Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08121999 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Business Meeting August 12, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: July 29, 1999 V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) VI. Unfinished Business VII. New Business A. Leonard Zweig, Rosewind PUDA Amendment, LUP99-64 1. Staff report (Jeff Randall) 2. Commission discussion and conclusions VIII. Other Business A. Comprehensive Plan Workshop (R Densities) 1. Staff report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission discussion Next Scheduled Meetings 1. August 26, 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (C-III Boundary) 2. September 2, 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (CI-MU) 3. September 30, 1999 Comp Plan - open-record public hearing IX. Communications X. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting August 12, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison, and Christine Ota. Len Mandelbaum was excused; Lois Sherwood was unexcused. Staff members present were Jeff Randall and Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of July 29, 1999 as written and amended was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. V. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES -- There was no report. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Leonard Zweig, Rosewind PUDA Amendment, LUP99-64 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) Mr. Randall explained that the proposal defines two single family lots, Lots 20 and 21, within the larger area in Rosewind, Lots 20-26 which were approved for multi-family housing when Rosewind was originally built. He referenced Exhibits D and C showing the following: · Exhibit D -- Relationship to the remainder of Rosewind; adjacent to Landes Street and Woodland Avenue, currently developed as gravel streets having water and sewer in the streets. · Exhibit C -- Proposed dimensions for Lots 20 and 21, each lot size approximately 3,500 square feet. · · · Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Randall noted Rosewind proposes to create these two lots which would be sold to Habitat for Humanities. He corrected the square footage shown in the August 5, 1999 Staff Report indicating each lot is approximately 3,500 square feet. He stated the balance of the property would be just under 14,000 square feet and would still be approved for the development of five dwelling units, e.g. multi-family. The balance of the property also includes that portion of 32nd Street which was vacated. He referenced Exhibit B which shows applicable setbacks --10 foot setback in the street vacation area, no setbacks on either the east or west property lines, currently 20 foot setback on the south property line adjacent to Woodland Avenue. This proposal would reduce that setback to 10 feet to match the current front yard setbacks in the R-II district and make the property more usable. He noted at the time Rosewind was developed, the front yard setback in a predominantly residential district was 20 feet. He reported Staff sees no reason why this should not be approved; there are lots in Rosewind which have 0 setbacks, and it does not appear this is anything like a special buffer corridor. In researching the PUDA, Mr. Randall found the purpose of the multi-family block seemed to have been a reserved area that Rosewind could keep with the idea that some sort of flexible housing could be developed; it was approved for seven dwelling units. This proposal would not increase the density of that property. Rosewind proposes to sell these lots to Habitat for Humanities; it would be promoting affordable housing, which Rosewind favors doing. Mr. Randall pointed out this proposal leaves a balance parcel that could be developed flexibly, that could be further divided into duplex lots, triplex lots, or one larger building. Regarding compatibility with the surrounding Rosewind development, Staff feels that dividing these lots could result in at least three structures on this property, rather than possibly one larger structure, and would be more compatible with the predominant single-family development pattern in this area. Staff supports the proposal. Mr. Randall explained that if the Planning Commission recommends, and Council approves the proposal, a recorded survey of the amendments would go to Rosewind and would provide legal boundaries for these lots. Questions of Staff: Mr. Worden: Asked if all of the original seven residences were designated for Block 2? Mr. Randall: Referenced Exhibit C and indicated downward of the dotted line in Block 2 is open space, part of Rosewind Commons; Rosewind Commons is also across 32nd Street, on the right edge of Exhibit C. He explained the part above the dotted line in Block 2 was approved for seven dwellings. Mr. Worden: Asked regarding scale, and stated he was puzzled the lots were not designated running the full width of the original lot, that what was left over looks like it can only be used as common space? . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Zweig: Replied that the street vacation added over 28 feet. Mr. Zweig indicated to Mr. Worden there is room for another lot as large as the newly created lot. Mr. Worden: Asked if 32nd Street would continue through as a narrower right-of-way? Mr. Randall: Pointed out that with 32nd Street there is sufficient right-of-way for emergency vehicle access, that it is not going to be developed as a vehicular access street. He indicated that basically there are gravel streets now which eventually will be paved. (See Staff Report. ) Mr. Randall explained the two things that need to be considered is if this is a minor amendment and the vote for recommendation. Chair Thayer called for public comment: Mr. Zweig, applicant Mr. Zweig reported that all he had in mind is covered in the Staff Report. He indicated Rosewind is especially pleased at the purchase of the lots for Habitat for Humanity, that one family has already been selected and probably one more will be in the next few months. He expects construction to start sometime next year, year 2000. No one else commented. Chair Thayer closed Public Comment at 7:15 p.m. and asked for Commission discussion and conclusions. 