D. Additional entrances 1: Would allowing' ARUs likely result-in separate entrances in the front of residences? If so, would this adversely change the single-family character of the neighborhood? 2. Would side entrances cause more noise conflicts between neighbors? 3. Should additional entrances be limited to the rear? E. Outbuildings 1. Should garages and other outbuildings be convertible to ARU's? 2. If so, a. should conversions be permitted where less than required parking is provided? b. should conversions be permitted where the outbuilding has less than required setback for a residence? c. may new outbuildings be constructed on the lot as an ARU? F. Neighborhood density and character 1. Will so many homeowners establish an ARU that some neighborhoods will become much more dense, with attendant parking, traffic and noise problems. 2. Should there be some limit on the number of ARUs on a block or other area? 3 . Would alteration of historic homes have an adverse impact on the character of the historic district? Would rental income help restore and maintain large historic houses? G. Effect on property values? 1. It has been argued that allowing ARUs will reduce neighborhood property values due to increased density, traffic and "tenant problems." 2. It has also been argued that the ability to derive rental income will drive up housing costs so much that some people will be forced out by the increased property tax costs. 3. Perhaps we can find some research based on case studies of other communities who have allowed ARUs. (e.g., Spokane, Pullman, Redmond, Bothell and DesMoines.) 4. Over the long term, would ARUs be used as daily or weekly vacation rentals? Would this become an enforcement problem? IV. Administration and Enforcement Each decision about the provisions of an ordinance should consider the hassle and expense of administration and enforcement. 1. Should a permit be required? 2. Should neighbors be involved in reviewing applications? 3. The more restrictive the ordinance, the more difficult it may be to enforce, and the more costly to administer. 4. Yet, more neighborhood complaints may be lodged if the most common concerns are not addressed in an ordinance. - 2 - L II ¡1/;1// AI (J, Co¡tt ~ /.55/0 AI '.22/ ?</ Name (Please Print) Address Do you wish to If yes, indicate testify?(Mark box) topic Yes No !-öYZeV\ Cðù'\ex ~ßibq~ V R-e ~ 1-t, \ Vv\ tð-:J ~. -t-1-~ ~d '7ól ~ ~ --- :J0 U fT (ô r Ü, {'"CA.vl-t> '1 2 ~- I (J\/ I S+- - . Guest List P c1A Ä ~