Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012904 Ag Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - January 8, 2004 V. New Business January 29, 2004 A.. Possible Revisions to (1) Cottage Housing Regulations, (2) One House/One Lot Rule, and (3) Manufactured Home Parks 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VI. Unfinished Business VII. Upcoming Meetings VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment · · · GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Planning Commission Possible Cottage Housing Amendments January 29. 2004 Name (please print) Testimon ? Yes No Address ~ ?~~ %7 ( 51 ~.¡s.¡ 1 , ~'2... r., ~cr.u, Ov'\ s+- "- vi 5 y-- <"") ( ~ \<32(0 s,i-- 5' J 0- S7-(1¡ Sf- ~ () ~::;-- · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 29, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Richard Berg called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Othermembers answering roll were Cindy Thayer, Alice King, Jeff Kelety and George Randels; Lyn Hersey and Jim Irvin were excused. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Planner Jean Walat, and City Engineer Dave Peterson. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Thayer made a motion to approve the minutes of January 8, 2004; Mr. Randels seconded. Changes were suggested and Ms. Thayer amended her motion to approve the minutes of January 8, 2004 as amended; Mr. Randels agreed. All were in favor. IV. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Kelety made a motion to accept the agenda; Ms. Thayer seconded. All were in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- (non-agenda items) Vern Garrison, 714 P Street Mr: Garrison said he might put his comments into writing. He indicated his intent was to memorialize the GMA mandate and what he saw of City planning and zoning while sitting onthe City Council and Community Development Committee. He stated that prior to GMA, the earth existed with rampant, rambling, sprawling building, spreading all over. GMA came and put in lines saying they need to confine growth to urban centers for theiIfacilities, where it can be mitigated and accommodated, and save the rest of the world for appreciation. We are mandated to make room for a certain count of citizens in Port Townsend that was quantified and spread throughout our zoning districts. He essentially saw his job -- obligation and mandate from GMA -- was to facilitate compliance with codes and regulations, allow habitat to be built and occur as best it could, and make it as easy as possible within concerns of the earth, environment and living areas in districts where building was occurring. Mr. Garrison cited a recent experience as a measure that we are failing to meet our obligation. He and a partner built four rentals and advertised them within the affordable range, having 46 responses in 4days. Ten of the applicants were senior citizens trying to make do with their medications and low income and still stay in Port Townsend where they were close to a bus and facilities. At least ten were young couples (some who had four jobs each, trying to exist and live in the city and couldn't any more). He selected four, and said he was astonished and horrified to have to turn away more than 40, an example of how we are desperately failing to meet our mandate to make room for growth for individuals b live here in rentals and in their own homes. He thought anyone on any commission, council or review, or any staff, should be in a facilitated mind to make it as easy as possible to get habitat, haven and shelter built so that we can accommodate citizens in the urban center, which is the best thing for the earth. He said he was probably singing to the choir and saying the obvious, but it was the GMA and reality of living in a cityas he saw it which exemplified that we have failed horribly to meet the madates ofGMA to this date. He indicated that perhaps changes in attitude and facilitative nature, of processing permits, and zoning is in order so as to make room for more people of all walks and income in this city. VI. NEW BUSINESS Possible revisions to Cottal!e Housinl! Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 1 · · · Ms. Jean Walat wished Chair Richard Berg a happy birthday for the record. She made the BCD Staff presentation discussing issues in her Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated January 23, 2004. She stated this meeting is a workshop for analysis and discussion of the issues, and no action will be taken tonight. There will be a public hearing to consider any possible code changes the Planning Commission wishes to recommend to City Council. City Council charged the Planning Commission to review some aspects of the Cottage Housing Development (CHD) Ordinance. They have asked the Planning Commission to submit their recommendations within 120 days of Council's first consideration of interim changes on December Uh, approximately by April 13th. Ms. Walat pointed out the CHD ordinance, passed in 2001, allowed cottage development in &1, R-II and R-III residential zones. BCD received their first application summer/fall 2003 for a project proposed for the R-I low-density zone. She noted that application has been vested and nothing done here will affect that application; it is being dealt with and reviewed separately. That application generated a lot of public comment about whether or not cottage housing is actIally appropriate for the R-I zone considering the low-density development that had occurred, both in practice and by ordinance in that zone. Several comments were made to Staff, to the Community Development/Land Use (CD/LU) Committee and the City Council In response, Staff went to the City Council with a proposal for interim changes to the CHD ordinance that would for a limited time prohibit cottage housing in the &1 zone, and also require 500 feet spacing between cottage housing developments. City·Council chose not to pass the interim changes but to remand the issue to the Planning Commission. At the same time, Staff felt there were some minor code clarifications that would be useful to fix: I) the number of single family dwellings that may be placed on a single lot; 2) the allowance of manufactured home parks. Stafffeels the intent of the code is quite clear on both issues, but they feel a clarification needs to be made in black and white. Ms. Walat stated that at a minimum, Planning Comnission needs to make a recommendation as to: 1) whether or not cottage housing developments should be allowed in the &1 zone; 2) whether or not there should be any separation required between cottage housing developments, and; 3) whether the type of applcation cottage housing is currently reviewed under is, in fact, the appropriate one. Issues Ms. Walat discussed included: · Cottage Density. Zoning and Public Notice . Type of Use and Review Process. Application reviews for CHDs: 1) Type I-A -- 9 or fewer, administrative process with decision by BCD Director; no notice to neighbors, newspaper or posted on site; only the applicant can appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner; 2) SEPA requirements-- 10 or more; notices are made. · Density and Minimum Lot Area (See Exhibit B, excerpt from Comp Plan.) · CHD density is greater than typically allowed in an underlying residential zone-- housing is smaller, i.e, height and bulk, and subject to design standards. With additional scrutiny available, addiíonal density istolerable within the neighborhood. There is no requirement to be affordable housing; COO is not necessarily considered to be affordable housing. . Underlying density in R-I -- maximum permitted, 1 singlt}family residencell 0,000 sf. · Options shown on overheads: 1) single family residence, 10,000 sf, 40,000 sfblock, typical Port Townsend acre; 2) single family residence with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); 3) duplex permitted if meeting underlying density, 1 per 10,000 sf, requiring a J>,OOO sflot, also allowing one ADU; 4) CHD typical maximum, only 12 cottages permitted for density of 14 cottages/40,OOO sf. Could be on a slightly smaller lot than 40,000 sf. · Exhibit E. Liz Berman's original Wildwood Development, showing 12 cottages, plus a small common house, with some storage and parking; since revised to be smaller-- 8 cottages (moved inward to allow greater retention of trees and each required by the Development to have 200 sf designated personal open space); covered parking, storage and shared common area. Umatilla Hill, R- II zone -- 3 types of housing: 1) 10 single family dwellings, average 7,000 sf; 2) cottages similar to CHD, under 5,000 sf; 3) condominium parcel with 10 cottages, storage house, common building and tool shed, 39,000 sf (average 3,900 sflot area, considerably larger than required by