The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About022604 Ag Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm February 26, 2004 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - January 29, 2004 V. New Business VI. Unfinished Business 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 B. Distribution of revised GMI Framework & White Paper on GMA Updates 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VII. Upcoming Meetings Marèh 4, 2004; special public workshop meeting on OMI framework March 11, 2004; special meeting to formulate final OMI recommendation to Council March 25,2004; public hearing on suggested amendment to White Paper VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Richard Berg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Alice King, Lyn Hersey, George Randels and new members Liesl Slabaugh and Steven Emery; Cindy Thayer, Jeff Kelety and Jim Irvin were excused. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Planner Jean Walat. Ms. Walat asked if Planning Commission members who were recently replaced had been thanked for their service. Ms. Hersey recommended, and consensus was, that Chairman Berg contact the mayor and request a letter of thanks be sent to Bernie Arthur and Frank Benskin for their service to the Planning Commission. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chairman Berg noted Mr. Randall would introduce and distribute materials on the GMI Framework and White Paper on GMA Updates during Unfmished Business, Item B. Mr. Berg will present an item under New Business. Mr. Randels made a motion to accept the agenda in substance; Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Chairman Berg introduced new Planning Commission members Liesl Slabaugh and Steven Emery and asked for their remarks. Mr. Berg applauded their interest in their children and welcomed them to the Planning Commission. · IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Berg commended Ms. Avis for the minutes of January 29,2004. Mr. Randels made a motion to approve the minutes of January 29, 2004 as written; Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- · Susan Langlois, 2304 Rosecrans Ms. Langlois read her testimony and left copies for the record. "At the last Planning Commission meeting (January 29,2004) Mr. Chapin, architect, and the committee spoke eloquently about addressing the issue of "fit" when assessing the match between existing neighborhoods and new developments. How do we determine fit? 'Table 17.16.030 Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements sets out a mathematical equation of added elements to determine fit. This quantitative approach to zoning (Table 17.16.030) creates problems especially in R-I and R-II zones (Low and Medium Density Single-Family). In these zones, the desired values and outcomes of residents differ significantly ÍÌ"om those of developers. . 'The quantitative approach of Table 17.16.030 Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements does not adequately address these differing viewpoints nor does the Table assist in determining what constitutes a suitable "fit". As Table 17.16.030 stands, it provides what has been described as a "bonus" for developers in the hope of creating housing diversity and addressing issues of affordability. Table 17.16.030 does not address the problematic, qualitative aspects for neighborhoods regarding growth. 'Neighborhoods, as informal affiliations based on proximity rather than common beliefs or profit motives, respond poorly to opportunities for public comments, often fail to participate in planning committees or to build relationships with BCD. For most residents, their understanding of the implications of zoning rests on a superficial and incorrect interpretation of "single-family", "multi-family", & "commercial". But, when facing eminent development of a type they perceive as "not fitting" or as substantially unlike their own neighborhood, they speak out. While many of their comments reflect concerns with legislative issues and therefore are too late in the process to impact the target development, taken as whole these comments should help guide the design of our zoning. Neighborhoods identified and documented their concerns through the numerous, public comments and hearings regarding recent developments. (See public records for San Juan Commons, Laurel Heights- a sub-division of Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 1 · · · fourplexes, Wildwood- cottage development and concerns regarding the future development of the Boy Scout's property.) Based on these public comments, it appears at present, there are no clarifying design standards for single- family, residential areas; and there are no regulations regarding concentration, separation and dispersal among housing types. While the concept of Planned Unit Developments (PADS) exists as an incentive to allow flexibility and rewards for higher density for developers, it is not designed to be a tool for neighborhoods to mitigate differences among allowable housing types. In addition, PADS are optional at the developer's discretion and cannot be required by neighborhoods in order to find alternative and creativity solutions based on particular sites and problems. 'Currently, Table 17.16.030 leaves a number of questions regarding eventual, build-out density unanswered: How does current zoning provide equitably for the opposing needs of developers and the growth of healthy neighborhoods? What protection ftom speculative development does our current zoning offer neighborhoods? How does our current zoning protect neighborhoods ftom intense concentrations of uniform housing types which threaten to overwhelm the underlying density ofthe single-family residential zone (i.e. blocks of cottage developments, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, or manufactured home parks)? Without changes in the zoning code, as long as the developer complies with the quantitative aspects of the code (i.e. lot size/number of units, setbacks) all the other elements of "fit" are left to the discretion of developer. Is this fair or conducive to the healthy growth & development of community? If neighborhood concerns are not more equitably represented in the "legislative" code, how does changing the approval/appeal process address the qualitative needs of neighborhoods? How does current zoning, for R-I and R-II promote the orderly growth of high density housing while encouraging the efficient use of City resources and inftastructure? Should sellers of properties, within city limits in neighborhoods areas not currently at build-out density, be required to inform potential single-family homeowners of the range of options that possibly could change significantly the "ambiance" of the neighborhood? 'From my perspective, the zoning for residential areas currently appears to favor developers of future housing options over residents of existing homes. Actually, both players should have equal rights and responsibilities toward creating the healthiest, most equitable, and sustainable Urban Growth Area. Only through balance, can we hope to achieve a community where builders will want to create homes that people will want to live." There was no other general public comment. Chair Berg reported he had received an e-mail ftom Mr. Randels proposing Planning Commission representation on the task force considering the golf course. Mr. Randels indicated he would consider such a designation. Mr. Randall suggested a motion requesting a letter be sent to the Mayor asking for representation; they would have to be tasked in order to participate. Mr. Randels thought the Planning Commission would be out of the loop ifnot represented, and he pointed out the golf course lease will be expiring soon which would probably drive any proposals. Ms. Hersey thought the Parks and Recreation Committee might be involved and that the Planning Commission's task is different. Chair Berg commented that depending on the task force, it might be more or less a planning issue, and that it might be worthwhile and a good idea to have a Planning Commissioner on the task force, Mr. Randall spoke of potential uses at Fort Worden and that comprehensive plan amendment might be a good way to feed into this. They are looking at how P/OSA zoning works for different situations. There was general support for Mr. Randels"s suggestion. Chair Berg noted how the Planning Commission had asked to be more pro-active rather than reactive to things proposed by everyone else. He said he would support some kind of motion. MOTION Mr. Randels Chair Berg call the mayor offering Planning Commission representation on the task force considering the golf course SECOND Mr. Emery VOTE Passed unanimously, 6 in favor by voice vote. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 2 · · · VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Possible revisions to Cottal!e Housinl! Rel!ulations Ms. Jean Walat explained this is a workshop continuation ftom last meeting to consider: Should cottage housing be permitted in R-I? How should the applications be processed; what kind of notice and appeal options go with each type? Should there be a required separation between cottage housing developments? . Also, unrelated -- two minor code revisions: One house/one lot rule; Clarification on manufactured home parks; whether they are allowed in the city. Ms. Walat said no action is required at this meeting, but she would like to set a tentative public hearing date to consider these issues. She thought after going through this review, getting public testimony and coming to consensus on what recommendations the Planning Commission felt should be brought forward, Staff would put those into code form for presentation and further review at the public hearing. She reported Staff was unable to schedule a tentative public hearing March 18th which would have allowed them to report to and meet City Council's 120-day time line of April 13th. She suggested that due to upcoming Comp Plan work in March this public hearing be scheduled in April. She has asked Mr. Timmons to request City Council for an extension until their hearing June 6th. Chair Berg thought that reasonable, and Ms. Walat suggested the tentative Planning Commission hearing be scheduled for April 8th. A member of the audience was concerned about the possibility of other cottage housing being approved during that time and asked regarding a moratorium. Chair Berg pointed out that a moratorium had been voted down by City Council and commented developments do not happen that fast. Mr. Randels asked if this is something that could be incorporated in one of the scheduled March meetings, but it was determined there was already too much under consideration to fit in any more. Chair Berg thought it a good idea to have the public hearing April 8th, trying to make recommendation afterwards as soon as possible, but asking for an extension that would give them some flexibility. Ms. Walat said hopefully they could get the proposed text to the Planning Commission earlier than a week in advance and there would be more time to consider and expedite it. Mr. Randall thought there would be considerable public testimony on cottage housing, and he thought April 8th is probably the first realistic time. He explained that City Council has a new structure for scheduling their public hearings, and if they felt it a pressing issue might hear it earlier than June, once forwarded to them by the Planning Commission. MOTION Mr. Randels Consider scheduling the cottage housing public hearing April 8th, and authorize request for a June 6th time line extension to report back to City Council SECOND VOTE Ms. Hersey Passed unanimously, 6 in favor by voice vote Typographical errors in the February 2.Q. 2004 Staff Report pointed out Qy Ms. Walat: Page 3, paragraph 4 -- change to read: ". . . .currently allowable levels of up to 12 cottages per acre are more likely to reach impervious surface levels that were not intended. . ." Page 4, Traffic Data, trip generation, 12 cottages -- change to "72 trips" (not 2 trips) Page 6, III. How should cottage developments be processed?, first paragraph -- change to read: "Currently, cottage developments are permitted outright in R-I, R-II and R-III zones and . . . ." Ms. Walat said that last time they got into a lot of complicated issues and the Commission asked for some clarification. 