2. Commission discussion and conclusions There was no discussion. MOTION Mr. Worden Adopt conclusions recommended by Staff, that the Planning Commission find the change is minor not requiring a public hearing, and recommend approval to the City Council SECOND VOTE Ms. Erickson Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote Chair Thayer reported this proposal would now be forwarded for City Council deliberation. Mr. Zweig thanked the Planning Commission for their support. · · · Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 4 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Workshop (R Densities) 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) Ms. Surber reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan schedule for action at this meeting: I. SCHEDULE (Comprehensive Plan only) August 12 Planning Commission Workshop: Set Schedule -- review densities in R-III and R-IV zoning districts; initial review of mapping errors (Kilham and ThorsenIBrooks Rezones) *September 2 Planning Commission Workshop -- CI-MU (bulk, height and dimensional requirements); minor text amendments (Mr. Harbison may possibly be excused. ) September 9 Planning Commission Workshop -- C-III Downtown Northerly Boundary and C-II Upper-Story Residential (Ms. Erickson excused.) September 23 (Ms. Surber out of town.) *September 30 Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendations on the Plan October 14 Planning Commission finalize Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations *Week of October 25th Joint Workshop with City Council to review Commission recommendations *(Extra Meeting) Chair Thayer asked if they finish discussion early in a particular meeting could they proceed to the next topic, or are they subject to particular meeting notifications. Ms. Surber replied the complication could be the preparation needed to proceed. Chair Thayer asked Ms. Surber to see if there is anything scheduled on the Agenda for August 26th, and to notify Commissioners well in advance if there will be a regular meeting. CONSENSUS: Agreed to the Comprehensive Plan schedule. 2. Commission Discussion Ms. Surber opened the following for discussion: · · · Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 5 II. PROCESS -- Reminder of findings and conclusions that will need to be made upon completion of the public hearing. In general: · Circumstances have substantially changed since adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan · Assumptions in the original Plan are no longer valid, and/or new information is available · The proposal reflects current widely held community values Ms. Surber explained that shortly after the September 30th Public Hearing, the October 14th meeting is scheduled to finalize the Findings and Conclusions. III. INITIAL REVIEW OF DENSITIES IN THE R-III AND R-IV ZONING DISTRICTS A. The suggested amendment was to revise description ofR-III Medium Density Multi- Family, to link the density requirement to the number of bedrooms rather than the number of units. That proposal was expanded to include revisiting the density requirements of the higher density R-IV Multi-Family as well. (Exhibit A is Mr. Raymond's letter which was submitted with the original application.) When Staff made the original recommendation to docket this item, it appeared to provide flexibility in the housing market as well as to forward the purpose of affordable housing. B. Issues encountered in research: Ms. Surber indicated she felt a few of the issues would be resolved through the existing multi-family design standards. · Increasing densities and building mass. Multi-family design standards would address any concerns in increasing densities, and assure the building size is not increased, making the mass of the building a problem. · Maximum lot coverage and height requirements would not be changed by this proposal. Multi-family design standards would be implemented for five or more units. · Parking requirements would be increased with increasing the number of units; 1-112 parking spaces per unit is required resulting in larger parking areas. A parking code landscaping requirement is in place that would require screening parking lots from public rights-of-way or adjacent property. The screen can be fencing, hedges, or a mix of the two. Engineering Design Standards would require stormwater control for impervious surfaces. Ms. Surber requested Planning Commission assistance with the proposed linkage of bedrooms to square footage: · · · Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 6 . Worse case would be if the property owner were to decide to have all studio units on their 40,000 square foot piece ofland; they would be going from a maximum of 16 units up to 40 units on 40,000 square feet. That would involve different traffic generation/infrastructure needs than what was assumed in the original Comprehensive Plan. Further, if 40 units is the minimum in R-IV, what is the maximum? Assessment of impacts from density changes which could occur over 194 acres needs to be made. Staff is not opposed to density, but