the CHD ordinance -- 2,857 sf in any zone.) · PUD Comparison · Ms. Walat showed both the undersized lots developed with a density bonus and lot averaging, and the oversized lots. Mr. Randall explained the density bonus for a minimum lot size in a PUD is 3,000 sf, if you are meeting the underlying density. These were balanced by having oversized lots on one side of Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page2 · · · the area and undersized, slightly fewer than 5,000 sf, on the cther side; it overall meets the R-II density. Ms. Walat stated in R-I you could do a PUD and get a density bonus of up to 20%, taking you up to 4.8 dwelling units per 40,000 sf (4 underlying; 4.8 for PUD; 14 cottage). Ms. Walat thanked Mr. Johnson for putting together and making available GIS maps. She turned the discussion the over to Mr. Dave Peterson, City Engineer. Basis for R-I zoning Mr. Peterson explained that approximately 1991 the City began to develop a Stormwater Plan that identified basins. Volunteers inventoried the basins looking at what kind of development was going on in the area. He showed a map of Basin #4, the largest drainage basin in the city, a closed depression. It is a series of wetlands and a drainage corridor that ends in Fort Worden in the Chinese Garden. He pointed out the Winona Wetlands and the Levinsky property the City purchased. The Stormwater Plan, although never actually adopted, identified the need for the City to do more detailed studies for each of these drainage basins, starting with a couple of the most critical, one being Basin #4. The City . received federal funding to prepare an implementation plan, which has also not been adopted. He pointed out the area of Basin #4 including the area of flooding proolems over the years. The City initiated a basin study which was completed approximately 1995 that had a series of recommendations and alternatives stating that if that area builds out at typical 1 house/5,OOO sf densities, it will exacerbate flooding proolems along that drainage corridor, showing the need to look at more stringent controls on properties or use of the option to downzone it. Most of the soil is dense, glacial till like the rest of the town, although there are areas where the soils are not bad. It did not identify which are good or not good soils; it just said the basin in general built out at 1/5,000 sf would potentially have more serious flooding problems than 1/10,000 sf. Mr. Peterson answered Mr. Randels question affIririatively thatthe zoning in effect at the time was 1/5,000 sf. He noted the magnitude of increase in flows built out at any density, but that an incremental difference to help the situation was to downzone. Ideas were coming about with the Comp Plan. This was the orly basin study that had been done. Mr. Peterson pointed out the City identified and purchased critical wetland properties to use as natural drainage features rather than pay people for flood damage. The Land Trust was also looking for wildlife corridors that matched up pretty well with the drainage corridors. He showed a map that combined both the properties the City purchased and properties the Land Trust identified they would either like to or have purchased-- Levinsky Wetland and acreage, Winona Wetlands and parcels where there had been flood damage. He showed the R-I zone outline, on parcel lines with Basin #4, suggesting it was like trying to have a little dense housing to keep the water in the soil and use itas sponge a little bit longer (in this case, cottage zoning compatible with that). Since this was done, there is a lot of new information we need to incorporate into a Stormwater Plan -- new State stormwater regulations, tighter requirements for designhg stormwater systems, new studies Olympia has done about how much forest cover might be helpful to leave to try to keep drainage as natural as possible. We need to look in more detail, can you control stormwater onsite enough to still be able to release it at rates that will protect the drainage corridor? We don't really know the answer, but the purpose in that basin was to have less dense housing, so that stormwater runoff from the houses could potentially stay onsite and be slowly released through the forest corridor like it might have been naturally. Ms. Walat stated that another way of reducing density of housing in the &1 zone was supposed to be limiting lot coverage to 25%. Looking at this again, there are two aspects: I) lot coverage; 2) impelVious surface. They are not sure 25% is correct at this point. If it was actually supposed to be reduced, the number perhaps should have been impervious surface. Lot coverage is different from impervious surface; it only counts the buildings and does not count sidewalks or driveways. If you build out lot coverage to 25%, and impervious surface to 40%, you have basically done the same impervious surface as &11 zoning. She said that hasn't been an issue so far, and may not be an issue because typically single family housing in the &1 zone has not built out at a 25% lot coverage rate. Even though the example has been made that you could have 4 dwellings with 4 ADUs on a block, totaling 8 dwellings, developers can't build ADUs in that way-- 4 houses with 4 ADUs. This is not the pattern that has happened out there at this point. She said it seems possible that cottage housing could be appropriate there and could work w:ith the stormwater, but it seems they have to look at underlying assumptions they havœbout the R-I zone. As requested, she showed ADU buildout compared with CHD: 1) ADUs-- 4 houses with 4 ADUs on a block (basically, 8 different families on one block); compared with 2) CHDs-- 4 houses without ADUs (up to 12). Mr. Peterson added that most of the developments out there are on 10,000 sf, often 20,000 sf or even larger Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 3 · · · lots. There hasn't been a real concern to address that coverage; they are generally not getting anywhere near that 25%. Mr. Randels asked if anybody had any feelings, f not hard data, about what the percentage is of impervious total coverage, not lot coverage as defmed that normally happens on a 10,000 sflot in &1. How does that compare to what would be a typical cottage development? Ms. Walat answered that it appœrs to be typically less than 40%. She stated that when you get to R-II, it typically gets to 40% impervious surface, but anecdotally when she sees the permits come. in the impervious surface in &1 it is generally less than that. Mr. Peterson replied it is 25% or less. Mr. Randels asked what it is in the revised cottage? Ms. Walat explained that with cottage, lot coverage. being defmed as 25%, which appears to be the goal in order to get the density of the cottages you want, impervious surface is obviously going to be higher than 25%. Mr. Randels asked if they knew what it is in the revised Berman Plan? Mr. Rozanski, architect for the Berman Wildwood Development, clarified that both of their schemes were under the 25% allowable lot coverage. He felt in cottage development, and thought it bore out to be the truth, that when you do 12 or 8 cottages with combined parking, there is actually less impervious area because they are clustering the parking, have paths for walking that access the housing rather than having wide driveways with double and triple car garages, sports courts, etc., things you would typically have in larger single family house with multiple automobiles. Mr. Berg asked ifhe knew the impervious surface on the second plan; Mr. Rozansli replied he did not off hand and hesitated to guess. ~ and Use of Review Process Ms. Walat recapped the review process: · Type IA -- 9 or fewer cottages, no notice and only applicant can appeal · Type II -- Notice in the newspaper and onsite; they fra:¡uently require application's optional neighbor notice. Can be appealed by any aggrieved party, or any party of record; specific appeal and comment period. · Conditional Use Permit (CUP) -- Major CUP with notice requirements same as Type II; hearing before . the Hearing Examiner and appeal to City Council. Mr. Berg asked the difference between a Type II application and a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Walat replied: 1) Type II does not have a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner; 2) Conditional Uæ permit has a list of site specific conditions and requirements that have to be met for approval. Ms. Walat explained that compatibility with the neighborhood and impacts are looked at on a more sit~ specific basis according to criteria of the CUP process. She thought both things were significant additions. Ms. Thaver asked to have that information provided them before they make their decisions. Mr. Randels asked when someone appeals to the Hearing