1. Should cottage housing be permitted in R-I? (without consideration of type, or what type of process) Overall fit of cottage housing with the R-I zone. Currently cottage housing is allowed at triple the underlying density of the R-I zone. The need to limit impervious surface in the R-I zone because of underlying stormwater issues. Ms. Walat pointed out the R-I zone that is equivalent to Drainage Basin #4. The City has studied the area to some degree; it has poorly drained soils throughout and was part of the basis for designating that basin as R-I with a lower density than permitted in other areas of the city. She pointed out the floodplain, that closely corresponds with Quimper Wildlife Corridor and is also the area where the City has purchased land in order to provide for Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004/ Page 3 · · · stormwater control. ADU comparisons. What would be allowed ifR-I is built out with the allowable ADUs -- 1 per single family residence (sft), added to the underlying density allowed in R-I (4 per 40,000 sf, or 1 dwelling unit per 10,000 st)? Proximity to urban services. Regarding the argument that cottage housing works best when it is in an urban area where people can walk and are in a neighborhood rather than out on the edge of development. Traffic and parking impacts. Some ofthe unknowns, because cottage housing is new and there is not much experience. Current build-out data (page 2 of Staff Report) In R-I in the last 6 years there have been 52 single-family residences, and 6 ADUs within the last 10 years. In the future there may be many more ADUs,but the typical neighborhood pattern now is not one house and one ADU on every lot; it is far ftom that reality. The numbers show that most ofthe development is in the R-II and R- III zones where utilities are more available and closer into town. Impervious surface and lot coverage data was not readily available. A sampling, and all the R-I permits for 2000 and 2003, showed lot coverage at 16% to 19.5% in 2000; impervious surface, low 20's. In R-I there is no limit on impervious surface, a limit on lot coverage only. A person coming in with an engineered stormwater plan can basically do as much impervious surface as they want. There is some sense that the 25% lot coverage should have been applied as a regulation on impervious surface, but was not. Ms. Hersey asked for discussion explaining impervious surface for new Commissioners. Where does the water go that you catch, does it stay on your property, or where does it go? Ms. Walat stated the difference between lot coverage and impervious is very confusing. She explained that lot coverage is counted by all structures over 30" high -- decks, houses, garages, outside perimeter of structures. Impervious surface is generally, with very minor exceptions, lot coverage plus impervious surface due to driveways, walkways, any area where water can percolate into the ground. It is generally considered that stormwater is most easily managed by avoiding having to deal with it in the first place; i.e., if the land is undisturbed, the rain percolates into the ground onsite, or if the soils are not good it has a lot more space to run off and be absorbed by plants and roots, taken up by trees, and other vegetation. Ifit's an engineered plan, there can be a variety of things, but it can be put into pipes, into a channel, and sent into some kind of collection basin, either a detention or retention pond where it can sit for awhile and be released slowly or percolate into the ground if the soil is appropriate. Ms. Walat noted there are issues of both quality and quantity. The more development there is, the more roads there are, the more the impact is of the quality of the stormwarer, which is also helped by the vegetation. The vegetation also helps clean the stormwater, as do wetlands. There is a whole series of wetlands through the R-I zone. There are natural approaches of dealing with the stormwater, low impact development types of practices, and also super engineered systems that can hold it in tanks, detention ponds and underground storage areas which is then released. There is some thought, that while you can engineer anything, those systems don't necessarily function in the same way as just having enough land area that is undisturbed. Mr. Dave Peterson added a section in the staff report outlining stormwater. His sense was that the R-I was supposed to be a zone where more natural techniques of stormwater management were to be used. As well as providing for stormwater management in the R-I zone, it keeps the more rural atmosphere of that area to a degree, although it does not guarantee it. That low impact development type of stormwater control tends to keep habitat, forested areas, and lower density, all working together despite the fact that legally you can use an engineered stormwater plan with unlimited impervious surface and have that meet the regulations. The other aspect is that engineered systems over time tend to degrade, fill up with silt and debris. They have to be maintained, which is great if somebody is actually maintaining and keeping up with them, but it requires a homeowner association or something that keeps them going; otherwise they will degrade, overflow and you have no system because they are not functioning. Ms. Hersey asked if it is correct regarding individual lots, because you have a great percentage of impervious surface, the city requires you to install a curtain, etc. for runoff, but over time the city has no way of making you continually upgrade and make sure your system is performing, as opposed to CC&Rs in a community which would make sure that takes place? Ms. Walat concurred, with the exception that even with CC&Rs and a homeowners association, the city doesn't have the staff to make sure that is all happening. She said that even now it's difficult to keep up with PADS and subdivisions. They can regulate themselves, but it often doesn't happen. Ms. Hersey was concerned regarding drainage runoff for individual lots as opposed to a development that is forced to put in drainage systems, if it is better to have one big catch basin for several individual homes. Ms. Walat answered that they are looking at, and what she thought Mr. Peterson was saying, that probably the guidelines need to be looked at and possibly changed for all kinds of development in R-I, not just cottage housing, and whether all of the stormwater studies apply at this point. It was noted there is only one R-I zone in the city, and that it is all Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004/ Page 4 · · · attached to Basin #4. Inventory of Vacant vs. Developed Land Is there land enough in R-II for cottages to be built? There is not that kind of inventory available; there is raw computer data that is very misleading. Ms. Walat stated you can look at the map, the aerial photograph or just the map with houses superimposed to see how much is developed and undeveloped; especially with ESAs you can see how much is not encumbered by wetlands or steep slopes. She showed both R-I and R-II and stated that a lot of R-II is developed, but there are a lot blocks that would potentially be suitable for infill with this kind of housing. Stormwater See foregoing discussion. Mr. Peterson's recommendation was that until there are new standards for R-I in its entirety for all kinds of development, it would be prudent and conservative to allow cottages only at the underlying density. The equivalent density at this point would be 6 - 8 per acre. Cottages can have less impervious surface, less lot coverage than large houses, a lot to take into consideration. Mr. Peterson also thought that cottages should be sited on lots in deference to the stormwater management issues of that area, and that should be a requirement written into the code. Impervious Surface = Wildwood Cottage Proiect Twelve cottages were first proposed; it went to 8, and now back to 12. Figures on impervious surface are not yet available, but applicant says there is not an increase in lot coverage and impervious surface with 12 cottages rather than 8. This is a separate issue; the question arose for comparison sake. Traffic Data There was a lot of discussion and got very confusing. The only real source for information on traffic is ITE Trip Generation manual (Exhibit A). The city has no hard data, not much experience with cottages, and no traffic counts. ITE also does not have any information for cottages, but does have information for condominiums. Generally it is accepted that condominiums are less than a single family house, and a cottage most likely to be less than a single family house. That is the city's best information to work with. Both the Wildwood project and Umatilla Hill were based on Exhibit A. The range of rates per unit was just under 2 to 12 per unit, an average of 6; it can vary depending on location, who lives there, whether they are mostly second vacation homes, elderly people. Twelve cottages produced 72 trips. Comparing the traffic rates with the stormwater information, between 6 - 7 cottages comes out to be the equivalent to the underlying density for trip generation. Clustering As already mentioned, Mr. Ross Chapin was very eloquent at the end of the discussion at the last meeting. He talked very much cottage developments can and need to "fit" into a development. Ms. Walat later thought how cottages could fit into R-I considering it is very dense and going to an area . that is not so dense. She thought one development that made sense like this, and she has seen it in other places, is clustering where if you have a fairly large development area, the houses are densely put close together, but it leaves a large area of open space. Done well, that open space can be contiguous with other open space; it can help stormwater, habitat, can be open space for recreation. The thought there was a lot to say for clustering in R-I, not just for cottage housing, but PADS and other types of subdivisions out there. Although there are time constraints, she also wanted to bring up an alternative to clustering but related that might work in R-I, at some point in the future if not now. Clustering is a great idea, it works well when you can work on a piece of land that is a size that you can adequately get some meaningful open space as well as put houses in a place that makes sense. When you have the whole zone already platted out in 20,000 sf chunks, it makes it harder to do that. You have rights-of-way on each side, and it is not so easy to do clustering. It would especially make sense to do clustering along existing stormwater path and floodplain that is also the habitat area. She thought one option might be to allow denser cottage developments and require a density bonus fee, which would go directly toward purchasing land, not necessarily to the development itself, but in the same basin that would contribute toward a consolidated, comprehensive and meaningful swath of open space, stormwater control, habitat area that is already partially in the works. She suggested one way to do it is a one-for-one, basically buying and developing land probably in more expensive areas because that is the area where there is inftastructure, but still relatively inexpensive. It is land that is often encumbered, at least in part, with environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. Walat raised the issue to see ifthere is any interest with the Planning Commission or City Council. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 5 · · · Summary & Options R-I has a character and development pattern that is different ftom R-II, partly due to stormwater, partly to history, and proximity to the shoreline. There are a number of reasons it will probably always have somewhat of a different character. That is what we want in zoning; we want there to be options for people to have a variety of choices in the city. It meets requirements for GMA. We are an urban growth area; we can expect that everything in the city will ultimately be built out to its density preserving only what people preserve out of their own private choice, what we publicly preserve, or what we can do through clustering, etc. The underlying density of 4 units per 40,000 sfmeets GMA requirements. Ms. Walat told the Planning Commission they have to decide whether benefits of cottage housing, and if the need to have cottage housing everywhere in the city, outweigh some ofthe other unknowns and other considerations that are specific to the R-I zone. She said the Planning Commission is ftee to come up with their own options, and she went on to discuss Staff options: 1) No change; allow cottages in R-I zone at the current density of 14 cottages/40,OOO sf -- stormwater drawbacks; 2) Reduced density option; allow cottages at 6 - 8 per 40,000 sf and staff suggestion for siting -- advantage of being more similar to the existing density allowed in R-I; 3) Reduced density with clustering -- requires more analysis; 4) Prohibit cottage housing for the present in the R-I zone (the most conservative option) -- when more built out, or with more stormwater information, keeps the distinction between R-I and other zones in terms of providing options within the city for a less dense development. Ms. Walat felt that option 3 ultimately works well for the zone, but that means a commitment to actually working through how it would work and taking the time to accomplish it. She said she thought it would be difficult to go to clustering and require people to pay a density bonus once they already had the ability to put cottage housing in R-I. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends one of options 2 - 4. The most conservative would be to wait until they have experience with cottage housing in traffic, neighborhood impacts and design, and not do all that experimentation in the most sensitive area in town. 2. How should the applications be processed: what kind of notice and appeal options gQ with each ~? Should they stay as a current, simple process with limited ability for appeal or should they have a higher kind of process? Now processed as Type I-A permit with no public notice necessary unless over 10 cottages which requires SEPA. Appeal option ~- applicant only. Decision made administratively by BCD. There are ways to provide notice to neighbors. Could consider looking at classifying cottage houses as conditional uses in the R-I zone. Options: Exhibit C, Table 2 page 20-7 summarizes the process for each type application Type II Permit -- Notice of application onsite, to the Leader and optional to the neighbors. Ms. Walat stated if Type II is chosen notice should be mandatory to the neighbors. Decision by BCD Director. No public hearing unless appealed; anyone can appeal the decision. Examples in Table 1 Short subdivisions, short plats; Lot line reorientation. If somebody owns two lots and wants to turn them around facing the other road, requires notice to neighbors and notice in the newspaper. (You would get more notice now than with 12 cottages,) Type III Permit -- Notice to neighbors, to the Leader and onsite. Recommendation made by BCD Director and final decision before the Hearing Examiner. Public hearing required. Appeal action to City Council then to the court. Would be a major conditional use permit having the advantage that besides the notice and appeal options, the project would have to satisfy the conditional use approval criteria. One criteria, the project has to be shown to be . "harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of the development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property." Exhibit B is a list of conditional uses typical in residential zones ranging ftom a barn in R-II; commercial nursery in any zone; cemeteries, churches, schools, radio tower. Ms. Walat stated that in thinking about how to process any kind of permit, think how to evaluate these things in terms of impact with a cottage development and with the Staff recommended option. Staff recommended Type II for both R-II and R-III so people at least have notice and an appeal option but don't have to go through a public hearing; conditional use in R-I if cottages are allowed, to add some process for the applicant but also a greater level of scrutiny. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 6 · · · 3. Should there be a required separation between cottage housing developments in ill!Y zone? Several of the public commented there was fear that cottage development would draw other cottage development to the same area and that the underlying zone could be overwhelmed with cottage development. Ms. Walat said they have no idea whether or not that is the case, because they have so little experience with cottage housing. Options: Each block is 200 feet (their last look at the equivalent in terms of number offeet and blocks); most rights- of-way approximately 60 feet or a little more -- 250 foot separation requires 1 block between cottage developments; 500 feet, requires 2 intervening blocks, etc. #1 No change -- no separation #2 Requires separation only in R-I zone, somewhere between 250 - 1000 feet #3 Requires separation in both R-I and R-II zones; R-III, multi-family requires no separation. Ms. Walat concluded her presentation. Possible revisions to One House/One Lot Rule and Manufactured Homes Parks will be considered after this deliberation and action. Chairman Berg asked for clarifying questions ftom the Planning Commission. Planning Commission questions: Q Ms. Hersey: Is the uptown district the only place in town where you cannot put manufactured homes? A Ms. Walat: That is correct, on one lot. Q Ms. Hersey: Is there anything that says cottages cannot be manufactured homes? A Mr. Randall: It is permitted as long as it meets standards in the cottage ordinance; it doesn't really matter if it is modular, a pre-manufactured home, or a site-built home. Basically, does it meet the size limitations, ftont porch requirements, all other requirements, e.g., minimum/maximum roof pitch? The other amendment, one manufactured home per lot, means per lot or a unit in a binding site plan -- some sort of unit on a legally divisible piece ofland. It could be a lot or a binding site plan unit, which is the way we do cottage. Q Mr. Emery: Is it now strictly single-family homes allowed in the R-I zone, or could somebody come in and build a duplex or fourplex? A Ms. Walat: In the city, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes are considered single-family homes. In R-I, you can have single-family homes, a PUD, cottage developments as well as some other permitted uses, e.g., agriculture, and conditional uses listed in Exhibit B. The density is 1 dwelling unit per 10,000 sf; an ADU is not calculated in that density which is also a permitted use when associated with a primary dwelling. One difference, generally, a single owner builds an ADU, rather than a developer building 10 houses with 10 ADUs which is not allowed. Q Ms. Hersey: You can build a duplex on 10,000 sf? A Ms. Walat: In R-I you would need 20,000 sf Q Mr. Berg: 30,000 sffor a triplex, etc. A Ms. Walat concurred. Ms. Walat said somebody brought up something interesting. We have a limit of 12 cottages in a development, but we also have a 14 cottage density per 40,000 sf -- meaning if you had 20,000 sf, you could have 7 cottages. If somebody did two cottage developments on the same block at separate times, they could then end up with 14 cottages on the same block, essentially. Q Mr. Randels: Is there any precedent for the separation suggestion? Now, you have a right to do something. A separation requirement basically allows some other private party to deprive you of a right. Is there anything else in the code that's comparable to that, where the owner next door does something that deprives me of the right to do the same thing? A Ms. Walat: The most comparable thing, is that conditional uses can be looked at for their cumulative effect in an area. When you are doing a conditional use, you can look at what is already there and match your conditions, allow or disallow it based on what is already happening in the neighborhood. City Attorney Watts addressed this issue. Even though we don't do it specifically, there are jurisdictions, particularly for conditional use type applications, that set a minimum distance between. It allows that use, but it also recognizes that several in one place may not be a good idea. Q Mr. Berg: There was also something about some municipalities having rules there can't be certain types of things within 500' of a school, etc, rules that exist. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 7 · · · A Ms. Walat: Concurred saying she did not think we have them in the city; however, there is precedence in law that we could establish such a regulation, ifthat is what the Commission and Council want to do. Q Ms. Slabaugh: Is it correct to interpret ftom what you just said that if the decision was to go with a conditional use permit review process for R-I cottage development that you wouldn't need to put the 500' separation in, because the CUP process would take that into account? A Ms. Walat: Having the specific distance makes it much more objective and less subjective. It would make it easier for Staff and an applicant, whether or not this is the right reason to do it; you would have the limit and either you are within the limit or you are not. A lot or the problem BCD has had so far has been making subjective judgments. At 8:05 p.m. Chair Berg opened the meeting for public comment on Cottage Housing. PUBLIC COMMENT Susan Miller, 80 Gull Shadow Ln. Ms. Miller expressed appreciation for all the volunteer time and effort donated by members of the Planning Commission. She stated that at the last workshop on possible revisions to cottage development in R-I, low density residential zoning, Mr. Berg suggested that stormwater runoff drainage concerns be taken off the table because they could be mitigated by engineering. She thinks it would be a mistake to make that assumption, because while it is true that theoretically any stormwater runoff drainage problem could be handled by an engineered solution, if the cottage ordinance is not revised to limit where developments are located and how close they may be built to each other, Port Townsend could easily have a cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and drainage that would overburden the environment. At the last meeting there was some confusion over whether or not there could be 14 dwellings per block according to the cottage ordinance as opposed to the 4 dwellings per block allowed by R-I zoning. It is true that according to the cottage ordinance, a developer may build 12 dwellings plus a common house on 40,000 sf, which is one block. It is also true, according to the ordinance, that developers could build two cottage developments on one block as Ms. Walat just mentioned. Each one-half block site of20,000 sf could legally have 7 dwellings, a total of 14 dwellings in the two developments within the same block. This is another reason that cumulative effect has to be considered. Ms. Hersey had a question at the fIrst Planning Commission meeting on the subject of possible revisions to the cottage development regulations, how does PUD density compare to cottage development density? Ms. Miller said she was startled by the large difference between the two -- PUD regulations would allow 4.8 dwellings on 40,000 sf as opposed to 12 dwellings on 40,000 sf allowed by the cottage ordinance. She answered Ms. Hersey's question saying that cottage housing allows the density of at least 2.5 times that allowed by PUD regulations. Ms. Miller said it is becoming increasingly clear to her at these Planning Commission meetings that cottage housing needs to disallowed in R-I zoning, or it needs to be regulated with at least the level or oversight afforded by Type III conditional use permits which would provide notice, hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner, site specific conditions and an appeal process. In addition to Type- III level of oversight, there needs to be separation of cottage housing development of at least 500' between developments in order to avoid the cumulative negative effect of maximum development on the environment and the surrounding neighborhood. She told Mr. Berg she appreciated his work on the Commission, but she is worried by the fact that he spoke at the City Council meeting in favor of cottage housing in R-I, and now he is chairman of the Commission reviewing the cottage housing ordinance and recommending whether or not it should be prohibited in R-I or subject to conditional use permit. She knew he said at the fIrst Planning Commission meeting after that City Council meeting that he would be fair. She did not wish to offend Mr. Berg, but asked ifthat was adequate to deal with his already having spoken in public in favor ofthe cottage housing ordinance in R-I? Ms. Miller said she does not live in R-I; she makes her living selling real estate in Port Townsend and the rest of Jefferson County. She said she is not opposed to growth. It is to her fmancial advantage; but it will not be to anyone's long-term advantage ifthe cumulative impact of a radical increase in density or dwelling does not examine and limit it before the damage is done to the environment and the surrounding neighborhoods. Ms. Miller requests that the Commission require that all speakers before the Commission, now and especially at the hearing, not only speak their names and addresses but also state if they have a fmancial interest in cottage housing proposed or planning to be proposed in R-I, or if they expect to contract to work with someone proposing or planning to propose cottage housing in R-I. She thanked the Commission for their consideration of her comments, questions and requests. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 8 · · · Marla Streator, 871 5151 Street She mentioned she had already remarked on other occasions but did not bring up one fact regarding drainage. She lives at the deadend of 51 51 Street. After the big storm where there was the big snow and melt, 13 trees died that were visible in that drainage corridor. There was a massive amount of flooding in people's houses. She thinks when she built her house she was told that no matter what happened, no matter how much the city tried to make it in uphill construction so it would drain the same as it did before construction, that it would not and she could count on there being more water where she lives. Ms. Streator has been hearing people say 12 cottages are going to be about the same amount of traffic as the maximum houses and ADUs allowed. She was just talking to someone that rents a piece of a 600 sfhouse uptown, and there are three cars there. That is a possibility; you can't just think in terms of the smallest number of possible cars. She encouraged each Commissioner to go out to Hendricks Road, look left and right and left and right again and make doubly sure when you go across that road that you are not going to get hit; it is a scary turn. Ms. Streator laughed and recognized that was site-specific about the cottage ordinance, but thought it was a site-specific comment that needed to be made anyway. Susan Langlois, 2304 Rosecrans Ms. Langlois spoke ftom her own experience in R-II; they went through all the steps, appeals, and hearings. Basically the developer wanted to do 14 duplexes, fourplexes in a small area. It was allowable; it fit under the density code. When they said that did not feel compatible, does not feel consistent or harmonious, he looked at them and said, and what she thought the hearing examiner reaffIrmed, "This is single family homes, and those are single family homes; therefore, they are compatible." She thought it really confusing to the public, and really negates some of the idea of what you are appealing, what point you are making regarding compatibility, consistency and fit. Laurel Dawson, 1361 5151 Street Every developer who has been coming to the meetings and has been arguing for the cottage housing ordinance to remain as it is written, has money to gain ftom this situation. Every citizen who is here to ask for your careful revisions to the ordinance is here only because they have something precious to lose. She said they are not professionals, not experienced in the matters of working the law in their favor; they are novices, neighbors, concerned community members, parents who ask the for health and safety of their community to be considered and maintained. Ms. Dawson said they are noticing loopholes in a ordinance that presents the possibility for exponential housing density increases in neighborhoods where road