Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04082004 Ag Min . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm April 8, 2004 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes ~ February 26, 2004; March 4,2004; March 25,2004 V. Unfinished Business VII. New Business Open Record Public Hearing VI. VII. VIII. Proposed Revisions to Cottage Development Regulations (pTMC 17.16.050) 1. BCD Staff Presentation 2. Public Testimony 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action Upcoming Meetings: Communications Adjournment '. . . ¡ l. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING April 8, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Richard Berg called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.rn. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Alice King, Lyn Hersey, Cindy Thayer, George Randels and and Steven Emery; JeffKelety, Jim Irvin and Liesl Slabaugh were excused. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Planner Jean Walat, and City Engineer Dave Peterson. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Thayer made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Randels seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February ~ 2004: Mr. Randels made a motion to approve the minutes of February 26,2004 as amended; Ms. Thayer seconded. All were in favor. March 1... 2004: Ms. Thayer made a motion to approve the minutes of March 4, 2004 as written; Mr. Randels seconded. All were in favor. March I2.. 2004: Consensus: Hold approval for clarification VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VII. NEW BUSINESS -- Open Record Public Hearing Proposed revisions to Cottal!e Development ReJ!ulations (PTMC 17.16.050) Chair Berg opened the open record public hearing at 7: 15 p.m., and he read the rules of procedure for this legislative hearing. He called for disclosures from any Planning Commission members; there were none. Chair Berg introduced Ms. Jean Walat, Associate Planner, who made the Staff presentation. Ms. Walat stated the Planning Commission had previous workshops on this topic in January and on February 26th, and out of those lengthy discussions came mostly straightforward recommendations for Staff to put into code. The public hearing tonight is to review the proposed revisions discussed, to make those changes and to see if the code reflects Planning Commission wishes as to their recommendation to City Council based on the material prepared, on what Staff believes and says, and on public testimony. City Council deadline to receive Planning Commission recommendation on Cottage Housing Developments (CHD) was extended from April 13th to June 7, 2004 or earlier if possible. City Engineer Dave Peterson will answer questions regarding issues of stormwater and impervious surface. Ms. Walat cited concerns and possible revisions to the cottage housing: · R-I (low density) zone in the northwest part of the city. Specific stormwater concerns, and additional concerns of maintaining the character -- the wooded area of the R-I zone, the relatively more open development that occurs there, 10,000 sflot areas, or approximately 4 houses per 40,000 sf; as opposed to the downtown or uptown areas of R-II, 5000 sflot areas. · Recommendation regarding density in the R-I zone, or if allowed there at all: Cottage housing ordinance as written: 1) underlying density allowed in the R-I zone too high density; 2) stormwater concerns. · Recommendation regarding separation between cottage developments or if too much infringement of adjacent property owner rights. · Process for Cottage Housing Development in the city; how much notice to neighbors; what kind of appeal option. Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 1 · · · Additionally: Should there be any special conditions for Cottage Housing specific to the R-I zone, i.e., compatibility, etc. Other minor proposed code revisions: Manufactured home parks clarification One house/one lot Ms. Walat referenced Exhibits A, B, and C. Exhibit A Draft Revisions to Port Townsend Municipal Code Exhibit -ª Breakdown of Lot Area Used in Sample Cottage Development -- Or a plot utilization for a typical or sample Cottage Development --using 8 cottages at the maximum size, i.e. 4 of the largest cottages that can built and 4 of the next size that can be built and fairly typical assumptions about parking, open space. (To be used in discussion of density, impervious surface, and set asides for clustering cottages in the R-I zone.) Exhibit ç Draft illustrations of off-street parking, PTMC 17.16.050 Ms. Walat explained the proposed revisions: DRAFT REVISIONS TO THE CODE (Exhibit A) 17.16.050 Cottage Housing A. Purpose. 1) Added to help clarify the intent of the ordinance on issues where the code is silent; helps Staff and the applicant understand the intent. Much of the intent or purpose was in the Comp Plan which lists the CHD as a specifically desired type of housing to promote a variety of housing choices -- to increase the number of smaller units or smaller households, not specifically affordable housing, although it can help with a larger stock of housing available; because they are smaller they may tend to be less expensive, although not necessarily so. 2) Design Standards are intended to reduce the need for public hearing. If you choose to do something different from these standards, you can do a PUD or different kind of housing. 3) Intent is to specifically have a higher density than is allowed in the underlying zone. 4) CHDs proposed in the R-I zone are subject to special density standards and additional approval criteria to recognize the R-I zone has unique stormwater constraints, is more likely to contain critical areas, and may lack full urban infrastructure at the time of development. Relates to the Planning Commission recommendation to add conditional use type criteria into the code without actually requiring a full conditional use permit. B. Density and Minimum Lot Area. 1) Planning Commission recommendation that the number of cottages permitted in the R-I zone should be reduced from 12 to 8 per 40,000 sf. Density is unchanged in R-II and R-III zones; however, reworded to clarify 14 cottages per 40,000 sf, -- you can't do 14 cottages. (If you have 20,000 sf, you can still do 7 cottages and the underlying density is unchanged. ) Q Ms. Thaver asked Ms. Walat to reiterate: A Ms. Wa1at: the density allowed in R-II and R-III is one unit per 2,857 sf which works out to be the same number as 14 cottages per 40,000 sf. However, 12 is the maximum number of cottages allowed; you can't have a 14 unit cottage development. Ms. Walat said the only place that makes a difference is if you are developing a site that is less than 40,000 sf- - you could have 7 on 20,000 sf, but you can't have 14 on 40,000. Q Mr. Randels asked the maximum allowed. A Ms. Walat: Going back to intent, "The design standards contained in this section are intended to help create a small community of cottages, oriented around open space, . . ." She explained she was not part of the original ordinance which decided on 14 and how it was determined, but that it has been considered 14 are too many; 12 is okay. C. Maximum and Minimum Number of Cottage Housing Units. Changed to 8 cottages in the R-I zone and also indicates that projects that have more than the above maximums could be done as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). It just means you would have a different level of scrutiny, i.e., a project of 45 cottages would potentially be possible but done as a PUD. D. Maximum Building Height and Roof Pitch. E. Lot Coverage, Impervious Surface and Floor Area. 1) Proposed language. In other parts of the zoning code: R-I zone (25%); R-II zone (35%); R-III zone (45%). "Additionally. in the R-I zone. impervious surface shall not exceed 25% of the lot area." Staff does not think this is Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 2 · · · possible to do. Ms. Walat noted there had been a lot of discussion about the limit on impervious surface and about lot coverage in the R- I zone. She reminded them of the difference. Lot Coverage -- building structures (only) over 30" in height; Impervious Surface -- roughly speaking, all structures plus parking lots, driveways, gravel, patios, overhangs, etc. There was some concern they should actually be regulating 25% impervious surface and not lot area. Impervious surface (25%) was put in, but it does not seem to work out for cottages. She referred to Exhibit B (Tvpical 40.000 g 9!y block): Impervious surface from structures: 8 cottages (4 @ 650 sf; 4 @ 800 sf) including 18" overhangs; common house, storage units, accessory structures, etc., Impervious surface from parking: Parking spaces based on number of cottages (5 + 6); spaces for visitors (conservatively @ 3) -- 14 spaces averaged @ 320 sf/space (including an aisle for backing out but may not include a long driveway). Impervious surface from sidewalks: Estimated at 20' wide cottages, space between cottages, one pathway alongside and entry walkway. Impervious surface from driveways/alley (not taken into account) Total Impervious Surface -- almost 15,000 sf (a little over 37% impervious surface) Ms. Walat said Staff did not think you could get it down to 25%. If the appropriate number is felt to be 8 cottages, it is not going to work at 25%. If they want to go with 8 cottages, it should go to a maximum impervious surface of 40%. She thought what would be significant here, which is different from 40% aimed for in other zones or R-I single family residence, is if you want to go over 40% of the impervious surface you would need to have a variance, like lot coverage over 25%. More typically if you want to go over 40% impervious surface in the city with a single family residence, commercial, etc., you can do an engineered stormwater plan and doesn't require a variance. Staff is recommending there does need to be some limit in the R-I zone for impervious surface. 2) "The maximum (usable deleted) ground floor. . ." Staff recommended change is from research of other ordinances and discussion with Ross Chapin, et ai, working on other cottage developments showing measurement done on the outside of structures. There was a last minute amendment during the City Council hearing that changed it to usable ground floor area, which is the interior of a building without measuring any walls. It is estimated that accounts for about a 10% increase in the size of the cottage. Staff needs to know if the Commission agrees with that recommended change which is based on ground floor area defmed in the code as to the exterior walls. That pretty much matches what they use on all their forms for lot area coverage. H. Required Open Space and Tree Conservation. Planning Commission recommend that cottages should be allowed in the R-I zone with clustering. There is some Staff confusion about what was actually meant by clustering. She understood clustering to be a method of allowing the same or higher density of an underlying zoning area, by putting houses close enough together on a development so that you both reduce the infrastructure and save significantly large areas for such things as farm land; open space preservation for passive or active recreation; an undisturbed area that maintains more natural stormwater control; part of a wildlife corridor; wetland corridor. It basically does not put cookie cutter house lots all over the entire landscape, puts them close together and preserves a significant part of the landscape. Clustering typically preserves at least 40% of the land that is being undisturbed, up to 80% if it is a large enough tract. With 40,000 sf lots, they are talking about double density of what is allowed in the existing zoning and staying within a cluster on that block. This is the framework for her rationale, and mayor may not be what the Planning Commission has mind for clustering -- also, the thought that there was a difference between the kind of community green they have been calling public open space in a typical cottage development, e.g., houses being in a circle or arranged around a community open space where people can have a garden, put their bicycles, etc., and that kind of undisturbed open space that she associates with clustering. It is not necessarily that space in the middle; it could be the space that is just not developed onsite. Open space that is not impervious is valuable for stormwater; there is an additional value esthetically and for wildlife and open space if that area is contiguous. 2.c.) "In the R-I zone, cottages should [shall?] be located so as to maximize natural stormwater functions. In this zone, cottages may [shall?] be clustered. .." Basically, if you can preserve this much, we will not hold you to every standard that says such things as every house has to be within 60 feet of open space, etc. Exhibit B shows the total minimum open space required for 8 cottages to be about 4,800 sf. When you add that to the developed area you get about half the lot. That is what it would mean if we actually did have a requirement for the undisturbed contiguous open space. If 25% is left undisturbed, that means you put all of the development on 30,000 sf; 50% undisturbed, means you put all the development -- 8 cottages, driveways, common house and anything else -- on 20,000 sf; 40% leaves approximately 3 lots Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 3 · · · or 16,000 sf that is permanently undisturbed with 24,000 sffor development. That provision was included so if houses needed to be slightly closer together they would be more flexible as to where the open space was located. Major questions that need to be answered: is it the right approach? is 40% the right number? should it be required or just suggested? 4) & 5) Preserving native trees and other vegetation; Using low impact development techniques for stormwater management wherever possible (includes all three zones, not just R-I). J. Off-Street Parking 2) Clarifies location of off-street parking (illustrations in Exhibit C). In the code, primary street frontage is the one that gets the most traffic; BCD Director can determine which is the primary frontage. 3) Intent is to not to be predominant on the site; parking not located in front. Q Ms. Hersev: Is that for all cottages? A Ms. Walat: Yes. L. Manufactured Homes in CHDs Questioned at the last meeting. Mobile home parks are not allowed in the city, but this will allow manufactured homes in CHDs so long as they meet the cottage housing design standards. A recent court case says that manufactured homes need to be dealt with in the same way as stick-built standard homes. Ms. Walat expressed concern if manufactured homes have the same life span as a stick-built house or if intended only to be there for a few years. If something else is done with the property, maintained as rentals without actually for the owners, they could potentially have a problern. Q Ms. Hersey: Are you talking about leased land? A Ms. Walat: With a standard CHD, you are in a condo situation where you own your house and you jointly own the land. However, there is nothing that says condos have to be owned by the residents. Somebody could develop a CHD, rent the entire thing and have that as their clear intention. They could do it as a condo development which they are required, but they are not required to sell them to anybody and could just rent the entire development for as long as it is there. That is something to consider. M. Additional Approval Criteria in the R-I Zone "The City may approve or approve with modifications an application for a CHD in the R-I zone. .." Some of BCD Staff thought these criteria should apply to all CHDs, but she sensed from the last meeting the Commission intention was to add conditional use type criteria only for the R-I zone. The criteria are taken from Conditional Use Permit approval criteria, just changed from conditional use to CHD. These criteria specifically focus on the appropriateness and fit within a neighborhood. 1) It has to be harmonious, appropriate design with the character of the existing neighborhood, which is harder to judge. 2) It has to be served by adequate public facilities. 3) That it won't be detrimental to other uses or property in the area. 4) See correction: Correction: M.4.) changed from: "The CHD has merit and value or the community as a whole; and" to read either "for" or "to" the community. . . 5) That it is consistent with the Comp Plan. 7) Cumulative impact. *Significant (not sure how much the Commission was relying on this). A second, third, or more CHD in the same neighborhood, that is the point they could say the cumulative impact is too much. That is really putting a lot of burden on City Staff for potential appeals because on what basis, what criteria, are they going to decide if that is too many for that neighborhood? That rather gets back to require separation. N. Required Separation between Cottage Housing Developments. Reserved space. At our last meeting there were recommendations for various possible separations from one block to four blocks between CHDs. The Commission voted not to impose a required separation between CHDs which she believed to be on the basis of rights of adjacent property owners. This space was reserved in case the Commission wants to reconsider. Staff does think that would be useful. There is one situation where they actually have had a developer come in and ask if they could do this. He reasoned that you can put 7 houses on a 20,000 sflot; so he could do 2 CHDs, one on one-half of the block and one on the other one-half of the block, in order to get around the 12 unit maximum. It is up to the Commission what they want to do; however BCD recommends some kind of separation. O. Cottage Housing Development - Design Review Process. Pretty straightforward. Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 4 · 2) Based on Commission recommendation, applications for the R-I and R-II zones will be processed as Type II land use decisions which requires notice to neighbors and gives appeal options to neighbors or any member of the public. R-III zone stays as Type I-A. All are administered by Staff. There will be mandatory neighbor-notice for all CHDs. 3) Variance option. If any of these things don't make sense in a particular situation, somebody can apply for a variance. There is another CHD that has applied for a variance for parking. Other proposed changes to municipal code: Housekeeping changes to make the code consistent in table and places where it refers to cottage housing. Proposed revisions to TABLE 17.16.020: Manufactured and mobile home courts are not allowed within the city. Requires that each detached single family residence shall be located on its own lot. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes are allowed, and a binding site plan could also be allowed, but you can't have a large lot, put a lot of single family houses on it without doing some kind of subdivision process that clarifies ownership and establishes setbacks, etc. At 8:02 p.rn. Chair Berg thanked Ms. Walat and asked if there were any written comments submitted or if anyone wished to submit written comments without speaking. Ms. Walat noted they received some comments specific to Ms. Berman, but nothing specific to these proposed revisions. Chair Berg called for public testimony. · PUBLIC TESTIMONY Susan Miller, 80 Gull Shadow Lane Ms. Miller read and submitted her written testimony which was entered into the record as Exhibit D: "I appreciate all of the volunteer time and effort donated by the members of the Planning Commission. Thank you. 'I request that the Port Townsend Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Cottage Housing as allowed by the Cottage Housing Ordinance be disallowed in R-I Low Density Residential zoning. If the Commission cannot recommend that, I request they recommend that Cottage Housing in R-I zoning require Type III Conditional Use permits which would provide notice, hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner, site-specific conditions and an appeal process. If the Commission cannot recommend that--I request they recommend a reduction of the density of permitted cottages in the R-I Low Density Residential zone from 14 to 8 per 40,000 sq. feet as well as additional approved criteria for cottage developments including that there be at least 500 feet between developments in order to avoid the cumulative negative effect of maximum development on the environment and the surrounding neighborhood. (Ms. Miller added comment -- that becomes particularly important when you are thinking about things like manufactured home parks (you are not calling them that), a cottage development that is all rented out.) 'In the workshops leading up to this hearing tonight 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 in 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 sq. feet that is one block--it is also true according to the ordinance that developers could build two cottage developments on one block. Each Y2 block site of20,000 sq. feet could legally have 7 dwellings for a total of 14 dwellings plus common houses in the two developments within the same block. This illustrates why that cumulative effect has to be considered. 'Also discussed in the workshops leading to the hearing was the fact that R-I was designated Low Density Residential requiring a 10,000 square foot building site which is twice the size requirement of a building site in R-II zoning because of drainage problems in R-I. One member of the planning commission at a workshop suggested that the stormwater runoff/drainage concerns could be taken off the table of concerns because they could be mitigated by engineering. I think it would be a mistake to make that assumption because while it is true that theoretically any stormwater runoff/drainage problem can be handled by an engineered solution--ifthe Cottage Ordinance is not revised to limit where developments are located and how close they may be built to each other they could easily have a cumulative impact on stormwater runoff/drainage that could overburden the environment. 'The other cumulative impact is the total change of the character of the underlying zoning if the Cottage Housing Ordinance is left unrevised in R-I zoning to allow more than triple the underlying single family dwelling density in block after block of currently undeveloped land. 'Thank you for your consideration of my comments and requests." · Mike Dawson, 1361 51st Street Mr. Dawson read and submitted written testimony from both himself and his wife Laurel which was entered into the record as Exhibit E. "We do not think cottage housing is appropriate in R-I zoning. The impact of dense development in the least sensitive Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 5 · · · area of town is great. It impacts storm water runoff, creates traffic problems and radically changes neighborhoods. R-I zoning, which normally would allow four houses per 40,000 square feet, would be totally undermined by allowing 14 cottages per 40,000 square feet. In addition, there is nothing to stop a developer from maximizing the density block after block with multiple cottage housing developments. In fact, since land in R-I tends to be less expensive, the city is in effect inviting this kind of maximum development, If the goal were to invite some smart development, cottage housing would be encouraged fIrst in parts of town with more developed infrastructure. 'Our family lives within the R-I zone. We walk, we ride bikes along narrow gravel roads with no sidewalks or shoulders, which is fme when density is not that great. As density increases, careful consideration should be made to ability of the area to accommodate that increase and development should be appropriate. This area is R-I because of poor soils, wetlands and storm water management concerns. All over our area are street right of ways that were platted over a hundred years ago. These planners knew how many streets would be needed to handle the growth they planned, long before the impact of the automobile. But many of those streets will never be opened because we now value wetlands and rightly avoid putting roads through thern. As a result, the current traffic funnels through a few key unimproved streets. And R-I zoning cuts in half the number of buildable lots per block than the forefathers planned in 1897, at least until the cottage ordinance came along. Where an area might sustain gradual infill from single family homes it cannot support a large impact. If a developer can totally change the density ofa neighborhood in such an area, it is dangerous to the rest of us who share the roadways. 'At a minimum, we think that the city needs to take action on rectifying this ordinance. We appreciate that the Planning Commission has put effort into making the ordinance have less of an impact on R-I zoning. While we feel that the proposal does not go far enough, it would offer more protection than currently exists." (Mr. Dawson added regarding something he thought key from the presentation - impervious surface coverage. He asked how are you going to fit all the stuff on a block that is currently, even in this modified proposal? If you actually sit down and draw it out, put in the maximum cottages, even 8 with the parking area and open space requirements, it is very hard to make it work in a way that is not going to have a lot of impact on land. In specific examples, when you actually look at certain sites in the R-I zone, not necessarily in all parts of town, there are lots of other things to consider -- wetlands, areas where there is no infrastructure. If you go out and look at some of those areas, the impact becomes a lot more clear. When you are just thinking about it in terms of comparing it to what is currently allowed, it is hard to see maybe how much difference it really would make.) Dorothy Hensey. 1302 51st Street She thanked the Commission for all the time they are putting into consideration of all this, and to the City Staff for all their hard work. She agreed with the two previous speakers. Looking at the draft revisions as they are now, she said that Ms. Walat did a wonderful job putting this together and making it so there is compromise, and that they are working together. She appreciated that. She feels the following still need consideration: · Density in the minimum lot area where you can still divide a 40,000 sf block into 2 blocks. She was aware of that a long time ago and pointed out that anyone with a sense of logic can come through and tweak the system so they can get what they would like. It seems to her that is a blatant thing that needs to be fixed in this cottage ordinance, and asked they please fix it. · Manufactured homes allowed in CHD. She really takes issue with that. On the page where you have the residential zoning permitted, where you very easily go through and say no manufactured homes are allowed in the city in any zone, yet, if you are going to put manufactured homes in a cottage development, by definition it is the same thing as a manufactured home park. It is a grouping of them on a piece of property; they won't own the property, and as pointed out could be all rentals. . She thought it would be totally incongruous with what they are already changing in the code that no manufacturing homes are allowed as a park in the city, yet by definition a CHD is a clustering or park like setting of homes. If you are allowing it there, she thought there could be contention. She would certainly complain if her next door neighbor were going to put in a CHD and make it all manufactured homes. She would go right to this and show that it says no manufactured home parks. Where is the difference between the two? She asked that they please address that. · Separating cottage developments (M.7.), making sure there is some way of stopping perpetual, continual, one-after- another being built and totally changing what would be a less dense area into an urban setting. Ms. Hensey again expressed thanks for all the time. Marla Streater, 871 51st Street Thanked everybody for all their hard work; she was amazed at how much work has gone into this. She thanked Staff Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 6 · · · saying she was so impressed. She has reviewed all of the changes and wanted to say she thought the idea of putting the purpose of the cottage development is an important part of this. She thinks that for a lot of them there was a great deal of confusion in thinking this was supposed to be addressing in some way affordable housing and being shocked that it was not. She thinks it is very important to take into consideration all of the things that have to do with the drainage problem, and thinks the impervious surface issue is really important. She supports either having this be a conditional use permitting process or at least reducing the number of houses in a cottage development to 8. She thinks that is really about the maximum that area can hold. Asking people to use the low impact development techniques for stormwater management was a very good idea, and saving the native trees and vegetation. She thought the conditional use section rather unenforceable and odd -- "The CHD has merit and value for the community as a whole;" [M.4.] She thought that a hard thing to enforceable and did not think that wording would be good to include. She thinks it is important that the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect [M.7.] and is a good thing to leave in. She did not understand why the Comprehensive Plan [M.5.] and Municipal Code [M.6.] are in there and asked if that isn't required anyway? She thinks there defmitely should be separation between these developments, and having cumulative effect [M.7.] of having these developments should be taken into consideration. She thought that would address the issue of building one on top of the other. She is very much opposed to having manufactured homes allowed in cottage developments because she thinks that would not be harmonious and not fitting into any part ofR-1 she knows of. She said she has focused mostly on R- I more than anything else. She again expressed thanks for all the hard work, and she hopes this gets resolved. Patti Mulrony, 5330 Hendricks Ms. Mulrony read her written testimony: "This project is totally inappropriate for our neighborhood. It is far too dense. I have concerns about drainage, wildlife and traffic. Most of us live here on one half of an acre surrounded by trees. The roads are dirt and because of the increased traffic, the city might be forced to pave them. It is not safe pulling out of Hendricks onto 49th because oflow visibility. 'The person behind the cottage industry (in their neighborhood) owns more acreage and I'm concerned that this could be ongoing and overwhelm the neighborhood. She has recently acquired more property on the corner of 49th and Hendricks and activity has already begun. I'm afraid if this goes through the very nature of our neighborhood would be lost. 'Thank you. 'This is not affordable housing." Ms. Mulrony said she had already written two or three letters to the city, and she might as well submit this. Her written testimony was entered into the record as Exhibit F. Chair Berg asked Ms. Mulrony for clarification of "this project" if she was referring to Liz Berman's project. Ms. Mulrony concurred. Chair Berg asked if she realized that is not what they are talking about here. Ms. Mulrony again concurred. Thomas Goldstein, 890 51 st Street He was concerned about cottage housing being used in the R-I district he lives in. He has a single family residence there and often walks through the woods there and passes many of his friends who are here. He thinks this type of construction may do a domino effect and get out of hand with this rapid expansion. Because of the R-I area being less expensive to buy land, he would be concerned about a lot of speculation going on, and the whole nature of the neighborhood and area changing for development for a profit minded motivation. He thinks it can work in other areas, and has seen it done, but he also thinks if the area doesn't have any infrastructure, the streets paved, it is going to greatly affect traffic and an increase of people being in danger from traffic and wildlife, etc. He thanked the Commission for the work they have done and hoped they would implement some of their considerations, if you are in fact going to do this. He moved to Port Townsend from Seattle so he could have a little more rural life. It has built up quite a bit there, and he would hate to see that happen here. He thinks cottage housing is a speculator's dream. Chair Berg closed public testimony at 8 :25 p.rn. and called for Staff Comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Walat said the conditional use criteria that have been imported to this ordinance tend to be more subjective and basically give Staff more latitude in evaluating whether a project meets those criteria fairly and to the satisfaction of all sides, whether the project has merit to the community as a whole. She thought Staff would agree that cottage housing as a concept has merit to the community as a whole, whether in a specific site or a particular neighborhood is a harder problem and one Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 7 · · · that has led them to this situation. In her Staff Report she said she was not sure they needed all the conditional use criteria, but it probably doesn't hurt to have them in there. Some of the things are required by other codes and have to be consistent with other codes. It does have to have infrastructure, although it does give them a little more clout saying that for those projects where infrastructure in the surrounding area may be less. One speaker thought cottage housing should not be allowed in R-I at all. That was one of the recommendations, but it was her understanding it was felt that cottage housing offers the community enough (sufficient options in housing and helps with the housing stock in the city) that the Commission felt it was good to have it in R-I. There are some things included that are very specific about the amount of impervious surface, the amount of open space required. Frankly, as they said in previous meetings, they don't really have all the information. They are picking numbers based on information they have, but the information is incomplete because they don't have very much experience with cottage housing. They don't have a mechanism for doing things like demonstration projects, or things on a wholesale basis where you are allowing this to happen without further review. She does not know if there is a way to do that. She said Mr. Peterson pointed out that the problem with 14 unitslblock could be fair if they made the underlying permanent density in R-II and R-III, 1 per 3,333 sf. However, R-III does allow a single-family residence on 3,000 sf. If changed to 3,000 sf, that would be equivalent to what they are saying for the R-I zone, 1 per 5,000 sf.; this would be I per 3,000 sf, which bumps up each zone. Ms. Hersey asked to verify where manufactured homes are/are not allowed. Mr. Randall responded that by law the State has mandated they cannot treat a manufactured home differently than a site-constructed home. They cannot say that in certain zones they are allowed, but what they can do is specify what a home can look like (certain roof pitch, eave, number of exterior walls, etc.). There are all sorts of manufactured homes, e.g. at Hamilton Heights, manufactured and assembled on site that basically look like you could stick build; or what he thinks people find more objectionable, manufactured homes with no eaves and a 3: 12 pitch roof -- it's a box, a rectangle, single wide. Mr. Randall said if they decide a certain type of manufactured home concerns them in a cottage development, he encouraged them to look at elements of those that are objectionable. He thought roof pitch is probably one of the easiest ways to deal with it. You can take a manufactured home and slap a porch on it; that is not a big deal for somebody to do. It is not likely that someone will take a cheap rectangular manufactured home, rip out the roof system and put a steeper roof pitch on it. A designer might have some ideals, but if this is something they want to pursue, that is the way to do it -- not say manufactured homes are not allowed in cottage housing. He does not think that is legal and would withstand challenge. Ms. Hersey asked if they are changing it for the Historic District. Mr. Randall replied they would have to address that. Currently manufactured homes are allowed in the city as a single-family home, with the exception of the Historic District, so they will need to address that part of the code. Ms. Thayer asked if they have to allow manufactured homes all over the city, why do they even need to include anything in here that they are allowed? If they have to allow them anyway, why do we have to highlight, that yes, they are allowed? Ms. Walat indicated they have had requests and pre-applications on this very thing. She wanted the Commission to be aware of what the decision is; it is fine if they decide to take it out, but basically to have it as 'a topic of conversation. Mr. Randall stated in response to what the public said and was mentioned by one of the Commissioners, they are doing something rather funny here with R-I, trying to take the conditional use criteria and insert them into the cottage housing chapter. He wanted to mention that, legally, the concept of a permitted use is defmed in the code as an authorized use by itself or with other permitted uses; it is permitted as long as you meet all the other standards. They we are trying to say that cottage housing is permitted, but you have to meet all these conditions. He thinks what they are really talking about is more closely defined as conditional use, and he excerpted from that definition, "the use permitted in one or more zones but which, because of the characteristics particular to such use or because of the size, technological processes or equipment, or because of the exact location with reference to surrounding streets and existing improvements or demands upon public facilities requires a special degree of control to make such uses consistent with and compatible to other existing or permissible uses in the same zone or zones." It then talks about the process. He said to him that is what they have been wrestling with in R-I, that these things may not be appropriate in all situations, or may not be appropriate without particular conditions. It is almost like they are trying to change it into a duck, but not call it a duck. He wanted to point out that legally if they leave this as a permitted use, but apply the conditional use criteria, they may have difficulty in really applying those criteria when it comes down to it. If they try to apply conditions such as you can't have a cottage development here because there is one right next door, there is a strong argument that they left it as a permitted use, even though they may have some conditions that talk about cumulative impacts. He wanted to raise that in terms of both the discussion they will have about separation and just the whole context of what it is, and that maybe they shouldn't try to bend it too far out of shape and apply some other criteria. If they feel it's conditional use, maybe they ought to just call it that whether or not they totally like the process. At 8:40 p.rn. Chair Berg asked for Planning Commission questions of staff. Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 8 · · · PLANNING COMMISSION QUE.STIONS: Q Ms. Thayer: Wanted to make sure there is a glossary for the cottage housing ordinance, e.g., using CHD throughout. Where does somebody know what that means? A Ms. Walat: Will include a reference in the first part, Purpose, Cottage Housing Developments. Q Mr. Randels: From reference to manufacturing housing, the fear of this becoming an all tenant kind of thing which he feels is rational, what this triggered in his mind was why should they ban the form of the house, why not address the tenancy issue? Has it been done; can it be done? Is there any way to placè limits on what a developer can do in those circumstances? A Mr. Randall: Could not think of any, but what they do in Port Townsend is not allow people to rent their house on less than a 30-day basis. That is something they consider more use, like turning it into a vacation home. You can do that through a B&B, but that is about it. Saying the person occupying the space has to own it, he is not sure is legal. They have not done that with any other housing in town. Ms. Thayer: Except for ADUs. Mr. Randall answered ADU is an exception -- maybe if they thought creatively about that. Ms. Thayer She did not think anybody could do that if they owned the house. Mr. Randall: One way to do it is to make them nicer. People aren't likely to spend more money on something and turn it around as a rental. A lot of that is market driven; if there is a real demand for selling homes, people will sell homes. If there is a real shortage of rental housing, they might try to hit that niche; they have had one or two talk about doing that, they don't want to build sell, but build and rent. Some of those things might be temporary or isolated situations. If your design standards make them be quality development, you are less likely to see them turn around and rent them all. Ms. Walat: They have had a proposal for bringing a number of manufactured homes, park model type things, and renting them all. Specifically, that is their intention. She said the ADU situation is the closest they have, but she does not think it transfers specifically to this situation. Ms. Thayer: Not at all; it is totally different. Q Ms. Hersey: Thought roof pitch was addressed. A Mr. Randall: They did not specify roof pitch; Ross Chapin and others said you could do some really cute cottages that have a really low roof. It could be a neat part of your design, though they may want to decide they do not want to take that risk and want to close that loophole. He thought roof pitch would be one of the easiest ways to do it. Mr. Berg, designer, might think of other ways he thinks maybe easy. Some have shown some pretty ingenious ways to slide things in, from tacking on extra exterior walls, etc. He thinks roof pitch and eaves might be the best way. He didn't know what would be wrong with having a nice manufactured home, or picking two or three models, including them in a development, siting them properly and landscaping well, more like the Hamilton Heights style. Ms. Thayer: 600 sf -- isn't a single wide all you can get for that? Mr. Berg: You should see what manufacturing home companies are doing these days. Mr. Randall: Some are modular. He thought technically the thing is to decide what is undesirable about these and try to deal with that aspect. Ms. Walat: One thing maybe more complicated than roof pitches is to have it at least 1-1/2 story, rather how they envision these. When you think about one story, either stick built or manufactured, what a cottage of this size might look like, making it sort of go up a little bit. Ms. Thayer: Thought that a great idea. Mr. Randall: Or say at least half of the structures must be 1-1/2 story, or whatever. He answered Ms. Thayer that they could make all of them that way. Mr. Randels: Has some problem with that, but will discuss it later. Q Ms. Hersey: One thing she thought an important was that the exterior be multiple siding, two different types of siding, straight or shingles, some kind of breakage. She didn't think many manufactured homes have that but esthetically it might be nice, but would increase the cost. A Mr. Randall: Most people who build small cottages on a site are going to do that, want to have a little variation. They get it small, they can add more detail. That would be an easy thing to add. He thought that was one thing they listed as a way to make the street side more interesting -- windows, one or more types of siding, modulate the walls; you could say cottages shall have two or more siding types. Q Mr. Emery: Would yurts be considered a manufactured home? A Ms. Walat Did not think they would be, because manufactured homes have a very specific definition. Ms. Thayer: A manufactured home -- a ho.me built to HUD standards. Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 9 · Ms. Walat: Built to certain standards. She thought that yurts potentially if they were built to design standards would be possible. Mr. Emery: They are round; they have no sides. Mr. Randall: That would be the downside. To have a fixed pitch, it would probably cancel out yurts. If they say, 1-1/2 story it could cancel out yurts. Mr. Emery: Could envision a cluster of yurt cottages, why not? Q Mr. Emery: He understands the concern about a series of these going in together and possible cumulative impact. He asked what kind of language could they insert to kind of trigger -- your neighbor starts thinking about building, and suddenly the next neighbor, and then the next neighbor too. You suggested that the conditional use probably would be the best answer for that? A Mr. Randall: The conditional use permit is one answer. That for him was related to the fact it seemed like they were concerned in R-I about these things, that they may not be appropriate in all circumstances, that particular design requirements really were needed, etc. When he looked at all those things, he thought this is kind the definition of conditional use. If you don't call it conditional use and call it a permitted use, it may be difficult, if they have an applicant who is proposing something and they say what they think about things like vegetation, and parking, and impose three or four conditions, they may fight them on it, that it is a permitted use. It may have more legitimacy than if you straight out make it a conditional use. The issue of side-by-side projects would be better dealt with by stating a number. As Ms. Walat said, it is objective, enforceable, no question about it. If you don't, it makes it tougher. He thought the problem they have with cottages, they are listed as a permitted use. If they try to argue they shouldn't have one right next to the other, why not - it's permitted here, why not there? He thinks something has to be addressed. You could do it through one means, and potentially with both means. He sees problems calling it permitted use and having all these conditions, but he also sees a problem with not having a minimum distance if you are concerned about having these things right next to each other. · Mr. Emerv: Glossary defmitions -- what exactly is "undisturbed?" Is that like you don't run a tractor over it; you don't plant any gardens; no landscaping, etc.? Ms. Walat: That is a good point. To her, clustering -- if it's a farm field. . . or plant and native vegetation. It can't go to more intense use. Mr. Emery: So you are saying, maybe then it should be undisturbed native vegetative areas? Ms. Walat: It probably needs to be worded in a way which says. . . Q Mr. Emerv: Infrastructure concerns -- Ifhe were to go into the middle of nowhere and put down a project, is he required to pay for his own utilities; the services, roads water power, etc? A Ms Walat: You are required to pay to get city sewer, water, fIre hydrants there. Mr. Emerv: Just for your development, or to bring it into the development? Ms. Walat: To bring it into your development -- if it is a mile away. . . Mr. Emery: So, siting in the middle of nowhere probably is not a cost-effective idea. Ms. Walat: She thought the place were there is some lea way, and with some of people that are here tonight, it is roads in front of your development. There may be connecting roads that may be well developed and you are adding density in an area that more typically has undeveloped streets. Mr. Emery: Future arterials of the city, that are basically gravel roads right now, is that community area's responsibility, or is this going to be something the city is going to have to address? Mr. Berg: In other words, can you put in a development, pave the road right in front of it, but from that road still have to go on a gravel road to get onto 49th Street? Ms. Walat: Concurred. It can be required or it may not be. Mr. Peterson: You can generally build on existing gravel roads without paving them if the impact is. When you are extending past existing roads, you usually have to pave. If it is a permitted use you have a lot less ability to require any offsite improvements. If it has to have SEP A, a conditional use, not only are you having to pay for your road but you are adding some impact when you get there and you have to pay that, offsite improvements to things that are already there. You would have to extend water and sewer as far as you need them. We can require them to sign a no protest through a local improvement district . . . Mr. Emery: He knows that as time goes on those roads will be traveled on more and more. It would definitely be nice to get pavement on thern. Mr. Peterson: Certain ones that are busy already. · Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 10 · · · Q Mr. Emery: Impervious surface, or numbers not fitting 25% -- have you calculated the number that would fit on 25%? A Ms. Walat: Not the specific number of cottages, but 25% is 10,000 sf, or 2,000/2 ADUs, realizing they would be smaller than a single house. Mr. Peterson: Houses in R-I right now are not at 25%. Q Mr. Emery: Our choice is reduce the amount of cottages allowed or increase the amount of impervious surfaces allowed? A Mr. Peterson: The impervious surface has to be 40% for cottage density. Have to bump up to 40%. Ms. Walat: That's a proposal. Mr. Peterson: In order to make your cottages work at that proposal you have to bump up the impervious surface to 40%. Ms. Walat: That is sort of backwards, saying if you want eight cottages you can't do less impervious surface. If you want to do less impervious surface, it seems you have to do fewer cottages. Mr. Peterson: He thought they were also comfortable with the clustering idea -- trying to use low impact stormwater development preserving native vegetation. If you have 60% of your site undeveloped, and you designed it for that, you have a good chance of meeting the objectives. Otherwise, you have to get the number of cottages down if you want to get that impervious surface. Q Ms. Hersev: Would it be legal if the Planning Commission said if there would be a 7-unit cottage development on 20,000 sf that any abutting cottages could then only be 5? A Mr. Berg: We can do this as part of discussion; we are just trying to clarify what has come up. Chair Berg asked for comments from the audience and asked that they limit it to clarifying only. COMMENTS/QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE OF STAFF OR PLANNING COMMISSION: Dorothy Hensey: Regarding Table 17.16.020, 1) manufactured homes on individual lots, and 2) manufactured and Mobile Home Parks -- cottage housing is not on individual lots, and therefore doesn't qualify under manufactured homes under the fIrst section. It would be similar to the second -- manufactured and mobile home parks, since it is not on individual lots; you have them all on there. Owners don't own the land that is under it; therefore, she sees it that cottage housing as manufactured homes would be the same as calling it a manufactured home park. She asked where is the legal difference; is there a legal stance? If you allow manufactured homes in the cottage housing ordinance, someone could come by, like her because she objects to that, and say basically you are putting a manufactured home park here. With renting it out, etc., she suggested one way would be saying that cottage developments may not be used as a manufactured home park, and that might come close to the idea that you could have manufactured homes be in line with what you are saying in the table. (She liked the idea of having criteria making it difficult, e.g., roof pitch.) Is the state saying we can't discriminate against manufactured homes? Does that apply to a manufactured home park? She thought it wouldn't, because they are talking about a park where you are renting out, and it is a different idea. She said that is why she is applying that; because, it would be the same as a manufactured home park. Susan Miller: Would like to understand what Mr. Randall was talking about in the conditional use. Her understanding of what he is saying is that cottage housing in R-I would be made a conditional use and not a permitted use. She asked if that is what he was saying is a possibility; that would make less misunderstanding further on down the line and people saying it is a permitted use, but you have all these various criteria. Mr. Randall: Concurred that was basically what he was suggesting; making it conditional use is more consistent with the approach they seem to be trying to take for cottages in R-I. Ms. Miller: Are there different types of conditional use? Mr. Randall: One process. Ms. Walat: There are two types -- Major and Minor. Most likely a cottage development would be a major because it would be new structures. Therefore, it would require a hearing before the hearing examiner who would actually make the decision, and Staff would only make a recommendation in that case. There would be a public hearing required. Last meeting about this, the feeling was to put the criteria in, but don't require the conditional use hearing. That is why the criteria were put in, but it was left as a permitted use. Ms. Miller: As a conditional use, that does seem to give. . . Mr. Randall: It is a more stringent review. Ms. Miller: She liked that. Mr. Randall: His reason -- he is concerned at this point, thinking about it and looking at the defmitions of permitted conditional uses, they might be trying to do something that is not real tenable. Ms. Miller: What came up before are some things being recommended uses, not actually required, that if you are not Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 11 · · · making it a conditional use but you are saying it is recommended to do this. Ms. Walat: There are two different things. 1) Each zone has a use table that lists all the possible uses and whether or not they are permitted outright, a conditional use process, or not allowed at all; 2) some items in here say it "should" happen or "shall" happen. If it is "should," it is discretionary on the part of the applicant. Ms. Miller: Which is really scary; conditional is wonderful. At 9:00 p.rn. Chair Berg called for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 9: 10 p.rn., declared the public hearing to be closed, and called for Planning Commission Deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION Q Ms. Thayer: If they change this to a conditional use permit, not permitted, all they have to do is change the table? (R-I). A Mr. Randall: They would need to change Table 17.16.020, put a "C" in the R-I çolurnn and you could entirely eliminate subsection M, Page 5, which is the conditional use permit criteria. It exists in another section of the code for conditional uses; you could delete that whole section. Q Mr. Randels: Suggested a modification to that, to make it conditional but define it as minor. We would be in the middle ground between a full-blown hearing and permitted use. We would still have conditional use, administered by Staff rather than through a hearing process. Ms. Thayer: Did not agree. Ms. King: Asked the difference between major and minor. A Ms. Walat: Mr. Randall is looking it up. The way it is defined now, a minor will take place entirely within an existing structure; a major is in a new structure. She could not say it is a perfect defmition for all things. Ms. Thayer: Feels it has to be a major. Mr. Randall: Clarified that it doesn't fit within the defmition of what is currently defmed as minor -- "occurring within an existing building or a new structure not to exceed 120 sf." He felt Mr. Randels point is -- we defined that, we can change that if we wanted to. It is Commission for discussion whether or not to change it. Ms. King: That changes a lot of things. Q Mr. Randels: His rationale -- at the previous meeting they concluded the hearing process was particularly onerous, and that was one of the reasons why we felt it should remain a permitted use. The discussion tonight has led him to conclude perhaps that was a mistake, that perhaps conditional use is an approach that should be considered. He still thought the onerousness of the hearing process is also a valid point, and he was seeking the middle ground. Ms. King: Was not sure what that opens up, changing the definition of a minor conditional use; she did not want to go there. She thought they would have to stop everything and start looking at what that does to the code as a whole. She thinks that is beyond what they are doing there. Ms. Thayer: And we are only doing it for R-I. Mr. Berg: Last time we talked about this, he said he was one of the people who felt the hearing was onerous, but he said one thing the hearing process does, with the hearing examiner process you present your project and you get either thumbs up or thumbs down. If you get a thumbs down, you can appeal it, but it is like the whole onerousness on and on if it has to be through appeal process. It causes the developer to try and present the most acceptable project that can be profitably done, acceptable to the community. His experience with the hearings examiner is that acceptableness is perhaps the main criteria on which he makes his decision. He asked if they do a minor, does that put Staff in the role of the hearings examiner? Staff concurred. Mr. Berg thought it might not have quite the same effect on the developer. It is rather like another meeting with Staff where you can go in and argue. Ms. Thayer: To Staff, it also opens up litigation. A Mr Randall: They don't sit in a quasi-judicial capacity; they technically do when they are writing it. They are meeting with these people all the time. You are right, there is something about the concept; the more significant projects that have more issues, or are more controversial, they have traditionally put into this quasi-judicial role. It used to the Planning Commission and Council; now it's a hearings examiner. Those parties are not supposed to be talking to the applicant, and it puts them in a little loftier position. He agreed, he thought as a result people try to make their best impression. There is kind of a wearing down process with Staff in certain situations. Q Mr. Berg: Still feels that putting it into this category is going to be a major discouragement from having these happen in R-I. The original intent of the ordinance was to create a way of doing smaller units that are a permitted use; it is easy to do. He thinks they are changing that if they do this. A Mr. Randall: Explained there are lots of things people do that are conditional uses that go through hearings that aren't minor, e.g. plant nurseries; barns, churches, not high end projects, that got approved. It doesn't have to be the big hurdle you are thinking of. Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 12 · Ms. Walat: Even a child care center can go into an existing building; it's minor. If you build it yourself, it's a major-- the same project. Chair Berg asked to interrupt that discussion to deal with issues of Mr. Peterson's concern. Mr. Peterson was thinking about the issues brought up related to stormwater and conditional use. As a conditional use, you are basically saying you can have eight cottages on a parcel. That is really not the question -- all these criteria to meet. If you are saying we want you to locate those appropriately and use natural features, it is going to be a lot easier to have someone independently looking at it. He thinks they are trying to do some conditional uses for people to do things when the general use is okay. Ms. Thayer stated that it has worked well and everybody has been happy with those. Mr. Peterson spoke of the arguments about building 8 in that zone. Q Mr. Berg: Wanted more clarity on the difference between allowing 25% and 40% impervious area in terms of the City meeting its stormwater management goals in the R-I zone. Also, is it correct that currently there is no maximum amount of impervious area for someone who wants to build a house in R-I? A Mr. Peterson: It is true. He asked Ms. Walat if they yet had any that hit 40%. Ms. Walat: If there were, they were very few. Typically, the average is well below that allowed. Mr. Peterson: Well below 40%, but above 25%. He does not know what the right number is, but at a presentation he recently went to in Olympia it was stated they are fmding if you leave 60% of the site rather natural you can kind of deal with stormwater onsite a lot more naturally. He thought a lot was also related to the site. If they get a house uptown that might cover 25% of the site, on a slope and house on the down part of the slope, all that water is coming directly to the street. If you were to put that house further up the hill and run that water across your lawn, coming down the street -- if they had the ability to know, they could encourage it, but can't make someone do that. If it is traveling across your grass and getting to the street, it is having way less impact on the system. You you are trying to keep the peak; the rain comes straight from the gutters down to the street or into the gully, etc., because that washes out. You are trying to slow the water down getting there. He almost felt like it's a lot more related to how you design your site than to what the exact number is on the impervious surface on the site. You can have 25% impervious cover. If the house is done right, there is probably more impact with a 40% coverage that is designed differently and handled better on the site. · Q Mr. Berg: Asked Mr. Peterson, if in his opinion having it be a conditional use makes it easier help the developer do an appropriate design as related to stormwater concerns? A Mr. Peterson: He thought so, and thought it also helps to have someone independently look at that too. Q Ms. Walat: In the section (H.2.c., Page 3) where it says R-I cottages should [shall?] be located to maximize natural stormwater functions and shall be clustered, do you have an opinion? Should they be "shall" or "should?" A Mr. Peterson: If it is not conditional use, it probably should be "shall." He thought "shall" is fme. Ms. Thayer: "Should" is open to interpretation. Mr. Berg: There should be no reason to not develop it that way in R-I. Ms. Walat : That's both for stormwater and clustering -- "shall?" Mr. Berg: Thought they go hand in hand. Mr. Peterson said he and Ms. Walat discussed if they have to put a longer driveway onto their site and they are going to have a little bit more impervious coverage to get 8 lots. Maybe then you would have to go with grass crete or some kind of pervious pavement. You can actually end up with more parking lot on your site, but make it so it is a pervious-type parking lot. He thinks there is a lot of flexibility. Q Ms. Hersey: Ifwe do conditional use, would all changes go? She sees there are a couple things that still need to be addressed, anyway, even with it. A Ms. Walat: Doing conditional use addresses one part, but your decisions about other things still need to be decided. Mr. Peterson was thanked for his assistance and he excused himself from the meeting. Chair Berg asked to go to the beginning of the draft to consider language and/or make changes. · PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DRAFT PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE 17.16.050 Cottage Housing Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 13 · · · A. Purpose: Ms. Thayer's recommendation to add something ofa defmition ofCHD. Mr. Randall explained that previously it started with Section B and "The following regulations apply to cottage housing developments (CHDs):" CONSENSUS: 1) Change to read: "Cottage housing developments (CHDs) are an alternative type. . ." 3) Strike: (move this section up before density discussion) B. Density and Minimum Lot Area. Mr. Randels asked regarding adding 3,330 sf in zones R-II and R-III, that conflicted with what is presently allowed in R- Ill. He suggested adding 3,300 sf in R-II and leaving R-III at 2,857 sf having three standards. Ms. Thayer and Mr. Berg agreed. Mr. Berg then suggested they change the total number of cottages in R -III to 14 rather than 12 to preclude the inconsistency. Make three colunms (one for each zone). CONSENSUS: Delete: The following regulations apply to cottage housing developments (CHDs): 1) Change table to 3 columns: (Column 1) R-I Low Density Residential, 1 cottage dwelling unit per 5,000 sfnot to exceed 8 cottages in a CHD; (Column 2) R-II Medium Density Residential 1 cottage dwelling unit per 3,333 sf not to exceed 12 cottages in a CHD; (Column 3) R-III Medium Density Residential 1 cottage dwelling unit per 2,857 sf not to exceed 14 cottages in a CHD C. Maximum and Minimum 2. The maximum number. . . CONSENSUS: Change to read: b. In the R-II zoning district, up to 12 cottages. . .; c. In the R-III zoning district, up to 14 cottages. . Ms. Hersey asked to excuse herself. Chair Berg asked if she had any input to leave thern. He responded to her comments that her suggestion was solved with the changes to the density table. Ms. Hersey left the meeting at 9:35 p.m. D. Maximum Building Height and Roof Pitch Ms. Thayer asked if roof pitch would be taken care of under conditional use. Mr. Randall did not think there was an implication that manufactured homes are more incompatible. He thought you have to specify design standards that you choose that are necessary for something to be compatible -- if you want to make that addition. Mr. Randels thought if they were going to do anything, roof pitch is far preferable to such things as multi-story. A lot of this market is going to be older people who don't necessarily like to climb stairs. It seems it is going against what you are trying to do, in part. Mr. Randall was asking Mr. Berg for a recommendation, and was also thinking one possibility, not say all buildings, but maybe a percentage of the buildings should be a story and a half. It would encourage a diversity of household types and structure types. Ms. Thayer asked 50%? Mr. Randall concurred -- story and a half, so you get a variety, more of not the monoculture kind of thing, of people or structures. Mr. Randels referred to the one on Whidbey Island asking if they weren't all one story? Mr. Randall thought some of them were a story and a half, that Mr. Chapin really liked to do the little 200 sf with a ship's ladder. Ms. Thayer liked that idea. She asked if story would go under this Section. Ms. Walat noted it is covered under Section E.3, floor area. Mr. Randels thought they ought to let the market playa part in this defmition; he didn't know if 50% is too much. Ms. Thayer said that is half one story and. . . Mr. Randall said it allows a story and a half, but it doesn't allow two full floors; he didn't think it inconsistent with adding the 50% story to Section D. Mr. Berg suggested dealing with it there instead of Section D so reference to stories is all in one place. Mr. Berg asked to return to the issue of roof pitch in Section D. There are manufactured home companies out there now that can build anything, build your custom plans. He thought in a sense the State is correct in saying you can't discriminate, because it really doesn't matter whether the house was built in the field or built in the factory, shipped and put together, ifit looks the same in the end. He thinks what people are afraid of, and what he personally doesn't want to see, is something that looks like a trailer park -- buildings that look like single wides and double wides. He supposed roof pitch, eaves and wall modulation would be the ways of putting in design standards that deal with the issue. It is a huge thing trying to come up with good, enforceable design standards that don't cause more problems than they solve. He said on the other hand, this is their opportunity if they want to do it for cottage housing. He noted the shortage of time it would take. Chair Berg suggested options: Typical singlewide houses that are designed to go under the freeway overpass -- roof pitch lower than 3:12. One thing they could do quickly and easily is to say the roof pitch has to be 4: 12 or greater. That is just the way it's Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004/ Page 14 · going to be if you want to do an easy cottage development, and we are not going to accept low-pitched roofs. Just do that and go on; maybe throw in the story and one half. He is reluctant to do that, thinking about the cute little single- story cottages in Seattle. Ms. Thayer said that sounded good and asked if the 6: 12 pitch is steeper than the 4: 12. Mr. Randall concurred. She asked if 6: 12 is the way it was. Mr. Randall replied they didn't have a standard there, 6: 12 or anything. They just created a different way to measure it -- up to 6: 12 they measured it one way; more than 6: 12 another way, just so they didn't end up with ways for people being creative. Mr. Berg suggested they could also strike #3 and say 6: 12 or greater, which he thought would be reasonable. Ms. Thayer thought that would be better and not have to deal with the 1-1/2 story. Mr. Berg said, then not deal with design standards beyond that. Mr. Randels asked if there were any simple way of dealing with eaves. Mr. Berg suggested they could say something like they have to have a minimum of overhang of a