Examiner, what standards does the Hearing Examiner apply? Ms. Walat answered that the Hearing Examiner has to apply only the municipal code and State regulations, and, as far as possible, can't use subjective judgment. Mr. Randels posed the example: if the Type II process had applied to Wildwood and someone decided they were aggrieved and wanted to appeal. He asked if it is correct that the Hearing Examiner would look at the underlying statute and presumably conclude it meets all the standards, and therefore the appeal is denied? Ms. Walat said that wæ correct, that they would look to see if the process had been followed and also that the content met the requirements. Ms. Walat made the following comparisons: · Type II permit -- lot line reorientation · Major conditional use -- R-I Zone, plant nursery; R-II Zone, bed and breakfast; kennel with more than . four dogs; a barn; churches; schools, etc. She noted there is the expectation that the R-I Zone will build out. It is an Urban Growth Area, and &1 zoning does not protect neighbors from other development. She thought some people may feel that &1 is there to have extra large lots and maintain a rural character. While all of that may be desirable, at some point land that isn't protected in some other way by either ¡ublic purchase, through the Land Trust or some other conservation easement, probably will be developed. She said they just need to see whether this the appropriate kind of development at this point for R-I. . Location of Cottage Housing in Relation to Infrastructure and Proximity to Commercial Areas and Services Ms. Walat stated that many of the comments they received were that cottage housing is more appropriate in Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page4 · · · R-II or R-III zones where people walk to services or stores, not on the edge of the develq>ed parts of the city. The city is divided into three tiers in terms of infrastructure and capital improvements made with city funding. Generally, developers pay for infrastructure extensions. The Comp Plan specifically says that developers are basically free to do that, if they are willing to put up the money. She said that mostly the R-I zone corresponds with Tier 3. Tier 3 projects often have more complicated requirements, ESA issues, and generate a lot of controversy (as in this case). You maywant to think about whether or not that is the best place to put such projects when there is other land in the city that can be used for cottage developments. Mr. Kelety asked Ms. Walat if she had readily available the amount of free land in:&1 versus R-II? She pointed out themap shows the sewer, water and roads. Mr. Peterson asked if just the availability ofland, how built out it is? Mr. Kelety concurred saying, just the sense of how much acreage is available in &11, and R-I. Ms. Walat indicated the information is available, but she did not have it with her. BCD will provide those numbers and information regarding location of sewer. water. busses. etc. Ms. Thayer pointed out that just because the sewer is there doesn't mean the property is buildable in front of it. Mr. Randels commented that if it is not there, it essentially is not buildable. Ms. Thayer indicated that was not necessarily so. Mr. Peterson added there is always water where the sewer is, but not always the reverse. Ms. Wllat pointed out on the map where there is quite a bit of undeveloped land that doesn't have any utilities, plus infill areas close to sewer, assuming water is also in the vicinity. Separation of Cottage Housing Developments Ms. Walat noted 500 feet was suggested; it could be a different number, or no number. That is something for the Planning Commission to make recommendation. The next cottage housing would have to be 500 feet away, which in reality probably means 2 intervening blocks; 250 feet-- I block, etc. It was agreed to stop with this part of the Staff Presentation and continue with the remaining two items at the conclusion of this deliberation. It was suggested that only new public comments be brought, rather than what had been made previously. Ms. Walat referenced the petition in Commission packets signed by 51 people in the &1 zone and said she did not attach the entire petition because of paper constraints, but there is one copy of all of the signatures. Additionally, there is Ande Grahn's letter of response to issues brought up by neighbors, specifically about the Berman project, but probably R-I in general. Copies will be included in the next packet. At 8:05 p.m. Chair Berg opened the meeting for public comment m the Cottage Housing. PUBLIC COMMENT Susan Miller, 80 Gull Shadow Lane She said the BCD Staff Memo shows pictures of ADUs and houses all on 4 blocks, and they say they are not aware of any such situations currently in existence. She thought it important to know that is not something that exists. She corrected her statement from the last meeting to say 4 dwellings per block are allowed in &1, but what is allowable with the cottage is 14 per block. Everything that has been well documented about the drainage problems is why she requested the cottage housing ordinance not be àlowed in R-I zoning, or at the very least a minimum distance of 500 feet between cottage housing developments, along with the stricter oversight requirements, such as Type III conditional use permits. Marla Streator, 871 51st Street When she spoke last time she was asked if she could get more signatures on petitions from people that do not live in the area: That was a very difficult task because there is so much to teach people; it takes Y2 hour to get one signature. She did not have as many as she wwld like, but when people actually understand what is going on, there seems to be quite a bit of support in that direction. Sarah Spaeth; 1326 Jackson Street Staff with Jefferson Land Trust. She has been the project's manager since 1996 and was hiredto be project manager of the Quimper Wildlife corridor project. Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 5 . . . Ms. Spaeth appreciated Mr. Peterson's overview and wanted to give a little bit more information. The Land Trust has been working with the City in this project area since the mid/early 199Q¡ as a result of the Comprehensive Planning process that identified the North Beach drainage basin as being the largest basin with the series of wetlands that lead down to the Chinese Garden wetlands, evidence of the floodplains and environmentally sensitVe areas. As a result, the Land Trust adopted the project and tried to build on what the City was already working on in terms of stormwater wetland protection. The map the shows properties in light green that are plated blocks the Land Trust has actually acquired since 1996 -- 165 lots acquired in the area with the goal being to connect the significant wetlands and follow the 1000year floodplain and drainage path as much as possible. That doesn't make much sense for development, but does make sense in terms of stormwater protection and wildlife habitat that is also a goal in the Comprehensive Plan and urban growth management process. The Land Trust does not offIcially have a sense of whether or not the cottage development is a good thing. What they are hoping is that the city and the Planning Commission will take into consideration as they deliberate this the impacts in the R-I area in terms of development with relation to stormwater runoff, and maintaining tree cover and wildlife habitat as develo¡rnent takes place. She thought one factor in favor of the cottage ordinance is that it provides the city greater scrutiny as to development, and can perhaps allow for clustering of those cottages so you can maximize the open space within the development. She said it sounds like it could also actually provide less impervious surface in a development, which in this situation is probably a good thing, and to that end she encouraged the City to adopt a Stormwater Plan it has had in the works for a long time. She thought that would allow the City to look at this issue of whether the 25% impervious surface is adequate and whether in this basin it perhaps isn't something more. She also thought it important for the City to look at the buffers around these wetands. Watching their wet and dry cycle take place over the last 10 - 15 years she has been in town, she has seen the Winona Wetland expand dramatically into buffer zones, and also shrink dramatically; she has seen it almost all the way out to East Sapphie Street. She t4inks it is important for the City to look at that as well, and noted that in fact the City and Land Trust have been partners on this project for a long time. The Land Trust received some grant funding in order to do a management plan thlt will look at some of these issues which include trails, how this project dovetails with the Non Motorized Transportation Plan, how this project can look at some management issues in the wildlife corridor. It might also look at how this dovetails with tre Stormwater Management Plan and might suggest increases to the buffers in som~ of these wetlands. She thought, however, at this point they just encouraged the Planning Commission in their deliberations to consider both the issues of stormwater runoff, how this ordinance applies to that, as well as how you might maximize the benefits to wildlife, keeping native vegetation as much as possible in the area to reach the goals that both the Land Trust and City seem to have in mind for the wildlife corridor aea. Vern Garrison, 714 P Street Mr. Garrison asked for clarification about speaking more than once. Mr. Berg indicated the suggestion was not to repeat your comments, but new information was welcome. Mr. Garri~on suggested that if you really want to inquire about the intent, procedures, or a lot of the aspects of the cottage ordinance, he was part of it in 2001. He said a lot of the features are being overlooked, and he cannot touch on them all in 3 minutes. He read from Mr. Randall's statement in 2001, which Mr. Garrison said to be accurate, that, "Cottage developments would still be subject to lot coverage restrictions [in reference to &1] which are 25% in the R-I zone, so th~t density would not change significantly overall in the area." Mr. GarrIson said the cottage housing developments are a much softer touch and are much more compatible with public trails. They come under design review and placement of the cottages for common grounds. They call for a lot of scrutiny in the quality of tre development. The amount of footage you can put on the ground is just as limited as what is allowed without any scrutiny for normal dwellings to be built. On four 10.000 g lots with ª normal single-family dwelling. each with an ADU (the allowed buildouO; 25% provision for maximum coverage of buildings. You can build: · Four 1,700 sffootprints, 3 stories high · 5,100 sf main residence with one additional 800 sf ADU per 10,000 sflot Total coverage: 10,000 sf coverage on 4 lots (with ADUs) 23,600 sf of living space, in a normal construction of permitted dwellings, with height and footprint restrictions now in existence for RI which come under no staff scrutiny for design, quality of construction, placement of buildings h relation to public trails, paths or anything. Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 6 · · · For a corresponding cottage development 40,000 sf (the same footprint) -- You can build 12 cottages (the maximum in any development) · Half can only have 650 sf footprint . I{emaining half can have 800 sf footprint · 50% can have a second story Total living space: 8,700 sf living space and additional garages to meet 10,000 sf footprint (8,700 living space compared with 23,600 sf). (Later corrected to 17,600 sf maximum livingspace, not 8,700 --less impact.) Mr. Garrison made the point that the impact of a cottage development to &1 is much less intrusive than the zoning currently allowed on the ground without any other scrutiny by Staff. He said not to be misled-- the cottage development is beneficial to R-I, beneficial to any neighborhood in the city. It also meets the guidelines of more density with a softer footprint to the earth. If it exceeded 40% impervious, the same as a residential construction, it would have to have engineered stormwater provisions, and with increased demands the State is putting on is going to have to meet stormwater restrictions anyway. He continued by saying it is a better use of land; a better quality of construction of dwellings; has mol': esthetically pleasing buildings. It is a softer touch on the earth and more pleasant for the neighborhood. He did not understand the outcry and said in summary what can be built in &1 is much more intrusive than a cottage housing development.. We are going to take something that actually is going to be a beneficial development and either restrict or limit it beyond what it should be. It should be allowed to occur-- the more room you can put in, the better it is for a neighborhood, better for the city, better for the earth, and the better it meets GMA provisions. He said the math is all there, and he will try to write it all down. Dorothy Hensey, 1302 51st Street Said she still feels the same way, and she added to last week's comIrents that her comments haven't been about cottage developments being bad for our city, but does not feel they are appropriate in &1 zoning. After hearing Mr. Peterson's comments about drainage and how it was set up and designed, she feels it speaks to tie need to not have cottages in R-I zoning. She said if they allow them in &1 zoning she would hope they would follow the Type 3 conditional use as a method of deciding whether or not it is a good thing in each individual case. Al Cairns, 907 Rose Street He was not opposed to CHD in princiþle, in fact a big proponent. He thought it could be a terrific vehicle for addressing affordable housing with the right sort of ideology behind the developer. He said that really is where his support is for it. He did not think it was appropriate for R-I, especially anywhere within an ESA-- a no-brainer. He said he appreciated Mr. Garrison's numbers on describing worst}case scenarios, and he thought when adopting any sort of housing ordinance that should be 1he fIrst place you start, not to assume that people have the best intentions in developing açcording to the underlying principles, or the thrust of where people are trying to go with an ordinance. He thought, however the reality is that most people don t maximize on land usage. For example, if a few of his neighboring households were to do their own cottage housing projects out there, within a block radius, they would end up with 56 cottages along the wildlife corridor. He said that is the worst}case scenario; the reality is on his 40,000 sf lot, he is putting down a 1,200 sf footprint. His neighbors on a 20,000 sf lot to the west of him have plans for a 1,400 sf house. He said additionally they are working in concert to take down as few trees as posiible and using a shared driveway rather than two. They are considering why they bought the property, largely its proximity to the wildlife corridor. He said there is no imperative to maximize on what's allowed. He said while he appreciates Mr. Garrison's numbers on the worst}case scenarios, they don't have to be lived out; there is no imperative to do that. Ross Chapin, Langley W A, Whidbey Island Is here to offer what he can from his experience and answer any questions. He has designed six cottage housing projects and has been personally involved in developing three or four of them. He has been involved in helping think into and give shape to a number of ordinances on Whidbey Island in Langley and Shoreline, and more recently in Redmond and Kirkland. The projects they have designed have tried to be sensitive to the surrounding area. That is something the City really needs to look at, the power of scrutiny to examine these projects. They are really the fIrst of this type, and he thinks the general direction is very good. It provides housing-- clustered; supposedly saves open space; encourages community; and relates to the surrounding neighborhood in a sensitive way. Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 7 · · · Mr. Chapin thought there are appropriate places for cottage developments, generally where they are in a more built-out area. He personally believes in the notion of clustering houses pretty much anywhere. He thinks in a rural area (he somèwhat knows the &1 district, certainly more rural), he thinks the clustering could happen, but you may want to have much more green space, open space, around it. That may happen on a City level. He thinks the corridor that has been talked about here is great, and to try to designate that. Mr. Chapin said he add much more, but is available for questions. Susan Langlois, 2304 Rosecrans She was not so much interested in cottage development. She pointed out on the map where she thought she lived, a little path that leads to the basin, in an R-II area. She came because it talked about some codes where they looked at lot size. Next to them, the woods have disappeared; they are putting in singlt}family homes, a whole subdivision offourplexes. She wanted to reiterate the gentleman's statement about worse-case scenarios; it is possible that you will have a developer come and decide he wants to put in, not one block of cottage housing, but 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8. Theirs are 12 or 13 fourplexes that are all going to be owned by one person to be rented out, but it is not considered multi-family. She said tbat is something to think about in terms of the corridors or spacing. We want to support affordable housing, but we also want to be inclusive and have diversity. While she sees it as a goodidea for infilling, it seems problematic. It was perfectly within the code, and despite a lot of neighborhood input and even council members talking about how difficult it was, and the Hearing Examiner about quagmires, it followed the rules. The space :i there; you can have it repeatedly. She thinks it is something we as a community need to talk about and be careful when we are talking about one house/one lot~ because that means something so different to all you who are used to doing this and focus onlot sizes. That is why the lady had so much trouble explaining it. Most of us don't think that way; we think one house witha neighborhood and a yard around it. Sarah Spaeth; Jefferson Land Trust She added, one thing that hasn't necessarily betn considered tonight, but hopefully will be considered in your deliberations, is vehicle traffic that will result from the cottage ordinance. She did not know if studies had been done to compare single family dwelling versus CHDs, but she thinks that willbe something important as you consider where infrastructure is placed in relationship to the CHD potential. Careful consideration needs to be made in that whole &1 area as to where thoroughfares are going to be developed in the long run. She thinks ì is true that folks that are likely to be drawn towards a cottage development are going to be looking at public transportation or perhaps walking. You need to be really mindful of having those services nearby so that we can minimize the impact of the de\elopment on this sensitive area. She again encouraged the City to become really proactive in the wildlife corridor project in that there are still floodplain properties that are protected by either the Land Trust or the City. They don't make sense for development. They'll end up being situations like we have on Jackman and 49th where people have had flooding over the years. She is hoping this management plan effort will encourage the City to become involved again. Liz Berman, 510 - 51 st Street She wanted to know the traffic impacts for her development and had a study done by a traffic engineer who had done cottage development studies that were accepted in a couple of other cities on the other side. She said it would be good for Commissioners to have a copy of that as well; he addressed it for hers, but also any cottage development, and how it compares with singlt}family residences. She has always loved the idea of cottages. Speaking from personal experience, she said there is a lot of scrutiny. She doesn't think anybody has to worry about that part; scrutiny is appropriate. It is infill housing, a different type of housing. From talks she went to years ago, the City was really encouraging cluster housing. She believes in it and knows there are a lot of people who want smaller dwellings. She thinks it is a great idea, a great idea in any zone. It needs scrutiny; it is being scrutinized, and she can't imagine it wouldn't be, with neighbor's and the City's interest. She said that is good information and would like the report to be included. Vern Garrison He clarified incorrect figures he gave previously: 40,000 sf parcel-- CHD 10,000 sffootprint, 17,600 sf maximum living space, (not 8,700--less impact). He also said he supports Type 2 process, public notice, so any valid concerns could be processed and mitigated. That would be the one insurance policy that it wouldn't have to be Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 8 · · · 500-foot separations; you just make sure you address any valid concerns and allow them to occur. Jim Rozanski; 1940 49th Street In the letter Ms. Berman submitted, she actually hireda traffic engineer who stated basically that the traffic generated by the cottage development would probably be less than equivalent development under current zoning. He stated that prior to this he talked briefly to a traffIc engineer he utilized in a plOject in Seattle, though they did not commission him to do a study, who agreed that cottage developments generally would generate fewer trips per day because of smaller houses, smaller families, fewer cars. The engineer said it is easy and told him how todo it. It is possible for anybody to check on probably 1,2 or 3 or Mr Chapin's developments. It is easy to sit out there and count cars; that is what traffIc engineers do to calculate trips generated. Planning Commission questions: Q Mr. Berg: You are saying less than maximum buildout? A Mr. Rozanski concurred Q Mr. Randels: You assumed maximum buildout under &I? A Ms. Berman: She believed he used 60% of singlt}family dwellings for cottages. Applied to her particular case, just about the equivalent for the 11 original homesites -- 11 homes not counting ADUs versus 8 cottages under her current permit, the original SEPA. Q Mr. Kelety: For some number of cottages, compared to the equivalent number of buildings in RI? A Ms. Berman: Anything. His were simply the numbers accepted in two other cities from his study. Ms. Walat: She believed his number came out to be about 6 trips per day, based on the Institute for Traffic Engineering (ITE). Ms. Thayer: Could we ill§! W ª £QID: of that? Ms. Walat agreed. She thinks it is important to compare the number of trips per cottage rather than talking about buildout, because it is not that these cottages are built and then are surrounded by open space. Cottages are built and also can be surrounded by further buildout. Talking about clustering where you are maintaining open space is one thing; if you are talking about cottage housing plus buildout, that is a different situation. Q Mr. Berg: Say you have a 40,000 sf block with 4 single family home¡ on it; another 40,000 sf block with 8 cottages (not to mention 12). How many trips are we talking about with each block? A Mr. Peterson: Typically for a traffic engineer, a singlt}family house is 10 trips/day -- 4 houses, 40 trips. He thought with a cottage they estimated 3 or 4 trips/day. Mr. Berg and others said: 6 trips/day Mr. Peterson: Trips/day include trucks for garbage, mail, etc. When you get a cottage, you are clustering and reducing those kinds of things to the one location for the maibox; there are usually fewer people in the house, fewer trips/day. Ten trips/day per house -- but that is leaving and coming back, mail, etc. Mr. Berg: ·We are basically comparing 6 trips/day to 1O? Mr. Peterson: Some people say 2 - 3. The cottages are still being studied. Q Ms. Thayer: Basically, what we are talking about is, on a 40,000 sf lot with 4 houses you have 40 trips/day. On a 12-cottage unit you have 72. A Mr. Peterson said he did not know any cottage number. We will look at it. Ms. Walat: You will have the number. Mr. Berg: So, we will get a copy of the traffic report for Wildwood? Ms. Walat: We can do that as well as any comparable information from Rœs Chapin or the ITE. She did not think they havç that for cottage developments, but the one used in Ms. Berman's study was for townhouses, so equivalent to what a townhouse development would generate. There isn't a whole lot of experience with cottages. Mr. Chapin: He did not have any specific numbers, but does have experience. This is backed by the city of Langley; they were very concerned about parking and very concerned about traffIc. They had the city services manager and the police chief check the cottage project every day for 2 years. The parking lot was never full. He doesn't have specific numbers right now to give, but he said by his experience the cottages are small, under 1,000 sf, generally owned by active, older single people who are not out traveling day-to-day a lot. It is not a house Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 9 · of teenagers, not soccer moms going out to a lot of different things and out to grocery stores. Things are much, much quieter in a cottage housing. He believed, in his experience, the intensityof development is much less in a cottage housing development even with the density double. If you have a larger house, a larger household with school age children; that what's allowed. Ifwe are trying to provide housing for single householders or empty nesters, the allowed density could be greater, but he believed the intensity, in fact is less. He believed the numbers would show that. Mr. AI Cairns: He thought one thing that is a bit Illusive in throwing the numbers around, he assumed the reason aID generates fewer trips, and the reason Mr. Chapin' developments have received deserved accolades, is because they are placed with a more holistic thinking behind where they are appropriate. They are near town centers; they are on major thoroughfares with public transportation readily available. This project is out in the middle of the woods, quite literally, but also nearly as far out of city center as you can get. He believed a new bus route serves 49th Street, but it is hardly that it's on a thoroughfare or that it's well served by public transportation. He thought it was as far from the hospital as you can get and still be in the city limits as well. Ifwe are talking about a demographic that is going to need services like the hospital or clinics,you couldn't place it farther away from services where those served by this housing would need to travel. He thought it a bit illusive to just toss the numbers around without thinking about it more holistically-- why does Mr. Chapin's projects develop fewer trips? It is because they are sensibly placed. Ms. Susan Miller She was going to say what Mr. Cairns had just said. It seems like a comparison you couldn't make with Mr. Chapin's developments in a more developed area. It seems you can'tcompare the two for trips, because those people would be walking to services. Chair Berg announced there would be a public hearing and another opportunity for everyone to comment. He closed Public Comment at 8:50 p.m. and asked for Staff response fiom Mr. Peterson. · Staff Response: · Mr. Peterson wanted to cover more on stormwater in the &1 zone and the basis for the zoning. The stormwater modeling is not exact science-- exactly whether it's 20% impervious, 25%, or actually what is going to achieve the goals. They can't say the number; it's sort of a goal, a vision and an idea. They can adopt a stormwater plan in a year and will adopt the State standards that say not to release anything other than historical rates from your site. It won't change anything. The City doesn't have the money to go back and model this basin with every soil type, different kinds of densities, etc. He said he would echo a little of what Ms. Spaeth said that cottages aren't necessarily incompatible with R-I zone. Back to what Mr. Garrison said, because you can put on more houses, it appears it might have more potential impact if you don't do them correctly. Some of the houses being built on 10,000 sflots are starting to put in a lot of driveways, and the houses a-e getting awfully big out there. It hasn't been as much of a problem now, but we might want to go back and look at that. He said that when we get to the science of saying whether it should be 20 or 25% square feet out there, he does not know if that wil come out of the plan. If they have enough money, it will be a broader based thing. Regarding stormwater issues, he thinks they do need to be sensitive with what you are trying to achieve. When you are looking at things being compatible with the zore for all the other issues you may be looking at, it is possible to design them stormwater-wise. At the last conference he attended in Olympia, they suggested that preserving some forest cover, tree cover and land that has nothing on it up to a consideral:ie percentage of an area is the best way ~opreserve the natural drainage characteristics. There are beginning to be some studies as to percentage. If you can cluster the cottages and leave more open space around that, you are starting to accomplish. that. He does not know whether you can do that with 12 cottages on 40,000 sf; what they fmd is when people build houses, usually more trees than planned have to be taken out because of cutting sewer trenches for side sewers, cutting water trenches, maybe dÜturbing roots close to the foundation. It is a little more touchy/feely sensitive design, but certainly the more you can cluster and the more open space you can have with it, the more it is going to accomplish the goals that were attempted for that basÌJ¡ stormwater-wise, and he thinks all the other goals everyone else has talked about. Regarding tiering, and whether or not we are in &1, you can't build something like this unless you are within a few hundred feet of a sewer. You can't build one of the>e way on the outskirts of town. Ms. Berman found Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 10 · · · the sewer is within 200 feet and now is affordable. Cottages by nature aren't going to be too far from other houses, whether you consider where they are going still is rural or closer to urban areas. Y ouare going to get into all the traffic issues.· Should they be near bus service, etc., he didn't know. From a stormwater standpoint, it is possible to make them compatible. Guidelines to make them compatible maybe should be what they should spend a lttle time thinking about. Ms.. Walat pointed out that clustering did seem to be a good way to get the density but also preserve open space; significant, contiguous open space through a PUD. She said maybe there is some other way the PUD should be changed in order to allow the density the cottages do, but still presel'\e the open space. She does not see the open space preservation happening through the cottage development. If it is clustered, yes; otherwise she does not see that. Staff made a recommendation. There are a number of options for the Planning Commissionto consider. Ms. Thayer said they were given a number of options. She asked if they have to do fmdings and conclusions in dealing with the ordinance? Mr. Randall explained this is a workshop with the intention to give more Staff information. Thlt has been done and the public has been allowed to respond to some of those things. He referenced Planning Commission Questions and Options in the Staff Memo and thought it good that they discuss some of those things as well as the optional recommendations for Council. He said it is not really appropriate to enter findings and conclusions; that would be at the conclusion of public hearing. He thought what they were really looking for was the Commission sense of what they want brought to a public hearing in terms of possible actions, and guidance as to those priorities so that they would have some fmdings and conclusions that could either be drafted after the hearing or brought to . the hearing in draft form. Ms. Thayer asked if they should go through ea:h of those, and Mr. Randall replied he thought it was a good guide, or if you have other questions in reviewing the material or options you would like BCD to look at. This is just their suggested list to consider. Planning: Commission Discussion: Q Mr. Randels: After listing questions and options, you get to your recommendation: "Based on the stormwater information regarding R-I that was uncovered during review of this issue and other density concerns. .." You basically recòmmend giving up the ghol'l: on cottage housing in R-I. A Ms. Walat: At least temporarily, until we get better stormwater information. Q Mr. Randels: You are basing this on storm water information, or at least it says. He was wondering what that information is. He has several times tonight that we don't know a lot that we would like to know about stormwater, so we don't have information. A Ms. Walat: It is based on the lot coverage being one of the major determinants of what the density can be, that being set at 25%, and whether that 25% should be lot coverage or impervious surface, and whether that actually provides the stormwater goals that were identified. Q Mr. Randels: That ~ why he asked whether we have tried to scale the lot coverage for the proposed cottage development.. either as initially proposed or as scaled back. He said apparently that has not been done; he thought it would be useful to have that information, useful to have that information on other cottage developments, perhaps . like the ones in Langley or sorrewhere else. It would be nice to make an apples to apples comparison. He thought that was information the Commission ought to have. A Ms. Walat: There is that information about the Wildwood cottage. This was not supposed to be a review of the Wildwood cottage, so she did not bring all the materials for that. That is something they can provide. Q Mr. Randels: Was also concerned about ". . . other density concerns. . ." A Ms. Walat: Other density concern is more related to what the neighbors hate talked about, e.g., cottage development is 3x the number of homes permitted under the underlying density. In RIll and R-II the difference allowed for cottages is not so radically different from what is allowed in &1. Q Mr. Randels: Basically, Staff has concluded that decision in 2001 to allow cottages at this density in &1 was· mistaken? A Ms. Walat: There was also a note included in the report that Jeff Randall had said that the City should approach cottage housing with some caution, that we wmt it to succeed, but if every project is as controversial as the fIrst one, it is not going to succeed. There seems to be other land in the city that seems to be appropriate for cottage housing. Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004/ Page 11 · · · That is the basis for the Staff recommendation that, basi:ally in R-I it is not the right place or the right time for cottage housing with the information we have now. Mr. Randall: We are rather sending mixed messages, partly because this is our fIrst one. We have gotten a lot of public reaction, but there hasn't been a twig cut and nothing built yet. We have a lot of hypotheses. He thought one important to remember, we have talked houses versus houses. Ms. Walat is right, the density allowed under cottages is a lot greater than under R-I. Mr. Chapin is right too, that the average household size and average number of cars, and as Mr. Peterson said probably the average number of trips, is going is to be less. It is important to remember, while the density is a lot greater-- if we are talking an average size of 1.2 instead of2.2 (not necessarily correct, he did not know what the actual numbers are), they are also talking a smaller household size too. He said they did have that as a recommendation. For the time being taking it off the table as a permitteduse in R-I is defmitely an option. He thinks there are some other options. The neighbors have said things; Mr. Garrison has said things. Options include listing cottages under higher classification: I) Type II, more public notice, more right for neighbors to appeal; 2) Type III, automatic public hearing, possible addition of review criteria, e.g., through a CUP, automatic review criteria requiring positive compatibility with the neighborhood; or 3) reduce the density in R-I. We have a lot of different options. Ms. Thayer noted she had heard it said a lot from Planning Commission members when they talk to Staff such things as, "You did this," and "You did that." Staff didn't do it; they are only acting as guidance for us Planning Commissioners and City Councilors who make the ultimate decisions. She said every decision they make is a living decision that sometimes needs to get changed; it is not Staff. The Commission needs to bear that burden. Mr. Kelety suggested they consider the Chairman's need to expedite the meeting. He asked what they should do next, but said that before he could consider any proposed options, he also would like a little more data: . Stormwater data -- what impact, good or ill will cottage densities have on stormwater. (They have discussed this, but have no quantifiable data.) · Traffic data -- apples to apples on multiple projects. Prefers not necessarily by a local developer Additional data-- not just Wildwood; prefers not necessarily by a local developer. · Vacant land inventory for R-II versus R-I. If available, the percentage of maximum buildout on &1 development; some sense of data. Ms. Thayer thought that data might be skewered. · Sensibilities (in addition to data; does not know how to quantify)-. relating to the surrounding neighborhood in an appropriate way. Mr. Peterson thought that was the reason Staff is recommending a freeze while they collect some data. He thought ifhe sent a mixed message it might have been that they are never going to ha-e the data, so why bother. He suggested what they need to do is write something that lets them evaluate these appropriately, so they can do them correctly. He stated they have a couple going in that will look and behave like a cottage development. We reed to collect data from other ones -- think about how they want to condition them for stormwater to make them work right; look at how our own are behaving. He thought that is where Staff is coming from. If there is one area, it is slow it down a litte bit. They haven't raised as much controversy in other areas. He said this might be the spot, and that is the data they need to be looking at. The problem is to collect all that in 2 weeks and give you the good data to make decisions. In the meantime, do we let it keep going, or should we put a hold on it? Mr. Randels said maybe that would justify having some kind of moratorium that has a defmitive time limit, rather than open ended. If it's a question of having enough time to get some data, tosee these other developments, even though they are technically not cottages (they look like a duck), to see how they work, etc. Maybe the way to go would be to say something like a moratorium for 2 years. He believes zoning laws are part of a social com¡act. People move to a place, a particular piece of ground, based on certain assumptions. We heard them at the last meeting; we heard them tonight. He told Mr. Randall he was glad to hear him say tonight what he didn't see in the memo, that one option might be a reduced density for cottages in a lower density zone. He thinks that is an appropriate thing to think about, and he was concerned that it wasn't in the memo. He said he would like to see that flushed out, but he would like to think about, if1hey are going to go the moratorium route, having it with a time certain rather than opeB ended. Q Ms. Thayer asked Mr. Randels ifhe was thinking about having a moratorium on the whole cottage ordinance, or Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 12 · just a moratorium on cottage housing in &1. A Mr. Randels: Just R-I, he didn't think anybody was saying they didn't want it in Roll. Ms. Walat stated there were two things. · One, there is the reduced density option ofR-I, the one that suggests 8 cottages per 40,000 sf based on the number of houses and ADUs you can currently have. . The other -- one way they thought about doing a temporary ban, so to speak, was to put a kind of placeholder in the Comp Plan which is reviewed every year. This mayor may not do what the . Commission wants it to do, but it would basically say they are not allowed now. You would change it in the Use Table to not allow it in R-I. In the Comp Plan you would say, whenwe have the stormwater information and/or when &1 is more developed, it may be appropriate for cottage housing. She said that may not be specific enough for what you want to do. She personally did not know what ways there are to do a temporary kind of prohibition, say for 2 years. Mr. Randels suggested maybe they should check with the City Attorney. Mr. Randall said that you would basically prohibit it in the &1 zone, and one of the fmdings in the ordinance would be to say we intend to come backand revisit this in 2 years. He said you can have a sunset clause on things and basically say they shall be prohibited for a period of2 years, at which time there shall be a study. Mrs. Thayer proposed that they get as much information, meet again, go through these options and make some sort of recommendation. We can't really recommend because we haven't had a public hearing. Go through that, and then go to the public hearing. The other thing, she said !he is seeing a lot of body movement from Ms. Berman and Mr. Rozanski. She wanted to make sure they are aware that this has nothing to do with their project. Their project is going ahead, no matter what we decide. She wanted that on the record. Mr. Randall assured that their project is vested under current rules. · Mr. Randels asked Ms. Thayer if she was suggesting having the second workshop and then a hearing? He would second that, if it is a motion. Chair Berg thought this perhaps more simple 1han we think, and asked to look at the objections. What are the obiections for cottage housing in R-I that we have heard from everyone who has spoken: 1) Too hard on stormwater conditions in R-I; 2) Too much traffic impact; 3) Too many houses on a block, on the neighboring block; 4) Accumulative impacts (suggested by the audience)-- 8 cottage developments, back-to-back Ms. Thayer asked if they could deal with those with a conditional use. Mr. Berg wondered if they could address these one-by-one and maybe see what conditioning of some kind or another could do to alleviate the concerns. Maybe we wouldn't have to spend another night sitting here talking about it. Q Ms. King asked Mr. Berg if he means something like limiting the density or recommœlding clustering? A Mr. Berg: For example, if we just take stormwater first. Q Mr. Berg: Asked Peterson if it is the case, if you are proposing a cottage development where the impervious surface is less than 40% you don't have to do an engineering stornwater plan, just as if it was any single family, under the current rules? A Mr. Peterson: Anything over 5,000 sf, we can require a stormwater plan, and if significant enough we can require it to be engineered. Q Mr. Berg: So, probably an 8 cottage -- did Liz Berman have to do a stormwater plan for her cottage development? . A Mr. Peterson: She has to do stormwater plan. It might be a little. . . with an orifice discharging out that would technically meet. .. He answered Mr. Berg, yes you have to engineer it. · Q Mr. Berg: Is the point of an engineered plan that you deal wifl stormwater in such a way that it has no more impact on neighboring properties than it had before the development was there? What are you trying to engineer; is Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 13 · · · that pretty much it? A Mr. Peterson: That is the standard. Q Mr. Berg: Basically, all of the objections that have been based on the argument of stormwater can be dealt with by saying, cottage developments have to have an engineered stormwater plan. Does that seem true to you? A Mr. Peterson: The quick answer is, "yes." Would you necessarily g:t a system that is meeting what you are trying to get in that basin, just because it's engineered? Maybe not. You might think along with that, what would make it try to be as natural a system as possible? An engineered system, while it will technicallymeet it, will not necessarily do the thing naturally do that you might do with a little better effort to try to fit it in with a natural system there. He suggested maybe they could craft something-- Ms. Thayer suggested crafting some language. Q Mr. Berg: Doesn't that issue rather get dealt with in the process of City review of the engineered stormwater plan? Don't you have the ability to say to the engineer. . . A Mr. Peterson: No, he can just say whether or not it meets the standard. He mifÞt be able to suggest, but a lot of people coming through may not be happy to work with you to make that work. You have to meet a standard that is more than historical rate; therefore, the stormwater issues are going on in Basin #4. What we try to do isto back up a little bit of what is the basis for coming up with those, because the plan was a little more natural system. You can cover the site out there with 25% houses, but there is no limit on impervious area if you want to put sidewalks and gravel yards out there and put in a mechanical system. You can do that, but it's not quite meeting that. So, is there maybe something we can put in here to encourage more of a natural type of stormwater approach in that basin, which you may get at by putting fewercottages or clustering? Mr. Chapin and everyone has said the goal is clustering and leave a little more open space. If you are doing it for stormwater, you are leaving that in the right space that helps you do stormwater too. Maybe your houses are uphil from where the land is. Those kinds of things you are trying to work with. You can start working with that with most people that come in, but they don't have to, to technically meet the stormwater requirements. Mr. Berg: That is the same as with a single-family house, isn't it? Mr. Peterson: With a single-family house, traditionally, you have a little house and a driveway, and there is not as much potential impact. Mr. Kelety pointed out that Mr. Berg was trying to wrap this up toright, and ifhe wanted to do that they should try; however, he reiterated he personally felt then need one more session Gust that last comment). He felt to gather a little more data and to consider everything, one more time. Ms. Thayer agreed, but she \'ill be absent for . the month of February. Mr. Randall listed Mr. Berg's points: 1) Traffic; 2) Stormwater; 3) Density; 4) Proximity, accumulative to each other. He asked if all five of the Commissioners generally agree those are the primary issues and fthere are other issues they are hearing tonight? He said they could come back and have a continuation of this workshop. As Mr. Kelety said, there is more data on those four things to focus on--Iot coverage and impervious surface on the last number of building permits issued in R-I; how many ADUs in the permanent tracking system and zones they are in; any hard information on traffic. Ms. Thayer thought they might be giving too much information. Mr. Randall concurred, and suggested they could focus on those, let them know what they want included in the action for the hearing, and hopefully, at the conclusion cover other issues on this agenda-- house/lot and manufactured homes. Although public comment was closed Mr. Chapin was granted permission tocomment, saying he really did not want to step out of order. He thought from his perspective, the issue is the fit in the surrounding area. He believes the engineering can be solved. Every cottage project they have done has been engineered; it's been tothe State standards. It has been higher than anything else in the area, so he thinks that can be solved. Mr. Chapin thought the density is as closely related or might be better stated as, what is the best fit for this area? In the R-I zone, it is going to be some kind oflanguage describing an appropriate fit-- for the R-II and R-III zones. In a tighter area you can have a walkable, close-clustered neighborhood with little pockets of open space. In a wider, more rural area, it will require wider swaths of open space. He thinks a density is not the issue, but the density combined with an open space, in other words the fit, is the key issue as he sees it. He thought their challenge is to put that into a language that will give it teeth and that wil help the people that live in the neighborhoods be comfortable. Yes, a little pocket can come here, but when that pocket comes, it will preserve a wider swath of open space that gives back to the neighborhood, gives back to the area. He feels the question they as designers have to always ask for a community contribution is, "What do we have to give?" Not, -- "What's possible?; what can we take?; what is our opportunity?; what's the maximum we can Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004/ Page 14 · · · develop it?" He reiterated they have to ask, "What can we give?" The city can really look at that as an issue and try to 'language' it to make that work. With consensus Mr. Chapin was praised for his contributions. Mr. Randall pointed out Mr. Chapin had greatly helped the city, and so far they hadn'tpaid him a penny. Mr. Kelety said that is the way they have different design standards in different neighborhoods, and that is precisely it. Mr. Randall thought they had gotten some good feedback tonight. They will come back with a workshop for those four items and probably have a variety of things to suggest on each issue. Mr. Berg said in some ways that was where he was headed. He stared off solving, but it really comes down to something a little less tangible. The little less tangible piece of it is rather like the "fit" and what the issue is. It has tried to be said in these other ways, but it sounds that maybe it is inappropriate b say, "the same thing that is allowed in R-II is allowed in R-I," as in the original ordinance. The challenge is how to come up with ordinance language that appropriately says what is allowed. Mr. Berg called for Ms. Thayer's motion. MOTION Ms. Thayer Hold a second workshop to focus on these issues before going to public hearing, and consider this meeting's remaining agenda items SECOND VOTE Mr. Randels Passed unanimously, 5 in favor by voice vote Mr. Berg asked for the subsequent meeting to be scheduled, and Ms. Walat asked for time to accumulate the information requested. Discussion also took into consideration the 120 day time limit requested by City Council, the fact that Ms. Thayer would be unavailable during the month of February and a I:nse of importance of the issues. The meeting date will be announced. Ms. Walat said a lot of what is being talked about is "fit", and she totally agrees that Mr. Chapin articulated a lot of what people in the vicinity had to say. That is, and has been, the most difficult in this whole process. She said they would do their best. Materials to be provided Qy BCD Compatibility with the neighborhood and impacts looked at on a more site-specific basis according to criteria of the CUP process.. Requested by Ms. Thayer. How much acreage is available in R-II, and R-I and information regarding location of sewer, water, busses, etc. Requested by Mr. Kelety. Ms. Berman's Wildwood TraffIc Study and any comparable information. Requested by Mr. Berg Stormwater information: Scaled lot coverage for Wildwood development (either initial or scaled back). Requested by Mr. Randels VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Commission Workshop, Cottage Housing Ordinance -- to be determined IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was none Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004 / Page 15 · · · X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Thayer and seconded by Mr. Randels. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ,··ì. If t // i L· //\/' I ~____ Richard Berg, Chair ~do:w Sheila A vis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, January 29, 2004/ Page 16