inftastructure is substandard, has issues that are not possible to upgrade and directly conflict with current non-motorized usage. In this kind of situation it is highly dangerous and unwise to put in dense development. She asked that prior to deciding the matter they drive every road in the R-I area and notice its condition and accessibility. She asked them to see how narrow is the main arterial, 49 Th, and see its lack of shoulder, bike trails and sidewalks; see her riding with her two young children teetering on the edge ofthe road trusting cars to take a wide arc around them. She said an exponential increase would exacerbate the situation to the point of inevitable danger, and she asked that they please notice blind corners, narrow streets, poor visibility that are due not to vegetation but to the layout of the streets; add to that, the area is a thoroughfare for non-motorized users. There are dead-end streets and large numbers of residents trapped with single points of entry and exit; flooding issues and the presence of wetlands. She asked what is the sense in increasing density before tending to obvious safety issues? There are acres of undeveloped farm and woodlands, and miles of undeveloped road. Notice the immensity of this situation and what could happen if cottage development as is with the numbers that are now, in addition the possibility of one development going in next to the other, and next to the other. Notice ifthe roads were developed; there would be drainage and flooding issues that are also not safe. It was her understanding the city does not money to tend to the large, pressing matters of the roads, and, further, developers are only responsible for the small bit of road directly leading to their property. She realized they are not talking about Liz Berman's project specifically, but she pointed out as an example to make sure they understand, the access is ftom 49 Th. When you turn onto Hendricks which has difficult visibility, it is also a completely undeveloped road, very narrow gravel road; while the project is requesting 5151 to be developed, Hendricks will remain a dirt, gravel road. There is no plan for it. As a mother, she worries about what that means for the safety of her children. It seems silly as if somehow the cars would be airlifted in. It doesn't make any sense; it is an example of issues that need to be thought about. When we put in increased density we have to Planning CommissIon Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 9 · think about health and safety, road grid and what's truly possible; what is good for an area to do and where does the money come ftom. Exponential increases cause exponential problems, which must be looked at. She is sick with worry over this situation. Dense development cannot safely exist on undeveloped streets with high non-motorized usage. Ms. Dawson said she is disgusted that an ordinance would be pushed through for the benefit of developers without careful consideration for health and safety of citizens. She is hopeful as the Commission reconsiders this ordinance, you take into careful thought all the work the BCD has done; she supports it, is excited to see it and hopes you consider and implement it. She does not believe it is right for a city's growth to be primarily guided and spurred on by monetary interests. She asks they choose to develop Port Townsend with wise ordinances that consider the health and safety of people in balance with need for growth. Mike Dawson, 1361 51 st Street Supports the option of prohibiting cottage housing in R-I. The Staff recommendation sums up a lot what he is feeling. We have very limited experience with cottage housing in Port Townsend. The wisdom of allowing it to go into the least dense area fIrst does make any sense to him, and he suggested starting off encouraging cottage housing in the parts of town that make the most sense. If you were to leave cottage housing as an option in R-I, he thinks as a developer you would most want to put cottage housing in R-I, because land is cheaper. You could put many more units in a piece of property there than you would under other kinds of development. He thought you will actually see more cottage housing in R-I unless something is done. He stated that is the option that makes the most sense right now, and then it can be revisited, can be seen how it may work in R-I at a later date. He believes the issues of how to look at density overall in the city is really important, even though it encompasses a lot more than just cottage housing -- trying to come to some kind of conclusion as to what it is going to mean to have maximum development in any zone. He thinks problems with things like Laurel Heights development, and this kind of maximizing of an area, needs to be limited. So, independent of this, maybe we need to look at how to limit that with separation or limits on other kinds of development too. · Patty Mulroney, 5330 Hendricks The drainage is terrible in this neighborhood; it is totally inappropriate. It's dense woods; wildlife would be affected. The roads are inadequate; it is going to be a huge problem to the city with the road issues alone. · Dorothy Hensey, 1302 51st Street She has spoken each time, so will keep it short and speak only to new things. She referred to separation of cottage units, 250' or 500', that it came up because of Liz Berman's project She clarified it came up because Ms. Berman owns properties surrounding the subject property, or has controlling interest in property around it. The neighborhood is concerned that she was going to, for monetary reasons, want to continue with cottage housing. She seems to have an interest in mostly fmancial gain for herself; build it as big as you can to get as much money out of it. Ms. Hensey said the idea has really scared them. Looking in the cottage housing ordinance, there is nothing to prohibit back to back cottage housing throughout any ofthe R-I, R-II or R-III zoning. She also said that when cottage housing comes into any area, and specifically to where this one is happening, there are not always roads to support it. As Laurel Dawson was saying, for this project roads right around it are going to be developed, but the arterial streets coming in aren't necessarily going to be required to do that. In general, for cottage housing or any sort of dense population in our neighborhoods, it always seems to be that, we have allowed for this dense stuff to happen. We have let it happen; it comes in, and then, all of a sudden the roads aren't working. Now we have a problem, there is water runoff. She asked why as a city can't we think ahead? As the Planning Commission or City Council, why can't we think ahead and limit the type of density; make sure before we allow this kind of building to happen; make sure the roads and drainage are adequate. Make sure this isn't going to be something where we are calling for help, and the City has no money, can't do anything, and we are stuck here with a problem that seems to be unfixable. Ms. Hensey said part of that goes along with looking at the maximum possibility when looking at statistics, when we look at the amount of traffic that will be generated by a cottage housing unit versus a house. She said it has been thrown in her face continually that they are assuming these cottages are only going to be inhabited by single people or an elderly couple; they'll only have one car or 1.2 cars. That is just the lowest possibility. Henseys first home was only 800 sf, and they had two children and a dog; their next home was 1000 sf, and they had three kids, two dogs, three cars etc. Anybody could move into these cottages. She asked to please keep away ftom only the minimal numbers to make this go through. Let's look at the worse case scenario and solve ftom there. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26,2004/ Page 10 · · · Ken Slough, 5536 Hendricks Street He was not trying to point out Liz Berman's project, but that is what concerns him at this point. He said the point Mr. Randels' brought up about prohibiting somebody else or not letting him or her do something with their project is something he has thought about a lot. But when you have the community they live in, and you have someone that has gone ftom so many houses, then backed away ftom so many houses and then wants to go back to building 13 units, you get aftaid of what is going to happen. Mr. Slough thought if they were to drive out and just look at a 1- acre piece of property that is wooded and think about how you are going to site 13 units, they are going to be side by side. There isn't going to be green space. The impervious land is going to be impervious. He did not see how they are going to have quality living on a space like that were they live. Other comment: Jeff Randall, BCD Director He thought Ms. Walat did a nice job of summarizing everything. Mr. Randall wanted to focus in on something Mr. Dave Peterson commented on in the Staff Report that relates to Ms. Hersey's question and all have alluded to, the difference between an engineered stormwater drainage system and the other options of just reducing impervious surface, having less lot coverage, etc. He referenced the Staff Report, page 3 paragraph 2, where Mr. Peterson talks ábout Basin 4 and low impact development strategies. Low impact development strategies means, it is the new way of dealing with stormwater and is basically intended to encourage mimicking what nature does -- let the water infiltrate right there instead of piping it to some centralized area where it's dealt with. Mr. Peterson's last sentence, "It is generally being found that the engineered systems with the traditional large detention ponds may meet runoff standards [meaning state and local runoff standards] but they do not necessarily perform the way natural systems do." Mr. Randall said Mr. Peterson didn't really emphasize that a lot, but he thought it was important. Mr. Randall (not being an engineer) said, basically, he means that the best thing in an area where you have stormwater problems is to keep the natural vegetation including the trees and soils undisturbed; you get infiltration happening across a broader area. You can have an engineer figure things out and basically say about storm events, with the engineered system you won't have water running off at more than historic rates. At the same time you build these things, and they are subject to failure, subject to maintenance. Going with more of a natural system, you avoid having to deal with those things. He thought, that while they can't really create a hard distinction, he just wanted to point that out. That is one basis of what they are talking about with the recommendation of fewer units -- meaning fewer units, less impervious surface, less lot coverage, more ability to use more natural drainage systems than a hard pipe system. Planning Commission Questions: Q Ms. Hersey: As far as the drainage corridor goes, the lines, is it correct that is where the water is sitting? A Ms: Walat: It is not necessarily that it is sitting there. That has been identified as the flood zone, the 100- year flood zone. Q Ms. Hersey: Does it go one way or another as far as draining? A Ms. Walat: It drains ftom (an area she pointed out) down towards Hastings Avenue, flows all the way up through the R-I zone and all the way out to Chinese Gardens. Q Ms. Hersey: Was thinking, more site specific. Are there things up above, ways to stop flow of more going down to denser areas at the bottom of the whole drainage corridor -- built out now, 51st where most of the neighbors live and talk about getting flooded out every time there are hard rains or snow pack. Are there any studies that say that if you can slow it down, stop it or pond it, etc., farther up the chain that would help reduce their flooding? A Ms. Walat: That is exactly correct. It's what happens up here (as shown) that most impacts the area that is most developed now. Reducing impervious surface has an effect for the whole. .. Reducing impervious surface there is the end of issue, end of the problem, the so called bottom of the basin. Q Ms. Hersey: Port Townsend is pretty much built on clay; we know ftom septic systems. We don't get a lot of conventional systems perking in and around Port Townsend/Jefferson County because we are on a shoal, so you are not getting a lot of water infiltrating into it and it is staying on the surface. We have areas in town where the water table, even uptown, are real high. Her concern with Mr. Peterson's study, less density to help it stay and go down. She is a little concerned because she knows there is a lot of clay and everything else. She thinks those are things they need to look at further as far as saying one way of controlling it instead of the other. That is a general statement. We know what it is, and maybe it is better to try to contain it somewhat. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page II · · · A Mr. Randall: They all rely on infiltration; the engineered systems rely on infiltration systems, too. Although he did not want to talk about Liz Berman's site, he said her site is an example of a site that has actually pretty decent soils compared to other areas. Considering the area it is in, it probably infiltrates fairly well. Even an engineered system usually relies on infiltration. It is just more concentrated; it is piped and then usually has a tank that holds it and allows it to infiltrate at a slower rate. Q Ms. Hersey: . . .stops it ftom going down the. . . A Mr. Randall: It all ends up down the pike as you said, because Ms. Walat: Eventually. Mr. Randall: Because we have grade; water goes downhill, and we do have a lot of impervious layers, so it may go down a little but it eventually flows down. It is the rate of it. Q Ms. Hersey: Trying to contain it, even on each individual surface, whether it is an individual house or whether a development that has a pond for retention. Either way water is still going to be . . . A Mr. Randall: Unless it evaporates, it is going downhill. Ms. Walat: There is a huge amount of the water that does go up through vegetation that is evaporated. Mr. Randall: That is the other thing, the vegetation draws it up, and through transpiration, etc. lets it go, lets it go up. Ms. Walat: You have to keep the trees and the vegetation there for that to happen. If you take it away, you lose that function. Mr. Randall: In those areas that are not cleared, through that floodplain, and especially south of Hastings some was logged and could be in better shape with more trees, etc. -- a lot of that isn't developed, so it's not necessarily going to get better. It is going to get worse. The areas that are mostly developed are, as said, down close to Chinese Gardens and that little part in Fallers Park. Most of the rest is predominantly undeveloped, although some has been logged and could be in better shape. A lot of it hasn't; it has mature vegetation on it and is not going to get better. Chair Berg closed public comment at 9:02 p.m and called for a break. Chair Berg reconvened the meeting at 9: 15 p.m. and asked for deliberation and action on cottage housing. It was determined to deliberate each question separately. Deliberation & Action 11 Should cottal!e housinl! be ! permitted ~ in R-I? Chair Berg gave an overview of options proposed by Staff and then asked if anyone wanted to propose another option. Option 1: No change; allow things to be the way they are. Option 2: Reduced density. Allow cottage developments at a density of 6 - 8 units per 40,000 sf. Option 3: Reduced density with clustering. Set a base allowable density for cottage developments of 4 per 40,000 sf, the underlying density, and allow developers to essentially buy the ability to do higher density by paying into a fund to be used by the city to acquire additional open space. Ms. Walat added, if they have appropriate land they could also cluster onsite. Option 4: Prohibit cottage housing in the R-I zone. Ms. King said she was leaning toward Option 2, that it seems they need to do something. She thought cottage housing is a good thing, intended to encourage diversity and affordability in that cottage housing is small, though she understands it is not low income. Unless it's built in some spectacular fashion, she thinks it is meant to be more affordable than a 4,000 - 5,000 sf house. She also thought meaningful to her right now, on 40,000 sf, four houses can be built and four ADUs, eight houses, and nobody is proposing to change that. These houses can be bigger than cottage houses, right now, with four different owners. That is the only difference. That's permitted and nobody is proposing to change that; it even seems to her that cottage housing is slightly preferable to that. Ms. King asked if an owner of a cottage house can't build an ADU? She clarified that for any maximum density they set, it can't be doubled by an ADU? Ms. Walat and Mr. Randall affirmed they could not. Ms. King thought it a good thing and would be willing to make a motion if needed for discussion, that they go with Option 2. Chair Berg: Option 2, in addition to limiting the cottage housing density, it would say something that-- staff suggests that cottages in R-I be conditioned such that the siting and layout of the cottages and roads make maximum use of natural drainage systems. . . Planning Commission Minutes, February 26,2004/ Page 12 · · · Mr. Randels said that presupposes an answer to the next question. Ms. Slabaugh agreed that is saying conditional use. Ms. King said she would personally suggest next -- Option 3, conditional use, Process Section. She said her preference would fIrst be Option 2, then Option 3, conditional use. Chair Berg asked Ms. King if in recommending Option 2, is she suggesting they have Staff take a crack at some language about this suggested conditioning? Ms. King concurred, saying that clustering is mentioned in that as preferable. She asked Staff, assuming they went for Option 2, permitting cottaging housing, what they would take as their mandate. Ms. Walat pointed out Ms. King had two questions: 1) The issue of conditioning the development on the proper siting, or appropriate siting of the cottages, could be written into the cottage housing regulations. It doesn't necessarily have to come through a conditional use permit. It could include a provision that R-I shall do "X", "Y", "Z" to meet stormwater requirements. Ms. Walat answered Mr. Berg, that would be language right in the ordinance. She said it could be in there and not necessarily be a conditional use permit. She answered Ms. Slabaugh, only applies to R-I, specific to R-I, although she thinks they should require an engineer stormwater report for all cottage development. There is sort of a loophole that smaller ones don't necessarily need that. Ms. King asked that the limited density would only apply to R-I, the 6 - 8 houses per 40,000 sf? Ms. Walat concurred. 2) Ms. Walat asked Ms. King regarding clustering, if she was saying she was interested? Ms. King said she was interested; that it is good. Mr. Randels asked if that could also be done in the ordinance itself, as opposed to through the conditional use process? Ms. Walat replied, clustering could potentially be done through the ordinance, but she thought they might have to have a little more time to work on that. Mr. Berg said that was also where he was going. Ms. Walat thought to present it in a conceptual format to the City Council to see if they are interested in having Staff pursue that as an option. In terms of timing, does that mean you should allow 6 - 8 cottages in the meantime; or does it mean you shouldn't allow anything in the meantime? She did not know if she had a clear answer as to what would be the best approach, but she does think it would be harder to go back and put additional requirements on it in the future. Mr. Randels said he was inclined to agree with Ms. King on this point, at least, but he suggested they make it 7 and be done with it; 6 - 8, let's make it 7. He thought this half-block problem that has arisen sounds to him like something that ought to be addressed as well, and ought to be addressed city-wide. He said this is the one instance he can think of where solving the R-I problem isn't enough. For that particular loophole, it ought to be prohibited in all of them. Ms. Walat said you could potentially do that with a separation. By requiring a separation you would not allow multiple cottage developments on a single block. Mr. Randels said you could still have 14 in an R-II with two separate lots. Ms. Walat replied, only if you put a required separation in R-II, even 250', that would require a 1- block separation between cottage developments. Mr. Randels said there may be some, along with himself, who wouldn't want the separation concept in R-I. He said he thinks it is okay in R-I, but he is not sure he would want it in the others. Ms. Walat asked to clarify with Mr. Randels, in R-II it would be okay if there were 7 one side of the street and 7 on the other side of the street; but it wouldn't be okay if 14 were all on the same block? Mr. Randels saw Ms. Walat's point, and she said that could be okay; she just was not sure if that is what he wanted. Mr. Berg suggested they could also propose a solution that says 12 is the number instead of 14 everywhere. Ms. Hersey asked if they should do R-I, then afterwards go to R-II. Mr. Berg said they are bringing up an issue, but it is not on the table at the moment, and asked to put it offuntil the end. Ms. Hersey said she would go with Ms. King's recommendation of Option 2, but would like it to be 8 rather than give an incentive for somebody to put in 4 homes with a potential 4 ADUs, and only the ADUs have restrictions on square footage. You are going to get much more maximum buildout with making people do individual homes. She would rather give more of an incentive to cottages to be 8, because the cottage footprints are much smaller than a normal house. She thought if you even included ADU sizes, you are still going to get smaller square footage with cottages, and she thought it was more incentive and more control. She recommended a Type III process, conditional use. Ms. Hersey's recommendation for R-I only -- Option 2 with 8 houses, clustering, and Type III process. Mr. Emery asked regarding Option 2, is there a way where we can ask the City Council through language to consider clustering as a priority? He knew there might be somewhere you just could not cluster. If Option 2 is the option they go with, he would like to see if there was some way to prioritize clustering. If there is no way to do it, he guessed allow non-clustering. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 13 · · · Ms. Walat said one way to deal with when it doesn't work to cluster, if you are really interesting in clustering, you can do that optional pay in that allows you to preserve an equivalent for some amount of open space that would be the same as if you were clustering onsite. You can work with that if that is something the Commission feels is a good way to go. Ms. Slabaugh said she was also thinking Option 2. Her reasons had to do with the GMA mandate of providing a variety of housing options. It also seems totally fair with the underlying density, 4 houses and 4 ADUs maximum buildout, and she would say 8 as well to make that totally fair. She would hate to see it totally taken off the table in R-I, because then you make it a neighborhood that is all going to be the same. Obviously, people will build their houses differently, but you can have a developer come in and build some options to give people some choices when we are looking at our total housing base. She thinks that addresses adequately the stormwater. Maybe Mr. Peterson would disagree that is not enough, but it seems of the options it rather addresses stormwater adequately and addresses a lot of the concerns that have come up in terms ofinftastructure. To her it was a nice, elegant solution. Mr. Randels noted why he thinks a number lower than 8 is more appropriate. It did not seem to him they should be comparing what they allow for this instance to be a theoretical maximum under what is existing. We should look as well at the actual facts. We do have some maximum data that shows it is roughly 10% of single family homes (Ms. Walat interjected, or less) in R-I that have ADUs. He said over time that number will probably go up, but it won't go to 100%. He suggested it would not go above 50%, which means in actual fact, ifhe is right, the number of units will be 6 -- not 8 and not 4. Since there is a rationale for having lower density in R-I, after all R- I is the low density zone, it seems to him there should be some reasonable comparability in the reduced density cottages that is comparable to what is actually going to happen on the ground, rather than what theoretically might be. That is how he came up with 7. Mr. Berg said he is also inclined to think Option 2 is the best. He does not personally think this cottage ordinance was put in place in order to benefit developers, to give them a way to make more money ftom a piece of property. It is not easy to do developments of this kind; it is much easier to divide a block ofland into four house sites and sell them. He thought what they were after when they passed the cottage ordinance was just to try and make it doable enough that a couple of developers would step up and try it, and we would increase our housing diversity in Port Townsend. He said it is what he thinks; he could be wrong. He thought Mike Dawson was correct when he said it is the same whether you do a cottage development anywhere in town, they are all going to happen in R-I because that is where the land is the cheapest. He thought that is one ofthe biggest problems they have to solve here tonight. Ms. Slabaugh said she had always thought inftastructure was so expensive to get there, and asked Ms. Hersey, since she is in real estate, if it is outweighed by the land value. Ms. Hersey replied it is probably close. Mr. Randels thought reducing the density would help address that. Ms. Hersey said there are two issues: 1) it is right inftastructure does take up a lot of the money. Depending on which end of the spectrum you are on, it is good for the city because somebody is putting in the inftastructure and the city doesn't have to pay for it; 2) the other problem, in R-II you don't have big blocks of property that people have ownership of. It doesn't happen very often that people have three 50' x 100' lot ownership. In theory, it probably isn't going to happen in R-II, because nobody owns enough property; so you are back to R-I. Mr. Berg said at least R-II that is on the ftinges ofwhat's developed. Mr. Emery knows it is going to take awhile to have the population fill that area, but ftom his recollection he asked if there wasn't the possibility of 1,200 homes going into the Cappy's Trails area? Howard Street is eventually going all the way out, basically to that area of town. He knows the city is planning on getting the inftastructure out there; he did not know the timeline. He has heard a 20-year plan and does not know ifhe is correct on the amount of houses that will be in that area, but the potential right now, there are going to be a lot of people moving out there. Ms. Walat added that the rate of inftastructure is driven pretty much by development. Mr. Emery said there are going to be bigger arterials out there; Hendricks will be solved, he imagined, just ftom the amount of traffic that is going to be there eventually. Ms. Hersey said she would like to see a stop sign. Mr. Berg thought Mr. Peterson's analysis of the stormwater situation was really good and helped him understand what R-I is all about, a lot better than the last time they met. He thinks 8 is a good number because it doesn't set it so low that nobody is going to bother to do it. He was a little bit worried about that with something like 7 or 6; at least 8 is the same number of housing units that could be built there under the underlying zoning. He agreed with whoever said that. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26,2004/ Page 14 · · · Mr. Berg would also like to see clustering addressed. He thinks they should probably leave it to BCD to take a crack at how to deal with it. He was thinking something like the cottages should be clustered in such a way that half the property is left as a contiguous open space. If half is too much to ask, maybe 3/8 or 40% of the property, or some number like that. It seemed like that is really what the whole stormwater approach in R-I is trying to get at, leave chunks of undisturbed ground where water can infiltrate and where there is vegetation. If somebody has a piece of property where it is not possible to do that, don't do cottage housing there; it is not an appropriate piece of property. Ms. Walat asked ifhe was saying to require clustering? Mr. Berg replied he was saying requiring clustering and require a certain percentage of the property (shall) be kept in contiguous open space, and he is saying don't bother with the fee thing, because it seems too complicated to him. Ms. Walat said she thinks it could be really complicated, except there is in place a Quimper Land Trust corridor where the land has already been prioritized. It is already on this map, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3; it has all been identified, appraised for value. It doesn't seem absolutely necessary they do it in conjunction with the Land Trust, but it seems like would be one approach. The land would need to be in public ownership, but it would be a way; that's already in place. a lot of time if you were going to transfer development rights or something, which people have done in other places, it can be really complicated. It seemed to her if there was a fee paid equivalent to, say one lot. For example, if you were saying halfthe open space and they had an average fee for what a lot costs out there when it's not near inftastructure and rather close into the corridor where it is going to be cheaper, and that fee was added on for each house over a certain number, it might be doable without being too complicated. She thought it may be harder to do it clustering onsite, because not necessarily where you are is going to be where it makes the most sense to have that open space retained. It still would be better than filling up the whole site with cottages. She thinks there are going to be more sites than not that don't work with clustering. Ms. Hersey asked if you wouldn't want houses higher and leave the lower property for open space, anyway? It would go with the land. Ms. Walat said it should be done with the land; a good designer is going to work with the land. That sometimes happens, and sometimes it doesn't. Mr. Randels said he was not sure he was hearing them right, but he wanted to throw this out to see what they think. Are you suggesting that maybe we should consider having an allowable density of say 6, to pick a number, as a matter of right, and then with the option of buying additional rights for another 2 or 3, or something? Is that the kind of thing you are talking about? Ms. Walat replied yes; the example was 4 because that is underlying density. So just as a number, you are allowed to do 4 outright or through a conditional use or however you want to decide that. Then, if you want to do 8, you would pay 4 times some base fee -- say $2,000, what a lot cost out there -- and pay $8,000 into a fund which goes directly into purchasing open space in the basin so that it protects stormwater and contributes toward that contiguous and more comprehensive corridor. Mr. Randels asked if there was anything magic about the 4 suggestions; it could be 5, 6 or 12? That was her methodology? Ms. Walat concurred saying 4 was based on the underlying density. Ms. Hersey said she gets scared every time you put money onto another project. Right now with it being cottage, if you have. potential of building 8 houses that would sell for $300,000, or you are going to build 8 cottages that are going to be $200,000, what are you going to do? The possibility -- or you could build 8 houses that would sell for $200,000. She does not want to make it so expensive nobody does it. It is a lifestyle type they are looking for, different types ofliving. She wants to be careful that they don't put too much extra cost on it like that. They will come and build 4, come back in and build 4 more, and they don't buy any property anyway. Her thought is if they stay straight clustering, or at least potential clustering if at all possible, it becomes a win-win situation. Ms. Walat asked if you went with 8 as the allowed number and you required clustering, would you require two blocks to do that? Eight is allowed on a block. Do the eight all on one side of the block, and leave 50% of it open, or do you allow 8 on a block and require another block? Mr. Berg was thinking you have a block ofland and you are going to put 8 cottages on it. You figure out how to put the 8 cottages on the block so you have halfthe block left as open space. Mr. Randels said, or 40% or whatever. .. Mr. Berg said you could put them all the way around the edge and leave the open space in the middle, or you can put them on one half and leave the other half, but somewhere you have to have your contiguous open space on the block. Ms. Walat said ideally she thinks in terms of open space just in terms of undeveloped land. It would it be better for it to be contiguous with other open space. She thought they could get into that at great length, but she thought they could try to work up a couple of options. Ms. Hersey asked the footprint on a cottage, the bottom floor? Mr. Randall replied half of them are 650 sf; half 800 sf. Ms. Walat stated 1200 sf is the maximum square footage. Mr. Randall said that is not the footprint-- the footprint is half no bigger than 650 sf; the other half no bigger than 800. Ms. Hersey said 4 at 650 sf, and 4 at Planning Commission Minutes, February 26,2004/ Page 15 · · · 800 sf. Mr. Randall said that is the maximum size under the proposed idea you have. Ms. Hersey said she was trying to calculate the square footage for cottages and what is left over at 40,000 sf. Mr. Randall said it gets complicated; you have to add in parking, a few common buildings, etc. He said they have rather played around with it. Go back to the very ftrst time they talked about this and threw some sample illustrations on the board. The Wildwood project that's 8 is a lot easier to show some common open space and to make some things work than the one they have at 12. Ms. Walat said they are trying for 25% for 12 cottages. Ms. Hersey asked what it is for 8; Ms. Walat replied they said it was the same thing. Mr. Randall said he would not cite that one. Ms. Walat said Umatilla Hill, somewhat similar, had 10 cottages, common house and a couple of small sheds and was 50% impervious. Mr. Randall said his preference in dealing with it, they already have some standards in the cottage ordinance about where the common open space needs to be. He thinks for R-I they should add some language that talks about native vegetation, etc., and he thinks because they are lowering the density, there is the opportunity to increase the open space. That is one ofthe goals here, so we should look at the ratio. There is currently a ratio in there that each cottage has to have 400 sf of common open space, and another ratio of private open space. Basically they just need to increase those ratìos, because they have made room to do that. He thinks they have some direction and they can play with those numbers. Chair Berg asked if anyone cared to make a motion. Option I: No change: allow things to be the way they are. Option 2: Reduced density. Allow cottage developments at a density of6 - 8 units per 40,000 sf Option 3: Reduced density with clustering. Set a base allowable density for cottage developments of 4 per 40,000 sf, the underlying density, and allow developers to essentially buy the ability to do higher density by paying into a fund to be used by the city to acquire additional open space. Ms. Walat added, if they have appropriate land they could also cluster onsite. Option 4: Prohibit cottage housing in the R-I zone. MOTION Ms. Hersey Direct Staff to prepare a draft that densìty in R-I would be up to 8 for 40,000 sf, and clustered. (Restated by Chair Berg -- Option 2, density set at a maximum of 8, and language dealing with clustering and open space) SECOND Ms. King VOTE Passed unanimously, 6 in favor by voice vote. 2. How should the applications be processed? MOTION Ms. Hersey Cottage developments in R-I only, processed as Type III, Conditional Use SECOND Ms. Slabaugh Discussion; Mr. Randels asked Staff for clarification of what happens. Someone comes in, puts this in ftont of you. What are the steps? Ms. Walat explained for conditional use, they bring in a complete applicatìon. It would be more expensive than it is now, because there are notice fees and higher permit fees. There would be: notice in the newspaper, notice onsite and notice sent to neighbors; a 20-day period during which BCD would accept comments. The city reviews the proposal in conjunction with the criteria for a CUP including one like mentioned earlier, is it harmonious with the neighborhood? Staff makes recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. There is notice ofa public hearing, and . a public hearing at which public testimony could be taken. The Hearing Examiner decides within 14 days; there is an appeal period during which either the applicant or any aggrieved party can appeal the process to the City Council. City Council renders a decision. If any party wants to appeal that, they would appeal to a court. Mr. Randall summarized the differences, saying he hasn't heard anybody advocating they leave it the way it is now with no public notice. He has not heard a single member of the public. So, the main two options they are talking about is a Type II or a Type III process. The main distinction between Type II and Type III is, Type III has a public hearing and the Hearing Examiner makes the decision. Type II has no public hearing; Staff makes the decision. The other major difference is, Type III Conditional Use permit has additional criteria needing to show they are satisfying, the major one Ms. Walat summarized, the compatibility issue. Ifit is Type II, we are only using the cottage standards, whatever we change them to. Mr. Randels asked if there could be a Type II conditional use. Ms. Walat replied there actually are, but they are minor conditional uses and are defmed by code, if it is taking place in an existing building. Because of the nature of the cottage development, it will always be a major conditional use. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26,2004/ Page 16 · · · Mr. Randall thought his question is, could you have cottage be a conditional use where Staff is making the decision instead of it going to a hearing. He said because it is the city's drafted code, yes, anything is possible. We created it; we can change it. It would be a little bit of a departure ftom what we do now. Mr. Randels said that would be his choice in R-I. Mr. Berg asked if his reason for doing that is to get out of the whole Hearing Examiner process? Mr. Randels replied he thinks the process he just heard allows for a lot of gnashing of teeth, but he does not know it necessarily results in a better process. It is certainly a more expensive process. One of the things he is hearing, and one of the reasons people objected to his suggested 7 and wanted to go to 8, was to make this not so expensive that it won't be done. He suggests that a lengthy and potentially acrimonious hearing process is a cost. It may not be very quantifiable, but it is real, and he thinks it will be a real disincentive. It seemed to him that if you can do in the R-II zone as a matter of right, and he doesn't hear anybody saying they ought to apply stricter standards in R-II, and he doesn't either, but it seems ifthat is the case in R-II, why do they want to go all that much further in R-I? Mr. Randall thought it might be helpful to break it down, issue-by-issue. Maybe you should just talk about -- do you think it would be a good idea to have the decision maker, whomever that is, have the CUP criteria? Should these things be subject to CUP criteria, not whether it's Staff or the Hearing Examiner? Should that be added to the process? Ms. Walat thought another point, length of the process except for the hearing, is pretty much the same for Type II. There is the same comment period, the same appeal periods. Mr. Randels said the hearing is the big thing. Mr. Berg's experience having been through the Hearing Examiner process with a project, was that in order to get through it, you have an army of consultants that includes your architect, maybe a planner, lawyers, engineers for a period of a few months. All have to create plans, documents and memos and communicate with other. It costs a fortune, and he thinks if they saddle a little 8-unit cottage development with this process, it isn't going to happen. Just forget it; it's like saying it's not allowed -- that was his personal opinion. He is very against that and thinks the public notification and Type II stuff, depending how lengthy the Type II is because he has not been through one, he is inclined to think Type II is good because he really thinks the more notification, the more the neighbors can know what is coming, the sooner they know and the more chance they have to comment on it, the better. He repeated the question, is there something about the CUP criteria that is useful as part of the process, even if we don't go to a Type III process? Ms. Walat wondered if they could write in some of the conditional use criteria, the approval criteria into the cottage development criteria. Mr. Randall said that is actually one ofthe things that is kind of missing in the cottage ordinance. It is a Type I process; usually with a Type I, you don't have approval criteria, but basically that is a good idea. We could take those, pull the ones that seem to be the most applicable and basically put approval criteria that now it is a Type II process. There is a permit you need to get, there is public notice and these are the approval criteria: a. you need to show that have complied with all these design standards; b. you need to show it is compatible with the neighborhoods, that CUP criteria, and then have a decision. The decision is a Type II decision; that might be a nice way to combine the two. We don't have to create a new animal; it's the cottage process. Ms. Walat said that one of the criteria could be, it complies with stormwater. Mr. Emery asked if that would be Type II with an enhancement. VOTE Failed unanimously, 6 opposed by voice vote MOTION Mr. Randels Cottage developments in R-I only, processed as Modified Type II with enhanced approval criteria drafted by Staff (Restated by Chair Berg -- Type II process, additional language in the ordinance addressing issues of fit, and applicable to R-I zone only.) SECOND Ms. Hersey Discussion: Ms. Walat said they would put the approval criteria in the cottage housing regulations and asked if that is for all zones? Ms. King said, for all zones. Ms. Walat said it should be compatible, should meet stormwater; they could write it such that it works for all, but they may be able to put it in specifically ifthere seems to be something particular to R-I. Maybe stronger stormwater. Mr. Berg imagined different criteria for R-I. He was not sure they ought to have that process for R-III. Maker and seconder of the motion, Mr. Randels and Ms. Hersey, thought it should be for R-I only Mr. Emery asked if the conditional use would actually address the traffic concerns of the neighbors? Would it alleviate the worry of potential impacts? Mr. Randels thought the density decision they made addresses that. Mr. Emery asked if there is something existing that already deals with that? Mr. Berg thought, truth is, it's a problem, no matter what. If somebody builds four houses, you have 40 new trips. Mr. Randall said inftastructure standards are pretty consistently dealt with the city's engineering design standards. Until you have buildout, there will be gaps. It's not a problem unique to cottage. It is going to be different at different sites. They pretty much apply uniform standards to everything, and they end up a little bit different on different sites. He did not think that Planning Commission Minutes, February 26,2004/ Page 17 · · · is something they need to add. Compatibiilty in other standards is going to be general to whatever impacts there are. They are not going to be limited to some impacts and not apply to others. Ms. Slabaugh asked ifthis addresses and achieves "fit" regarding Mr. Chapin's comments last time? What she heard in neighbors testimony was, they wanted a say. The harder you make it for the developer, basically you are giving more rights to people to challenge. If you give people fewer rights to challenge and make it easier for the developer -- she agreed to make it really, really hard for developers defeats the purpose, and why do it. On the other hand she was concerned about "fit." She was looking at the table about the process that says there is a public hearing only if the Director's decision is appealed, and can be appealed by anybody. They do have some additional rights they didn't have in Type I to address issues as well Ms. Walat replied that even with Type II there is a 20- day comment period. They don't make any decision until after that comment period is complete, and accept written and verbal comments during that period. Ms. Hersey asked if they notify for Type II? Ms. Walat answered, notify and for Type II she thought Staff would suggest they do mandatory neighbor notice. Some Type II have mandatory, and some don't. Mr. Randall said regarding appeal, if you have neighbors who have strong issues about something and they think that Staff hasn't really addressed their concerns, the project hasn't evolved far enough to meet their concerns, the Port Townsend appeal fees are very modest to go to the Hearing Examiner and plead your case. The other thing Mr. Berg is hoping to see happen is what we are suggesting to see Staff do is deal with these issues in an ordinance. Ms. Walat imagined the one she read going pretty much word-for-word into the code. Mr. Randall thought the density is a big part of "fit." He thought that was a big part of what people felt in R-I did not fit. Ms. Slabaugh knew they were not talking about 'Liz Berman's project, and yet it is the one example they are trying to learn ftom. As an illustration, in this case do you think this kind of language we are talking about would have addressed the neighbor's concerns? Mr. Randall replied, that yes, he thinks it takes the pressure off. Any time you try to cram more cottages into a site, you are putting more of what people fmd objectionable and you are taking away more things that rather mitigate for the bulk. There is less open space, fewer trees, etc. He thinks taking some cottages away is easier to make it less of an impact and fit better. Ms. Walat thinks if you go ftom what is typically built there, even to 8, it is a pretty big jump. She does not think it is going to totally address peoples' concerns, but will address some concerns. Ms. Slabaugh did not say when they were arguing for 7, but pointed out regarding 8 that even though it is equal in terms of number of units, because of the limits on square footage, it is actually less square footage density. Ms. Walat said that typically only owners build an ADU, not a developer. Mr. Randels stated her point is right, if it is only 4 houses; 4 standard single-family houses are probably more square feet than the 8. He said he grants that. Ms. King thought she was going to vote against the motion. They didn't reduce the densities in the other zones, and she thinks neighbors like to be notified. In some of the other zones, in R-II, they would still be able to build 12 or 14 cottages. She would prefer to see it Type II across the board. Chair Berg explained it could be a second motion. VOTE Passed, 5 in favor by voice vote, Ms. King opposed Chair Berg asked Ms. King if she wished to make a motion. She did not see the point, but there was considerable comment to encourage her motion. Mr. Randall thought it important for her to make the motion. MOTION Ms. King Make cottage housing a Type II permit in R-II SECOND Mr. Emery Discussion: Ms. Slabaugh asked the drawback with notifying neighbors? Ms. King thought the drawback, slightly more expensive because the applicant has to pay for notifying. Ms. Walat explained the applicant has to pay the notice fees; total cost for a Type II process is typically is $440. Ms. King thought people couldn't comment if they don't know. If you don't tell them, they don't know until it starts getting built. Ms. Hersey thought it a good idea in R-II, not in R-III -- if you don't want to live there, that is what it is and you still have options. Mr. Emery commented about the Tree House project, that he lives on the border of the project and didn't know until he heard chain saws. a mend who is a neighbor to the project felt that neighborhood did not get any, or maybe not enough, notification. His neighbors sold their house and moved because they disagreed with not being notified and all of a sudden here it is. He believes even in R-II, at least, give the neighbors notice. Now that he has lived next to it for awhile, he can hardly tell it's there. They are not driving on his street; the traffic impact is there, but as neighbors, it has turned out to be a pretty nice development. Ms. Walat commented that project was in R-III. She explained Mr. Emery is in R-II, but the project was R- Ill; therefore, she thinks there is some rationale for requiring notice in R-III as well. Mr. Emery thought maybe, if you are in a different zone and near the project. Ms. Walat said there is a large portion ofR-III that is built out with single-family homes already, historically. Ms. Hersey asked if that piece of property got changed through the Comp Plan, that it was just residential. Ms. Walat was not sure but said maybe in 1997. Ms. Hersey said for anybody that buys property, there is a portion of their agreement that they have 5 days to check out the neighborhood, drive around or do whatever they want. She thinks people should be aware of what's around them ifthey are buying a Planning Commission Minutes, February 26,2004/ Page 18 · · · piece of property. Mr. Emery said his neighbors were the longest in that neighborhood. When they moved there, there were not many houses at all. There was a great green belt; maybe it was wrong on their assumption or they were given wrong information, but they assumed that green belt was going to stay. Mr. Randels asked if the real question is notice, is it possible to have Type II notices, but otherwise a Type I process? Ms. Walat said it is possible, except for the appeal. She said they can always do optional notice. Permits are organized by type. When you start mixing them up, it is really easy to make mistakes. Mr. Randall said it is rather problematic. He disagreed a little with Ms. Walat on R-III. If you do it in R-III it is going to be less density than allowed in R-III. There is kind of an issue for him of making them go through a Type II process with compatibility when it is already presumed. Ms. Walat said compatibility was for R-I. Mr. Randall countered that they added notice and the compatibility criteria for both R-I and R-II. Ms. Walat said the compatibility criteria with the conditional use were through R-I only. Mr. Berg said that is all they have voted for, so far. Mr. Randels asked regarding compatibility. Mr. Berg said the motion was just about Type II. Ms. King said compatibility and all is a good thing; she thought there was no reason not to extend that to R-II. Mr. Randels concurred, but added, unless they develop things that are directly related to the reduced density. Ms. Slabaugh mentioned vegetation, putting in trees; you couldn't do that in R-III. Mr. Randall said in his mind that is something under R-I. When it comes to the fmdings you need to make, you need to conclude that: a) you comply with the applicable standards (not all the standards apply to every zone -- some will be R-I only, some R-II, etc.); b) compatibility, etc. He thought it would be helpful to have those criteria, especially with the Type II project, because we are making a decision. Usually you have approval criteria. Mr. Randels said that is additional workload for BCD in trying to put this together. Mr. Randall replied that it is small stuff; it's a useful tool. His recommendation was Type II and the compatibility criteria for both R-I and R-II. Ms. King asked if basically R-I and R-II would be the same? She corrected her statement to say, with different standards? Mr. Randall replied that process-wise and approval criteria, it would be the same. Ms. King reiterated Mr. Randall's statement. Ms. Walat pointed out that is different ftom what Ms. King had said, and Mr. Randall suggested Ms. King amend her initial motion. Chair Berg said they have moved, voted and passed to have this in R-I. The motion on the table now proposes Type II process for R-II zoning. Ms, King asked if she should amend that to Type II process and compatibility criteria with R-II? Ms. Walat asked if it is the same criteria? Ms. King said that no, it is different because it is a different zone. Ms. Hersey asked to recap: you get lower density in R-II zoning. She thought people in R-II have less ofa problem with density. So, when you talk about density and compatibility she looks for the same thing in R-II. Chair Berg said he thinks they should leave it to Staff how deal with the issue of the compatibility criteria. They are saying to have some compatibility criteria. Ms. King clarified they don't want to make it difficult for Staff; they want people to be noticed; they don't want to discourage developers, but they would like to have quality development. That is the goal. AMENDED MOTION Ms. King Cottage developments in R-II processed as Type II with approval criteria Accepted by Mr. Emery VOTE Passed unanimously, 6 in favor by voice vote Mr. Randall said the last thing in R-III would be a way to have public notice in R-III with none ofthe rest; basically they would add: cottage developments have public notice. He said they already did it for multi-family design review, which is a Type I-a process. It wouldn't change the type; wouldn't change the appeal rights, the process, or criteria in III. MOTION Mr. Randels Require notice to neighbors for cottage developments in R-III, with a Type I process SECOND Mr. Emery Discussion: Ms. Hersey asked in R-III is it Type II? Mr. Randall replied it would remain Type I-a as it is now, the same as they use for design review, etc. The applicant can appeal, but nobody else can. Ifwe had public notice, the neighbors could give input as to whether the project complies with the applicable design standards. Ms. Hersey personally thinks in R-III with all that density, it should just move forward with no public notice. She thinks they have gone through the residential areas and said they are single-family dwellings, but when you get into multi- family, whatever is around the outside, this is what it is. For comparison, Mr. Randall said they have public notice now with multi-family design review for 5 units or more. He said they could do it the same way, cottages of 5 or more. Consensus was to leave it as stated. VOTE Passed unanimously, 6 in favor by voice vote. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26,2004/ Page 19 · · · ill SeDaration required between cottal!e housinl! develoDments. Ms. King commented she has the same kind of uneasy feeling Mr. Randels brought up, that it is rather first- come fIrst-served. She hears there is precedence, and she is uncertain and conflicted. Ms. Hersey said if you think about it, they have really covered the problem, because of what they have done with public notice. They can come and discuss it; we also have "fit." Ms. King added, they have compatibility. Ms. Hersey thought they have enough public process to go through that. Mr. Randels felt they had not totally dealt with that problem because, even though there will be all these additional notice requirements, and a little more clout, landowners will still have some rights. If there is precedence for this, it has been tested, etc., he is persuaded that some kind of separation, a development control, is nevertheless a good idea in R-I. He thought they should very seriously look at least 250' and maybe 500'. As an additional means, the R-I density is needful. Ms. Hersey thought, if they put a restriction between different cottages, what they are saying is that cottages are not as nice or good as single-family homes. She was not sure that is the case; she said they are saying they are not nice enough to put one next each other. Mr. Randels interjected that he is not said that. Ms. Hersey went on to say the density might even be less as opposed to buildout in R-I in single family. She thought two back- to-back and having the entire inftastructure they need, might be a positive thing for the neighborhood. You are going to have better roads, in and out, because of grid. She thinks they have put enough restrictions, public notification and clustering. You restrict somebody' s property when you do that; now you are talking about somebody's livelihood, what they can and can't do. Mr. Emery was thinking ahead what that neighborhood would look like in Year 2020 if they did put the separation restrictions on. He imagined it would be cluster, grid, cluster, grid. He was not sure if that would actually mix up what is open. Then you have blockages; single-family homes tend to have fences round them, generally. He asked, especially along the corridor we really want to protect as open space, is there a way to get rid of the grid, make it more organic without setting it up as an open space and then here is a neighborhood with all these fences? The wildlife is going to find a way to get through all that, but to make sure of existing wildlife that is out there, is there a way to say specifically, being more specific than R-I, where the wildlife corridor has been documented? Is there a way to encourage more clustering and open space in general? Ms. Walat thought they could do that with PADS and language and by giving incentives to do clustering out there. It is a bigger process than what they have here. She said she could be wrong, but thought when you have 8 cottages, 4 houses, or 4 houses and a couple ADUs, that pretty much is such a change ftom the underlying state; that it is pretty much the same. Mr. Emery asked by their action if they include the separation, does that mean they are going to get less open space where it is needed most? Mr. Randall did not think it affects it. The only way to get more open space is for someone to acquire it. Mr. Emery knew the Land Trust was very active in that. He said maybe that is another planning issue. Mr. Randall suggested Land Trust, city; otherwise, it basically gets developed. Mr. Berg would like to see this concern be addressed through fit. If the cottage developments that are going to happen fit well enough with the neighborhood that the neighbors feel comfortable with them, they don't have this issue. Mr. Randels commented regarding litigation by bureaucrats saying this doesn't' fit because there is another one next door. If we say in an a pre-tested ordinance that has already been through the courts that a separation is required, they are off the hook, and they have a lot fewer lawyers getting rich off this. Mr. Berg was hoping whether or not there is one next door, it isn't a fit problem. Ms. Walat said it is very difficult legislate by design. She thought having the separation is more straightforward, if that is an important criteria. She felt to rely on it is a harder thing to achieve because it is much more subjective. Mr. Berg was philosophically opposed to having the actions of one neighboring landowner curtail the next neighbor's ability to do what they want to do with their property. He does not like that. Mr. Randels said he does not like it either. MOTION Mr. Randels Maintain a 500 foot separation between cottage housing developments in R- I. Mr. Emery SECOND Discussion: Ms. Slabaugh asked about retaining the true meaning ofR-I, that it is supposed to be rural character, lower density and a more environmental area, etc. She rather agreed it was a crude tool. It achieves that; it spreads it out more. It is crude in that you are denying the next lot over all around. She asked if the way they modifIed the density requirements, etc., do you think that doesn't quite achieve R-I character, the meaning is lost a little? Mr. Randels answered he thinks it goes a long, long way toward that, no question. He thinks it will reduce the risk that the R-I zone will be taken over by cottages. If that is a risk, he thinks it would be a serious one, because you would then end up with a continued depopulation of our schools, among other things. He said they are planners and they ought to think about that. You build small places, you aren't going to have kids living there. That's a fact, and to him that enters into this whole debate. Ms. Hersey said it is out there but isn't here in Port Townsend; our Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 20 · · · community is different. A lot of people with kids like living in small spaces. It really is more of a Port Townsend lifestyle and she gave an example ftom the audience. Mr. Randels thought if they look at the empirical evidence, and you compare the 3,000 sf houses to the 12,000 sf houses, you are going to have more kids in the bigger houses. Ms. Hersey said that is not so in Port Townsend. Ms. Slabaugh said there are a lot of wealthy retirees who move here and buy the big houses; they go to North Beach and build a big house. Mr. Randels made the point again that he had made at the last meeting, that when zoning is in place, people rely on it; and they ought to be able to rely on it. When zoning is changed, it should be done carefully and thoughtfully. He thought the cottage ordinance is a good idea, but he thinks it was not done quite thoughtfully enough, and that is why we are dealing with this problem now because it was superimposed on all of the zones without any differentiation among the zones. People in R-I are saying this is supposed to be a different type of place. It's R-I; it's supposed to be less dense. He thought allowing the same density for this as would be allowed in R-II or R-III doesn't compute to the average citizen, and he didn't blame them. Ms. King said they have changed that. Mr. Randels spoke ofthe structure of a continuing series of 8 units of cottage housing block, after block, after block and asked if it would ever happen? He said that no it would not, he understands, but people still fear that it could happen. He did not think this should have to go before the judge to defend themselves; that is their job. Ms. Hersey said she was here when they did the cottages, and she thought our being the urban growth area was the driver for cottaging. According to GMA and our Comp Plan this is the urban growth area, so our density is where it needs to be, within the city limits. It still should be the driver for why we are doing what we do. Mr. Berg also pointed out the idea that R-I is rural, it is not rural. Mr. Randels said they did not hear that term ftom him. Mr. Berg said it's not rural; it is inside the city limits. Up until the drainage problems with Basin 4 were identified and dealt with by the city, the whole thing was zoned the same as R-II. It was 5,000 sflots. The only reason it changed was because of stormwater problems; so the only reason there are 10,000 sf lots required out there now, is to allow more room for water to soak into the ground. Ifwe are talking about whether a cottage development makes it harder for water to soak into the ground, and we think we have changed it so that it is about the same or better than for 4 large single family houses on 10,000 sf lots, he did not think there was any justification for separation. It is part of the city. VOTE Failed, 5 opposed by voice vote, Mr. Randels in favor MOTION Ms. Hersey Make no change and no separation required here in the zone, Option I. Chair Berg determined no action was required to stay the way it is and no motion necessary. Possible revisions to One House/One Lot Rule and Manufactured Home Parks Ms. Walat made correction to the sentence clarifying addition to Table 17.16.020 in both the option and the text to make it read, Each detached single-family residence. .. The statement is correct in the table. It was determined the material had been read and a motion was in order. One House/One Lot Rule and Manufactured Homes MOTION Ms. Slabaugh Adopt Staff recommendations on both issues SECOND Mr. Randels VOTE Passed unanimously, 6 in favor by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Randall distributed materials for the special March 4th workshop on GMA Indicators Benchmarks. He explained for Ms. Slabaugh and Mr. Emery this related to the Comprehensive Plan, is something that is not required by the State, but City Council decided they should establish a local benchmarks and indicators program to keep track of how we are doing as a city -- things relating to affordable housing, etc. The Planning Commission was previously given an introduction. Mr. Toews is very thorough and will cover it all at the workshop. The meeting on March 11, 2004 will be for Planning Commission to approve the fmal GMI recommendation to Council. The meeting March 25, 2004 will be a public hearing on suggested amendments to the White Paper, issues we need to address as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. Materials will be provided to Ms Slabaugh and Mr. Emery. Mr. Toews feels the issues are going to be really minor and a workshop unnecessary because all-in-all our Comp Plan is in good shape. Mr. Berg said in Mr. Toews previous presentation he said what issues are going to be in the White Paper. Mr. Randall noted Mr. Toews has not yet produced the White Paper. Planning Commission Minutes, February 26,2004/ Page 21 · · · April 8, 2004 will be a public hearing on Cottage developments. Mr. Randall said to remember the things stated at this meeting, because they will need to be restated at the public hearing. Chair Berg pointed out one thing that never came up in the discussion was maximum impervious area for cottage developments in R-I. He wanted to at least personally suggest they include that in the approval criteria, so they don't have to go through a motion process. It was asked if that wasn't an issue for all R-I that there is noting existing now. Mr. Berg said thought Public Works feels they have to deal with it for the whole zone, but at least they can start by getting it into the cottage ordinance. Ms. Hersey asked if it isn't almost set right now? We set the footprints for cottages. Mr. Berg reminded they could still make something like a tennis court. Ms. Hersey thought the criteria were pretty close, but Mr. Berg again said it doesn't say the open space couldn't be a tennis court. Mr. Randall said they would take a look at it. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS March 4, 2004; special public workshop meeting on GMI ftamework March 11,2004; special meeting to formulate final GMI recommendation to Council March 25,2004; public hearing on suggested amendment to White Paper April 8, 2004; public hearing on Cottage developments IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Randels and seconded by Mr. Emery. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. (lv~~ Richard Berg, Chair Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 2004 / Page 22 · · · GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Planning Commission Possible Cottage Housing Amendments February 26.2004 Name (please print) Address Testimon ? Yes No / v v V'" ~=s 3 ò ti ~ ()f{(~ ~ L---/ l ~ () 5(~t <St. V 5?~ ¿, (I'oks V' ¡r . . . GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Planning Commission Possible Cottage Housing Amendments February 26.2004 Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No ~EfJ 5 Louc-+-( ~?J;?& t-t gJ ]) t2 '/Y5: ...... \.