wants to see density in the right areas; the fact that the original analysis was not quite up to that density needs to be considered. Ms. Surber replied to questioning that the few responses she received on her survey of property management generally indicated there is a shortage in affordable rentals, as in all rentals. Most were looking for a single-family home to rent for $500 or less. She reported it was indicated there was no problem renting, that vacancies were short term, and that there were no apparent trends in requests for 1, 2 or 3 bedrooms. Mr. Worden: Had concerns that someone could go in and build a series of3,500 square foot one- bedroom apartments, thereby having a lot of rentable space with no low cost housing and increasing the density at the same time. He suggested they might have to put some kind of square footage limit on the size of a one-bedroom apartment, to preclude arguments of when it is a bedroom and when it is not a bedroom. He indicated you could design an apartment that would have a studio, an office, a kitchen and a living room. Ms. Thayer: Suggested the way they get around that with septic permits is that they are based on bedrooms; having a room without a closet is not considered a bedroom. Erickson: Asked if there is any way of putting a maximum on studios in the Comp Plan? She suggested that again you are regulating what a developer finds as a need, e.g. small and inexpensive, older or younger people. Mr. Worden: A regarding parking; if this is approved the way it was originally written, they are going to be using the surface area of the lot much more intensely than the current zoning allows. It is encouraging the kind of development that leaves no storage space, no outdoor play space, almost making a sub-standard living situation. He indicated he could also imagine someone doing something really wonderful with this and having a small number of very low priced units within a complex that was perhaps a little higher priced and still having approximately the same ground coverage and same amount of impervious area as under existing regulations. He suggested also having some kind of limit on the overall lot density. Ms. Thayer: Suggested these can be considerations in Commission discussions after the hearing. Ms. Erickson: Thought it was too bad they couldn't set up special conditional use for something like this, that these are parameters; see what you can figure out in a unique development with one-bedroom or studio apartments and still have such things as green space, a yard, all the · · · Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 7 parking, and make it pleasant. She questioned how you put down conditions for a special permit for a special complex without giving a blanket to do whatever you want. Ms. Thayer: She would be more inclined to have that under a conditional use. Ms. Erickson: If it were to be low income, it should warrant special consideration. Mr. Worden: You would then have to identify specific conditions. He was not sure he wanted to add more process to anything, but thought maybe you could do this as it is written, but still put a cap on the number square feet of lot per unit, so the maximum is not 40 in 40,000, but maybe 24 or 20. Ms. Thayer: Indicated that is like R-IV. Ms. Erickson: Asked the height limit and was informed the height limit in R-III is 35 feet and R- IV is also 35 feet. She indicated that would be 3 stories. Mr. Worden also referenced the building code limit. Ms. Thayer: Indicated R-III is already fairly intense at 16 units per 30,000 square feet, and R-IV is higher; 16 is the duplex, per 50 x 100 foot lot. Mr. Worden: Stated these are apartments, not duplexes. Ms. Thayer: Replied that it is the same concept. Ms. Surber: There are appropriate design things they could do. Ms. Erickson: They are talking very small -- studios or one-bedrooms. She made a comparison ofthe size of building to Aladdin which has 30 motel rooms, is 3 stories, 35 feet high on a 100 foot wide lot, and she equated it to 30 studio apartments, 30 very small units. The building does not cover one full block; their required parking is one space per unit, 30 parking spaces, and the remainder is a flower bed. Mr. Worden: Asked the lot coverage limit and was informed R-III is 45 feet, R-IV is 50 feet. He indicated the problem would be parking. Ms. Surber: Our code is typical; in checking with Municipal Research she was unable to find one that links to bedrooms. The proponent was asked to respond. Michael Raymond, 106:3 Blaine Street Mr. Raymond said they have studios, one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms and have probably 20 - 30 calls each vacancy, which is not often. He declared you could not rent 20 studios in Port Townsend; the bank would not loan the money. He stated his whole presentation was on the basis of density all the way through the Comprehensive Plan, that he had copied off the page of density requirements, etc., that there is nothing new; they have not created any bazaar housing circumstances with the density requirement. He indicated from his perspective housing evolves with the needs of the community; if there is need for three-bedrooms, three-bedrooms will evolve, or if studios or one-bedrooms. He noted they have a lot or retired people, single people, widowers, young people. If you say duplexes are lot of density, that is what they have, . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 8 essentially a double unit per lot. You have no control over the total number of people that are living in those duplexes, no control over the number of cars they actually have, the ages of people. The number of bedrooms does not necessarily literally equate to the number of people; you can have a couple in a studio; you can have a single person; you can have a single person in a two-bedroom. He stated there are so many variables that he thinks you have to have a certain amount of trust that this is a dynamic city that has an evolution of population, the kinds of people that live here, and it changes from year to year. He said in the 20 years they have lived here the populations has changed, but so has the housing market; you see it in the houses that are built, and in the rentals available. If you lay down the law that you can only have so many units, a banker looks at that statement and determines that three-bedroom units would be the most efficient use for the money; they are not going to build duplexes or studios. He stated that as a builder, financially he could not afford to build studios or one-bedrooms and rent them unless he would personally subsidize those people; the reality of the situation seen as landlords is a need for broad variety in the housing market of apartments, rentals, auxiliary living units, that they need to cover all the bases. He indicated that as soon as financially you have to build only one size, pretty soon something will have to be cut out such as the appearance of the building. He said that is not why he lives in Port Townsend and not why people come to visit this town, but the flexibility allows them to build attractive places in which people can also afford to live. Mr. Worden asked Mr. Raymond to tell them, if the change was made the way he originally proposed it, what would that allow him to do, that he would like to do and can't do now? Mr. Raymond suggested studio, one-bedroom and two-bedrooms. He spoke of meetings with the city, for plans developed for building four more one-bedroom units or some combination thereof; presently, because they had pre-existing units, they could build one additional unit. He said if he wanted to push the technicality, the controlling factor of a unit is kitchens. He said in the weighting of the whole thing, the studio is the same as an eight- bedroom, but the impact on the city infrastructure is immensely different. He indicated it is a problem to him that if you get forced with some extreme or another, you are abandoning one or several groups of people for the sake of a simplified process. The process may look good on paper, but he was not sure it would satisfy the needs ofthe community, that will also change within the next 20 years. He indicated their building would sustain itself without any other additions to it, but they get frustrated every time there is a vacancy that there are good people looking for rentals and you have to turn them away. Ms. Surber pointed out that in the Housing Needs Assessment they have done and upzones done for multi-family zones through the 1996 Comprehensive Plan there were other ways of meeting affordable housing, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). She indicated her feeling is that they did the Housing Needs Assessment, and the upzoning of multi-family districts, added manufactured homes as being permitted outright, and the ADUs, so there is a . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 9 variety in the code now, but she also understood what Mr. Raymond is saying. She suggested she can research the idea of a cap, referenced the comment regarding parking space using up open space, and suggested indicating, "at a higher density, if you can maintain a certain percentage of open space." She indicated that then the zoning code gets pretty complex, that there are tradeoffs. Mr. Worden concurred and suggested that be a one-sentence statement; you have to have 20 percent of your lot, not covered with impervious material. Chair Thayer questioned City Councilmember Masci commenting on as the liaison to the Planning Commission since this will be coming before Council. There appeared to be no problem since this was a workshop. Mr. Masci suggested that they think about the Comprehensive Plan amendments that will come up presumably every year. He said he had never met Mr. Raymond, but with this particular proposal, advised they be aware there is a group of citizens trying to get a college here; Mr. Worden's comment about a building of all studio apartment is a possibility in terms of a dormitory. Mr. Masci said to think about this proposal and think about it in terms of opening doors, rather than closing them; if we have to visit the zoning code all of a sudden because of this possibility, we are going to be faced with another level of affordable housing for students with the spin-off of the traffic impact, maybe not of cars but bicycles and increasing the impact on the Non-Motorized Plan. He indicated that indeed 40 units could be possible in terms of the dormitory, and as Mr. Raymond mentioned, the local market would determine wether or not that is necessary. He suggested perhaps that need could not be met until they went through a whole year-long Comprehensive Plan revision process, and by then the opportunity might be lost. Mr. Worden asked if Ms. Surber could investigate how they might limit lot coverage (impervious surfaces) and said he still had a concern that they might heed to state the maximum number of square feet you can have per bedroom. Ms. Thayer concurred. IV. INITIAL REVIEW OF THE KILHAM REZONE Ms. Surber explained this is the property that was involved with a special conservation easement in 1992, basically for farming and agricultural purposes, but was zoned for multi- family development in 1996. She indicated it was an oversight, that the multi-family zoning does not allow agricultural uses. The options for zoning more appropriately are R-I and R-II, both single family zoning. Ms. Surber said the only issues she saw on this was that you do not want to prohibit Mr. Kilham from practicing as he was assuming to under the conversation easement. According to Mr. Kilham, he now limits himself to crops, orchards, some chickens and sells eggs to the co-op or farmers market. In the future he may look at other animals, perhaps sheep or ornamental, but . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 10 did not sound as if he had a business desire in farming; it was more a matter of practice and with the conservation easement and the tax breaks, it was a good time thing for him. He did not appear to be concerned regarding whether it should be R-I or R-II, but Ms. Surber said it seemed to her that since both the Collingwood Farms and Greenway Farm are currently operating successfully in the R-II zoning district, coupled with the fact there are certain uses in R-I that are permitted outright that might not be compatible with surrounding multi-family and residential developments, Ms. Surber suggested that R-II was the better choice for this. Mr. Worden said he has no problem and has trouble coming up with any other alternative. V. INITIAL REVIEW OF THE THORSEN/BROOKS REZONE The P-I zone was only meant for school districts, city property, etc. These 6 blocks under private ownership with two separate owners got lumped in with the elementary school. She said they need to decide which of the zoning districts is more appropriate The abutting property is R-IV. Alternatives are: · R-II single family zoning which does not directly abut the property, but would allow single family homes. There are two single family homes currently existing on the property, and Mr. Thorsen has expressed desire to build another single family home. · R-III zoning allows flexibility that multi-family could be developed as well as single family, which would meet Mr. Thorsen's needs. · R-IV zoning which prohibits single family development and has a minimum density requirement. It directly abuts the mixed-use zone as well as other R-IV property and is relatively flat, especially the four lots in Block 176. With the development of Admiralty Apartments, part of their parking was within the Lincoln Street right-of-way and now that portion of Lincoln Street apparently has been vacated. Ms. Surber said she would check. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Ms. Surber reported the SEP A checklist is complete and contains approximately 18 pages. She did not make copies for everyone, but offered copies to those interested. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Worden announced the following: . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 11 · At the City Council workshop earlier in the week Mr. McMahan presented to the Council an analysis of the proposed change in thresholds for SEP A Determination. He noted that approximately 60 percent of the SEP A determinations Staff does are for ordinances or other things that are essentially internal to the city, and not for developers. He also pointed out that the proposed change in the thresholds would not have any effect on large developments; it would make things easier for a relatively small number of smaller developments. He pointed out that we now have Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinances which cover a good deal of what the SEPA originally was intended to cover, and that there are some very good arguments for why we might want to raise the thresholds at which a SEP A review is required. Council determined that they would like the Planning Commission to look at the issue and return a recommendation with particular attention to the threshold for grading, which is one area where there is no city ordinance that covers the ground as well. The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether or not the threshold should be changed, and if so by how much. Mr. Worden said Council also asked that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing. It was determined Mr. McMahan would include the hearing on the Planning Commission schedule. Mr. Worden distributed Mr. McMahan's draft proposed amendments with lines in and lines out. · Joint training by Mr. McMahan with the Planning Commission and Council (Land Use functioning) September 23rd, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Ms. Surber asked permission for Planning Staff to also attend. Mr. Worden announced a Hearings Examiner review of the shoreline and shoreline permit for Waterman-Katz, Cannery Building, August 31st, 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Next Scheduled Meetinßs AUßUst 26. 1999 September 2. 1999 SGptember 9. 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (CI-MU) Comp Plan Workshop (C-III Downtown Northerly Boundary) (C-II Upper-Story Residential) 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. -- Joint Workshop with City Council and BCD Staff (Land Use) Comp Plan Public Hearing Special Meeting to finalize Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations Week of October 25. 1999 Joint Workshop w/City Council to review Planning Commission recommendations September 23. 1999 September 30. 1999 October 14. 1999 October 28. 1999 . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 12 (Mr. Harbison may unavailable and will be excused September 2; Ms. Erickson will be excused September 9.) IX. COMMUNICATIONS (Current Mail) X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Harbison and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ~~a~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker