Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10032002 Min · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER This October 3, 2002 meeting is continued from September 26, 2002, to hear the 2002 Suggested Amendments #5 through #8 of the Comprehensive Plan.. Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order ¡t 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Members answering roll were Richard Berg, Nancy Dorgan, Alice King, and Michael Hyland. Lyn Hersey, and James Irvin were excused; Bernie Arthur and Frank Benskin were unexcused. Also present ~re BCD Director Jeff Randall and Senior Planner Judy Surber. III. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING OF THE 2002 AMENDMENTS TO THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT #5 Revise Density oCR-III and R-IV Zoning Districts Description: Revise the maximum density for the multi-family zoning districts to allow calculation of density to be based on either bedrooms or units. The current proposal is a hybrid of the former code that used a unit calculation and the 1999 amendments that changed it to a bedroom calculation. · BCD Recommendation: Approve the amendment as proposed in Exhibit 5-1. The proposed amendment would change the density requirements to: R-III 24 bedrooms or 16 units whichever is greater/40,000 sf oflot area R-IV 40 bedrooms or 24 units whichever is greater/40,000 sf oflot area Staff Findings & Conclusions: 1) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; 2) Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid, however it has been determined that the 1999 amendments had the unintended effect of lowering allowable densities in s>me cases. This is new information which was not considered during the 1999 annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; and; 3) The Commission deems it desirable to extend flexibility to developers of multi-family development in the interest of encouraging affordable housing and a variety of housing types. Ms. Surber indicated that in 1999 the switch from units to bedrooms caused the unintended effect of lowering densities in the multi-family zones. The stated purpose of the suggŒted amendment is design flexibility, to reinstate the total allowable density to conform with the needs of the UGA and to rectify an omission that was made in the 1999 testimony for the amendment to become bedrooms. Exhibit 55 gives the code history of how bedrooms were used in multi-family zoning before 1996, and in 1997 with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Codes it was changed to units. In 1999 Michael Raymond proposed reverting to the bedroom calculation. Both BCD Staff and the Planning Commission thought the calculation by bedroom was dangerous and caused problems. Staff found no other jurisdictions that used bedroom calculations as a density unit in their search with MRSC. Council reversed their recommendation. Exhibit 5-2, Ordnance 2716, Finding 20 indicates the intent to be, ". . . encouragement and accommodation of affordable housing' and to "promote a variety of housing types. . " · Ms. Surber noted that Alice King provided comments, Exhibit 5-3, showing there were other mlYs to address the goals that were stated in the City Council fmdings, and that Ms. Kings concern was for the best way to implement the goals of affordable housing and promote a variety of housing types. Ms. Surber distributed and explained Exhibit 5-7 showing how to aècomplish those goals and showing density bonuses included in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Minutes, October 3,2002/ Page 1 · · · BCD recommendation to adopt the hybrid is because the stated goal at the time this was adopted was flexibility. It is also to address the unin1ended effect oflowering the density. Ms. Surber said the proposal meets that goal. Ms. Surber and Ms. King concluded there was no problem in sending forward a further recommendation to Council, but at a later time because of the specific public noticing that has already been done for this amendment. They also discussed removing bedrooms at this time and reinært the density by units. She said that although Staff does not particularly like doing bedrooms, they would not support that at this time because of the prior noticing and that it would probably surprise the applicant. Ms. Surber said she would check wth the City Attorney, but thought since it is already stated in the Comprehensive Plan and not in conflict with its goals, they could proceed with affordable housing outside of the Comp Plan if they wished. Ms. King expressed her appreciation and pointed out the complications. She had thought to be explicit, building 24 units versus 16, in saying if you build small units, you can build more of them and call it a density bonus. Her concern with the bedroom concept is that it can be abused. Ms. Surber said she had spoken with Ms. King and Jean Walat and it came to their attention that using the current 24 bedrooms for R-III, if you used the same block and built eight single family homes under RII with three bedrooms or maybe a couple of ADUs, you probably exceed that in R-II in terms of bedrooms. It is not a good way to encourage multi-family At 7: 19 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for Public Testimony. There being none, she closed Public Testimony and called for Planning CommissDn Deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERA nON Ms. Dorgan questioned Staff regarding Exhibit 5-1, page 2, "(e.g., five to 12 dwellings per structure)." Mr. Surber replied she did not feel that needed to be changed because that was there when unitswas the calculation. She said that has been an issue before but it is her recollection it has never been implemented in the Zoning Code. Mr. Randall indicated he thought the example was not intended to be regulatory. Ms. Dorgan discussed differences in R-III variety of housing types, and R-IV urban living and said the purpose ofR-IV seemed to be quite different and might give them a direction in their deliberations in terms of density bonuses. Ms. King said it sounds as though they cannot go that drection tonight. Both Ms. King and Ms. Dorgan had thought to abstain from the vote. Chair Thayer indicated she would like to see the amendment go forward, but come back and revisit the issue at a later time. Ms. King was grateful for the Cotq> Plan Policy 4.2.2 -- implementing things that have never been done, and something they can do. She would like to offer density bonuses for affordable housing and then define affordable housing in some reasonable manner. She would also like to get rid ábedrooms, but thought maybe they can't do it now. Mr. Berg asked Staff what the process would be to implement density bonuses, proposing a bonus and including it in the Zoning Code for R-III, R-IV or both. Mr. Randall replied Staff suggestion was thatit shouldn't be done through this Comp Plan amendment cycle, but it could be done through a regular code amendment. He thought the authority is in the Comp Plan to clarify when density bonuses are allowed, and if the City would have density bonuses tied to size of spaces or a certain number rented at a certain affordability level, he thought they could do that without a Comp Plan amendment, that the direction is already in the Comp Plan. Mr. Berg asked if it is in the Comp Plan and they want to implement it how does that happen? Mr. Randall explained a citizen could come to the City Council with a request or the Planning Commission could pass something on to Council that is consistent with the notice done on this amendment, as an aside reommend doing sonething as a code amendment through the proper procedures. He said it can be done at any time, but they have to go through the proper notification procedures to let people know that the City is considering modifying density to be tied to affordability units, which they have not currently done. Chair Thayer indicated the Planning Commission could generate a proposal to the Council tonight. She said they could vote on this and then recommend at some later this be taken up. Ms. Surber added implœnentation of Policy 4.2.2; if they are wanting to accomplish this through the Zoning Code bonus density for affordable units per 4.2.2., it is consistent with the Comp Plan and they could do that. If they are looking at bonus densities specifically for I bedroom units, smaller units by square footage she would have to check with the City Attorney to make sure that is consistent with the Comp Plan and does not need a new policy. Mr. Hyland pointed out the City's Affordable Housing Task Force is meeting for a few months, and he asked if they wanted to wait until after that since they cant do much now. He also liked the idea of density bonuses for low income housing. Ms. Thayer wanted to let City Council know their concerns. Planning Commission Minutes, October 3,2002/ Page 2 · · · Mr. Randall indicated that if what they have drafted is passed, R-III 24 bedrooms or 16 dwelling units whichever is greater, it is hard to imagine the need for density. If they clarify in the Zoning Code they can do that density but on certain conditions, he did not think th~ are ever going to want to do more density. They would probably not have to come back and redo the Comp Plan which already allows a pretty high level of density. Ms. King did not think anybody was suggesting any more density, but is saying 24 is alreadya density bonus. Mr. Randall suggested maybe they wanted to condition it on a little higher bar, e.g., not only do more units, but a certain amount of them be in a certain rental category. Ms. King concurred and suggested specifically limiting it to muti- family housing. Ms. Dorgan asked that assuming they are going to revisit this as a code amendment, if Staff had a preference as to how they handle the current proposal. Mr. Randall replied Staff is still supporting the hybrid as being better than what there is currently. He thought they could do more to this to further the Citýs goals in the Comp Plan, but they could do that through the Code. They are supporting the change; it is better than what they currently have. MOTION Mr. Hyland In accordance with BCD Staff Recommendations, Findings & Conclusions Revise the Densities in R-III and R-IV Zoning Districts and recommend implementation of Density Bonus Policy 4.2.2 SECOND VOTE Mr. Berg Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote Mr. Berg asked if they could recommend that in the process of implementing 4.2.2. that the presence of bedrooms in the Zoning Code be revisited. Ms. King thought that would be up to them if they were going to check bedrooms. Ms. Surber noted the problem with that is bedrooms are also in the Comp Plan table, and Chair Thayer thought they would have to revisit that with the Comp Plan. Ms. Surber said it is rather a gray area, when are you going beyond the intent, etc. Chair Thayer suggested revisiting it at he time of the Comp Plan amendment cycle. Mr. Randall indicated there are ways with the Zoning Code of tying back to this, that they are not abandoning it. He thought they could work with this language and have a lot of flexibility in what they want to ahieve. Ms. King suggested they could docket getting rid of the bedrooms next year. Mr. Randall concurred. AMENDMENT #6 Revise Setbacks/Lot Coverage for Corner Lots Description: Originally -- Amend Comprehensive Plan and PTMC to reduce sid6-yard setbacks and increase lot coverage in the residential zoning districts. - Reduce or Delete the required 100foot, side-yard setback along street rights-of-way in the R-I, R-II, and R-III zones - Reconsider front-yard setbacks in the R-I, R-II, and R-III zones - Reflect a maximum lot coverage of 40% in R-I - Reflect a maximum lot coverage of 40% in R-II BCD Recommendation: Recommend denial of proposed amendments. Request that the Council direct staff to draft a new "Administrative Adjustment' procedure in 2003. The new procedure would allow minor reductions to setback requirements where conditions allow as determined by the Director of BCD. Staff Findings & Conclusions: 1) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is heated have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; 2) Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid, and no new information is available which was not considered during he adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and 3) There is no evidence that the proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values. Ms. Surber explained when originally docketed it was b look at reducing or deleting the required 100foot side-yard setback along street rights-of-way in R-I, R-II and R-III zones, and also look at lot coverage in R-I and R- II and consider increasing it to 40%. Reconsideration of front-yard setbacks was also docketed at that time at Staff and Planning Commission recommendation. After the workshop when they discussed setbacks and received comments from Public Works, they sent out notice to include the possible increase of front yard setbacks requirements. The issue was mainly people parking in front of their garages and blocking the sidewalk, suggesting maybe setting the garage further back. The City Attorney recommended they renotice clearly stating there was a possibility the recommendation could include ncreased setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes, October 3,2002/ Page 3 .---. · · · Public Works commented; their feedback is in the Staff Report starting on Page 3. Generally the maintenance crews liked having a 10- foot setback to facilitate work within their utility corridors. Ms. Surber said City Engineer Dave Peterson reiterated the problem with garages and people blocking the sidewalks. He also included when the garage is on a side street, the setback might be reduced to 0 in the"neo-traditional" fashion making it clear you can't park in front of the garage. You either put in the garage or on the street. Comments were also received from Puget Sound Energy involving the problem with aerial clearances between electrical conductors and buildings as well as pa~mounted transformers and buildings. Ms. Linda Streissguth ofPuget Sound Energy will be discussing PSE concerns. Ms. Surber explained that based on their feedback and research, Port Townsend's setbacks are pretty minimal. She said the tables she provided of setback requirements show most setbacks tobe around 20 feet, and that our front and sid6-yard setbacks are not excessive. Given the potential of utility conflicts, their recommendation on setbacks was not to further reduce the setbacks, but perhaps look at a way of addressing variances or adjustnents on a case-by-case basis that could be included in an administrative adjustment process in our Zoning Code. She distributed Exhibit 6-17, a policy written by Mr. Randall that could be inserted supporting administrative adjustments. Staff would like a simpler process for addressing minor additions to existing homes, in the Historic District especially where houses are non-conforming with setbacks. If they want to add stairs, railing, a roof over the back door, they can't do it without getting a variaœe because of the setback restrictions. Staff recommends: SETBACKS: Keep setbacks as they are, but go with an administrative adjustment process for a case-by- case analysis. LOT COVERAGE: Keep as they are. The lot coverage is linked to impervious sU'face. Impervious surface especially in R-I has stormwater concerns. Most soils in the R-I District are fairly imperable and drainage studies done for that basin show they should not be increasing impervious surface area. Ms. Jan Zimmer in BCD had not heard of problems regarding lot coverage, and only heard that setbacks are a problem in existing homes where they were adding such things as a porch or steps. With new homes, people seem to be able to accommodate the setback requirements. Mr. Randall added regarding the Policy 17.10.1 he did not think they have to amend the Comp Plan to implement an administrative adjustment setback policy. He drafted this in case the Planning Commission felt they had to have something to direct the City to look at it. It says 'consider' and doesn't bind the City to do anything. He foresaw a possible administrative adjustment process without having to go through a whole variance process. Prom Staffs context typically interested parties are not the neighbors, but utiity provider utilities. At 8:05 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for Public Testimony. Ms. Linda Streissguth, Municipal Liasion Manager, Puget Sound Energy 22884 Ryan Drive, Poulsbo Puget Sound Energy supports Staff recommendation fIT Amendment #6, to deny setbacks; and to develop an Administrative Procedure to allow for minor adjustments to condition setback requirements where conditions allow. PSE's concerns are primarily around code compliance issues with the National Electric Saêty Code and Washington Administrative Code and portions of both that address various electric equipment and placement of structures. Portions also address worker safety for people either working on or maintaining the structures. Ms. Streissguth said a zero lot line is not consistent with the minimum clearances that are established by either of those codes. On average the code recommends a 10 foot role. The zero line would also conflict with existing and new infrastructure. Placement of facilities would require individual review and probably special accommodations for placement of those facilities. Ms. Streissguth said they would be happy to work with Staff in developing or reviewing an administrative procedure to ensure that it is consistent with the two sets of codes, and more importantly addresses the public safety issues of the citizens in Port Townsend. She reiterated they support the Staff recommendation on the amendment and offered to answer any questions. At 8:10 p.m. Chair Thayer closed Public Testimony and asked for Planning Commission deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERAnON: Mr. Hyland stated his original concern was with safety. He agreed with the amendment, but questioned driveways. He spoke of inconsistencies in placement of sidewalks and expressed a concern. He liked Mr. Randalls proposal and the Staff recommendations, but asked if they could also address sidewalks. Chair Thayer indicated sidewalks would be a whole different issue. Ms. Surber felt that since they did renotice a potential of increase they could make a recommendation that the front-yard setbacks or street-yard setback for garages be increased to resolve Planning Commission Minutes, October 3, 2002 / Page 4 · · · the problem of people blocking sidewalks. Mr. Randall pointed out it is only a problem if you have doors facing the street; most cars are more than 10 feet long. He suggested inconsistencies in sidewalk; were due to their being built at different times, that currently the standard is to build sidewalks up against the edge of the rightof-way which have them lining up. He did not think that issue could be resolved through this process. Mr. Hyland asked if they could do something so this wouldtit happen again. Mr. Randall replied they could recommend changing the Zoning Code to increase setbacks for garages where the doors face the street. He and Ms. Surber were both comfortable with doing that. Mr. Berg asked Ms. Streissguth ifhe understood correctly that the safety issue with electrical utilities has to do with overhead wires only. Ms. Streissguth answered that clearance issues exist also for underground utilities. It is defmed as the placement of pad-mounted gear to combustible structures. If you have underground facilities adjacent to street frontage, there needs to be an accommodation for pa~mounted transformers, vaults and switches to be placed somewhere where to have at least 8 feetto a combustible structure. She said the underground wires themselves are fine. Mr. Berg indicated it doesn't make sense to have 10 foot setbacks everywhere. There are lots of places where there are neither a transformer nor overhead wires, and he ask<rl why they need a 10 foot setback in places like that. Mr. Randall pointed out the language in this policy would apply only to existing homes that doIÌt meet the 10 feet setback. Mr. Berg said he understands the 10 foot distance from transformers and overhead wires, but does not understand the reason for having a blanketl 0 foot setback everywhere in the whole city when only the sides of lots that are up against a transformer or a wire are the place where the problem is. If you have a wire or a transformer you have to design accordingly and you have to stay 10 feet away. He said you have to do that whether or not the zoning setback is 10 feet, and he did not see any connection between the two. Mr. Randall thought it was written for the flexibility of the utility providers in the city. If you always keep houses 10 feet back even if there is no transformer, sewer line, etc., it always gives the city, the electric company, etc. access to run it down there and meet code. He thought it was written from theirperspective and ease of future construction. Ms. Streissguth added that in some jurisdictions where there are 0 front-lot line setbacks developers will design a structure without recognizing the need for utility service. He has a design up to the 0 Iodine setback, has a building permit, comes in to PSE for service. PSE has to ask how he suggests they serve him; they caIÌt locate a transformer inside his building. She said it happens frequently, and then they need to design their building for a cut out that meets the code clearances. She asked how you could craft language where utility needs are addressed? You have to look at them on a cas6-by-case basis. If it is a new plat, not every lot needs a cutout for a transformer, but there needs to be enough of them to address the service needs in the neighborhood, and how you lay that out in a zoning code ahead of time is difficult. Mr. Berg said in fact a 10 foot setback is not enough; the transformer has to be on private property, and the building has to be 10 feet from it. He thought in their "Tree House" process they have successfully learned that a S foot setback provides enough space for Public Works to dig along the edge of the right-of-way. He suggested maybe there could be some wording that wwld allow the first floor to be within S feet if the second floor is set back to 10 feet to accommodate overhead wires that usually would occur at the second floor. He felt C.L. Flint had a legitimate concern at least on corner lots, where someone with aninterior lot gets to have 10 feet from the front, 10 feet from the back, and S feet on each side. He said if you get a corner lot you loose S feet of buildable area on the side where there is a street. He did not want to see someone penalized for buying a corner lot. Ms. Dorgan referenced Mr. Berg's "Tree House", that you are starting with a brand new community and can address all the issues together versus an existing neighborhood. She felt it would not work to suddenly change the setback and change the character of the neighborhood; you have site lines to consider, what people are used to, and what things might work in a different kind of neighborhood. She felt regarding this amendment in general that Mr. RandaUs policy gave her a new way oflooking at infill, that she had never considered housing additions as infill. She had thought of infill as vacant lots that need to be developed, or what she said the applicant had in mind with the amendment-- what can they do to get more ADUs? What could we do in our code to be flexible that would facilitate what we need with ADUs. She felt that focus was being lost in talking about how close steps and porches of existing homes can get to the street. She talked about community values of impervious surRce, which she does not always like, but on the other hand they have the community value of encouraging affordable housing and urban infill through ADUs. In talking about adding on to homes, she wondered about 800 sq. ft. additions; would they be allowingan additional 800 sq. ft. (the ADU cap) with a frontage change in this administrative policy. She said if they are comfortable adding 800 sq. ft., for someone to get a bigger home, couldn't they be more accepting of an additional impervious surface for tre creation of an ADU the involved more flexibility and setbacks and higher lot coverage, which is what the applicant was originally going for. She thought it went too far, but she would like to see them just focus on ADUs, what we could do with frontages, and lot coverage caps to that end. Planning Commission Minutes, October 3, 2002 / PageS · · · Chair Thayer felt our setbacks are very generous as they are compared to other cities now. She did not feel the need for any less setback than they have. She said we are pretty minimal Ms. Dorgan appreciated Exlu'bit 6-15 showing flexibility for ADUs, showing different ways of accommodating putting something in close to another dwelling. She agreed with Ms. Thayer that we are pretty much already where we want to go, but maybe in terms of lot coverage she would beable to bend a little for an ADU. Adding 800 sq. ft. so someone could get an administrative okay to build an addition to their home, why not be equally willing to add to our impervious surface load within the city if we are also going to get the community value. Ms. King did not think they should do that in R-I, proposed increase in lot coverage in R-I from 25% to 40%. When you read why it was set low in &1 originally, it was because of drainage and stormwater constraints. Chair Thayer suggested they take setbacks and lot coverage separately and vote on each. Ms. Surber thought it was the Renton code that allowed for several different kinds of encroachments into the setback, that if the intent is not for the whole building to come out into he setback, but such things as stairs, the chimney, garden bay window, language could be inserted similar to what that code had that allows so many encroachments within that setback for these types of features. It was determined to deal separately with Staff presented setbacks and lot coverage. MOTION SECOND Ms. Dorgan Deny the request to reduce setbacks Mr. Hyland Discussion: It was determined to consider Policy 7.10.1 presented by mr. Randall separately. Ms. King asked Mr. Berg what he would suggest to do, eliminate corner lot setbacks entirely, set them at 5 feet? Mr. Berg replied he thought this amendment suggested deleting the 10 feet sideyard setback along street rights-of-way, which means corner lot, and means it isO. He felt that might be overkill and suggested they might change the side along the street rights-of-way to 5 feet to accomplish what the proponent had in mind making it the same as any other lot. When he worked with this in Seattle, on a corner lot yw could choose which was the front and which the side, and accordingly you got 10 feet on one side and 5 on the other. Mr. Randall stated in Port Townsend the applicant also is allowed to choose the fÌ'ont; it doesn't allow the side on the street to be reduced to 5 feet, but affects the rear. Ms. Thayer expressed concern for visibility if it were reduced to 5 feet, and would rather keep it 10 feet. Ms. Dorgan noted there are some significant vacant corners uptown that would be quite a change to have thembuilt out much closer. It could be someone else's front street. Mr. Hyland asked if they include the driveway issue in this motion. Mr. Berg said he liked the driveway amendment, the idea if a garage door faces the street it has to be back 20 feet. ]f your car is 15 feet you usually leave a couple of feet between the car and the garage door. It was determined to handle the driveway issue separately. VOTE Passed, 4 in favor by roll call vote; Mr. Berg opposed MOTION Mr. Hyland Recommend setbacks for garages where the garage door faces the street to be 20 feet SECOND Mr. Berg Discussion: Ms. Dorgan referenced an exhibit about houses in Portland OR and how garages were dealt with from the back yard. Amendment to the motim made the maker and seconder of the motion: AMENDED MOTION Recommend setbacks for garages with garage doors facing the street be 20 feet, but not affecting garages on alleys VOTE Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote Planning Commission Minutes, October 3,2002/ Page 6 · · · Mr. Berg asked how to encourage someone to look at exceptions to setbacks allowed under the Renton code and propose something similar to that be put in Port Townsends zoning code? Ms. Surber clarified it was actually Edmond's code. Ms. Thayer asked if they were to incorporate that into this amendment. Ms. Suber suggested she get their general idea, craft language similar to the Edmonds code and continue that portion of the item until the October 10th meeting until you can actually see the language crafted. Ms. Dorgan said she would also like to give this more thought because it is so broad. She would like to see it limited to such minor things as steps or porch overhangs, bay windows. CONSENSUS: Continue consideration of setback exceptions used by the City of Edmonds along with Mr. Randall's suggested addition of Policy 7.10.1 to the Land Use Element Mr. Berg suggested that 7.10.1 should not be limited to existing structures. He did not æe any reason not to provide the same flexibility to new structures if it doesn't conflict with vehicle, non-motorized, or utility use. If there is enough reason in a new project to protrude into the setback, he did not see why the flexibility of the administrative review couldn't apply. Ms. Dorgan said that is why she raised her objection of more than such things as steps, etc. Ms. Surber asked they look at language in Exhibit 6-6, Page 3 -- Edmonds, Average Front Setback. She wondered if that was similar to the intent of 17.10.1. Mr. Randall concurred, but it was determined to look at some options to bring back on October 24th. Ms. Dorgan asked to add ADUs to the list. MOTION Mr. Berg Approve change of maximum lot coverage to 40% in R-II; deny the maximun lot coverage change in R-I SECOND Ms. Dorgan Discussion: Ms. Dorgan thought that was a nice compromise, and that as brought by Ms. King; we do not want to do more impervious surface in R-I. Mr. Berg said he thought the change in R-II would help make it easier to do ADUs. Ms. Dorgan said if they linked it to ADUs. She asked that they make a friendly amendment. Friendly amendment made by maker and seconder of the motion: AMENDED MOTION Approve change of maximum lot coverage to 40% in R-II if there is an ADU on the lot; deny the maximum lot coverage change in R-I VOTE Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote Ms. Surber asked if the vote to support the suggested hybrid on Amendment #5 would include Staffs Suggested Findings and Conclusions. There was consensus that it would. She will provide Suggested Findings and Conclusions for Amendment #6 at the continued meeting on October 24th. Chair Thayer called for a brief recess. AMENDMENT #7 Revise Zoning Use Tables to Allow Gruop Homes Outright in Certain Zones Description: Amend defmitions and use tables in the zoning code to differentiate group homes for the disabled and emergency shelters from residential treatment facilities whose clients maybe considered a risk to the public. The intent is to treat group homes for the disabled and emergency shelters (e.g., homes for battered women) the same as similar residential structures occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. BCD Recommendation: Approval of amendments as shown in Exhibit 7-1. StaffPindings & Conclusions: I) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend Compreheruive Plan; 2) Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, however recent review of the Washington Housing Policy Act (WHP A) by Municipal Research & Services Center revealed that our code might be found inconsistent with the WHPA. The review by MRSC presents new information which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; and Planning Commission Minutes, October 3, 2002 / Page 7 · · · 3) Consistency with state law and provision of group homes and emergen:y shelters reflects current widely held community values. Ms. Surber provided definitions for various types of uses in Commission packets and indicated they clearly show that group homes for the disabled do not include drug rehab types of situations. The language provided is to change definitions to reflect the differences in the various types of housing. The Use Table from 17.16.020 shows group homes and emergency shelters for fewer than six adults, based on the defmition of'family," would be permitted in the residential zones. At 8:40 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony. There being none she closed public testimony and called for Planning Commission deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERAnON: Ms. Dorgan noted the need to be consistent with state law and made a motion to approve. MOTION Ms. Dorgan Conclusions Approve in accordance with BCD Staff Recommendation, Findings & SECOND Mr. Hyland VOTE Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote AMENDMENT #8 Strike the 500/0 Rule for ADUs Description: BCD proposes to strike the SO% rule from the current code requirement that limits Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to "less than SO% of the total floor area of the main residence or 800 square feet whicrever is less". The size limit of 800 square feet would remain. BCD Recommendation: Approval of amendments as shown in Exhibit 8-1. (17.16.020 Permitted, conditional and prohibited uses -- Accessory dwelling units.) Staff Findings & Conclusions: I) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; 2) Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are stillvalid, however, problems have arisen in application of the SO% rule for ADUs codified in 17.16.020. The SO% rule has had the unintended effect of penalizing applicants who have small prmary residences. These problems present new information which was net previously considered; and 3) Provision of a variety of housing types and affordable housing is a widely held community value. Ms. Surber pointed out the present SO% rule penalizes you for having a smaller main residence. At 8:42 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for Public Testimony. There being none she closed the meeting for public testimony and called for Planning Commission Deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERAnON Ms. Dorgan asked if wording in Exhibit 8-1 would appear to be consistent with what they did in Amendment #6, R-II Zone having greater lot coverage permitted for ADUs. She asked Mr. Randall, assuming that were adoped by Council, did he see any need for reworking any of this in S I? Mr. Randall felt they fit together nicely. Ms. Dorgan applauded BCD Staff for their revisions in Exhibit 8-1 and gave her support. Planning Commission Minutes, October 3, 2002 / Page 8 · · · MOTION Mr. Berg Recommend approval of Amendment #8 in accordance with BCD Staff Recommendation, Findings and Conclusions Ms. Dorgan Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote SECOND VOTE IV. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 10, 2002 -- Formal Amendments October 24, 2002 -- Finalize Comp Plan V. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Hyland and seconded by Mr. Berg. All were in favor. At 8:50 p.m. the meeting was recessed to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. October 24,2002, in the City Council Chambers to consider and vote on language shown in Exhibit 66, Edmonds, Average Front Setback, to also include ADUs. Planning Commission Minutes, October 3, 2002 / Page 9