foot. Mr. Randall noted they have another cottage development being proposed by Mr. Sukert off San Juan Avenue, all one-story buildings. He is flatly saying these are an investment. They are going to be site-built, but simple structures all having roof trusses. Mr. Randall did not know if3:12, 4:12 or whatever. If they do say a minimum of 6: 12 pitch, it is pushing the roof up higher; if you have someone just using roof trusses, you just made more dead space and you are potentially affecting the solar access of more people next door. Ms. Thayer asked if they could deal with that under conditional use. Mr. Berg said it is a relatively low pitched roof. Ms. Thayer asked if they didn't have eaves at 18". Ms. W alat said that was an example they used. Mr. Randall said foot and half is the most common. Ms. Thayer recommends 18". Ms. W alat said she had talked about roof overhangs on cottages and was advised 18" was reasonable. Mr. Berg said the problem that you get into is, say you have a little building with a dormer and the typical roof overhang is 18" on the main part of the house, the dormer looks really stupid if it has an 18" overhang. You have to make them shorter so that it is proportional to the rest of the house. Ms. Thayer asked about 18" on the main roof. Mr. Berg asked how detailed this rule is going to have to be in order to work? Ms. Walat said the ones proposed, 14 units in an R-III zone, are the ones that are for sale out at the end of town. Mr. Randels suggested that instead or prescribing a number, they would simply ban. . . Ms. King suggested a roof pitch of 6: 12 and let it go at that. Mr. Berg agreed. Mr. Randall thought they should add #4 rather than striking #3, because it tells them how to measure the roof. In #4 say, the minimum roof pitch. .. Mr. Berg said they may have to say the minimum roof pitch shall be no less than 6: 12 or greater. · CO.NSENSUS: Change 3 to: The minimum roof pitch shall be no less than 6:12 or greater. . . . E. Lot Coverage, Impervious Surface and Floor Area. Mr. Berg asked if anyone had an objection to changing 25% to 40%. Ms. Walat asked about how cottages are measured. CONSENSUS: 1) Change 25% to 40%. 2) Delete "usable" and change to read: The maximum ground floor area. . . · H. Required Open Space and Tree Conservation. Ms. Walat reminded there was a question regarding the meaning of undisturbed. Mr. Randall suggested rewording, "If as least 40% of the site is left in undisturbed open space. . ." Other suggestions were: permanently undeveloped or permanently undisturbed. Mr. Randall said if you wanted to say, is left in open space and define the different options for open space, e.g., it can mean gardens, etc. Mr. Berg said the whole stormwater thing is you can leave it alone; you don't dig it all up and replant it. .. Ms. Walat concurred, and thought you could enhance it with native vegetation. Mr. Berg asked if Mr. Peterson didn't say if it was a field, you could leave it a field? You could enhance it with native vegetation. Mr. Randall said by going to the conditional use process, it gives us more ability to work those issues. This site is disturbed, e.g. pasture for the past 20 years; you can't fine the applicant for that, but you can enhance it by saying the area is going to be open space and give the measures for doing so. You can use the process to decide what is most important. Ms. Walat thought it looked as if this doesn't require 40% to be left undisturbed -- only to do the setbacks. Mr. Randall said it is basically optional means of development. Mr. Berg asked, you have to maximize stormwater and you have to cluster, but you don't have to achieve the 40%? Mr. Randall said basically it gives them a lot of flexibility in their layout because now we are saying that preserving this 40% open space is the most important thing we are doing on this site. You can basically put your cottages where you want; we Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004/ Page 15 · probably still won't let your parking be in front, but you can do whatever you want to preserve this open space. Ms. Walat explained it doesn't change the exterior setbacks. CONSENSUS: 2.c. Change to read: ". . . cottages shall be located. . ." and ". . . cottages shall be clustered. . ." and ". . . left as undisturbed open space. . ." and ". . . development techniques are utilized. . ." 5. Change to read: ". . .stormwater management shall be used. . ." J. Off Street Parking Mr. Randels asked if there are instances where people reviewing parking might decide that it actually turns out in this one instance the best place for it is the front? Mr. Randall cited a current example; Mr. Sukert's proposal, where all they have is the front. They have a piece of property with street frontage only on one side; the other three sides of the property are bounded by other private properties. It is of a size and shape, approximately 1200 sf, and it is just not big enough to say, have them take the driveway and run it to the back or put the parking on the side. They played with it, and there is just no way they could do it, so Staff is having them apply for a variance to put the parking in the front. Mr. Randels asked if he would recommend that here or use the conditional use process? Mr. Randall replied he liked leaving it tough and making a variance. Mr. Randall added that when they have two applications, or as in this case one application plus a variance, you get half off the second one. CONSENSUS: No changes L. Use of Manufactured homes in CHDs. Ms. Thayer asked if they can't leave this out, also Mr. Randall did not think it was necessary. Any structure that is otherwise legal and can meet these standards can do it. CONSENSUS: Delete Entire Section L · M. Additional approval criteria for CHDs in the R-I zone Has been discussed. Ms. King said initially she was going to go for the conditional use in R-I, the first meeting they had on this. Then they talked about it being onerous, etc. She is not sure it is, that conditional use is a permitted use; it's not a prohibited use, and it does seem to solve a number of the things she circled as problems in terms of separation, compatibility issues, etc. She thought she was going back to thinking it is not that onerous; it's a hoop, you have to jump through it. Ms. Thayer asked for a vote on conditional use, then a vote on major and minor. Mr. Berg thought they had rather ruled out minor and did not know that they needed to take a vote on that. Mr. Berg called for the fQllowing votes: Make cottage housing developments in R-I a conditional use. UNANIMOUS, 5 IN FAVOR BY VOICE VOTE. Making cottage housing a major a conditional use and not defining conditional uses. UNANIMOUS, 5 IN FAVOR BY VOICE VOTE. N. Required Separation between Cottage Housing Developments Mr. Emery asked if Section N is necessary. Mr. Berg said they are saying that will be dealt with through the conditional use process. Mr. Randall said you could have them both, say you want to make sure these are not stacked one on each other, or say if it's in R-II or R-III where it's permitted; we don't care particularly if they are right next to each other. In R-I we are going to rely on Staff and the hearings examiner to determine if one should be next to a previous one that's already been approved. Ms. Thayer said R-II and R-III are high density anyway. Ms. Walat said you could also say R-I requires 250 to 1000 feet. Mr. Berg proposed a vote: · Delete Section N and allow the issue to be dealt with by the conditional use process in R-I. UNANIMOUS, 5 IN FAVOR BY VOICE VOTE. Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 16 · O. Cottage Housing Development - Design Ms. Thayer said #2 has to be changed. Mr. Randall suggested changing to reflect applications in R-I shall be processed as Type III land use decisions; second sentence -- R-II processed as Type II; third sentence -- R-III processed as Type I-A. Each will have a different process. Ms. Walat suggested doing a table. CONSENSUS: 2. Change to include in a table: "Applications for cottage housing developments in R-I shall be processed as ~ III land use decisions; in R-II processed as ~ Uland use decisions: in R-III processed as ~ I-A land use decisions. Other proposed changes to municipal code: -- no changes. Table 17.16.020 -- CONSENSUS: Change to conditional use in R-I CHANGED REVISIONS to the Port Townsend Municipal Code 17.16.050 Cottage housing. A. Purpose CONSENSUS: 1) Change to read: "Cottage housing developments (CHDs) are an alternative type. . ." 3) Strike: (move this section up before density discussion) B. Density and Minimum Lot Area. CONSENSUS: Delete: The following regulations apply to cottage housing developments (CHDs): 1) Change table to 3 columns: (Column 1) R-I Low Density Residential, 1 cottage dwelling unit per 5,000 sf not to exceed 8 cottages in a CHD; (Column 2) R-II Medium Density Residential 1 cottage dwelling unit per 3,333 sf not to exceed 12 cottages in a CHD; (Column 3) R-III Medium Density Residential 1 cottage dwelling unit per 2,857 sf not to exceed 14 cottages in a CHD · C. Maximum and Minimum 2. The maximum. . . CONSENSUS: Change to read: b. In the R-II zoning district, up to 12 cottages. . .; c. In the R-III zoning district, up to 14 cottages. D. Maximum Building Height and Roof Pitch. CONSENSUS: Change 3 to: The minimum roof pitch shall be no less than 6: 12 or greater. . . E. Lot Coverage, Impervious Surface and Floor Area. CONSENSUS: 1) Change 25% to 40%. 2) Delete "usable" and change to read: The maximum ground floor area. . . H. Required Open Space and Tree Conservation. CONSENSUS: 2.c. Change to read: ". . . cottages shall be located. . ." and ". . . cottages shall be clustered. . ." and ". . . left as undisturbed open space. . ." and ". . . development techniques are utilized. . ." 5. Change to read: ". . .stormwater management shall be used. . ." L. Use of Manufactured homes in CHDs. CONSENSUS: Delete Entire Section L · M. Additional approval criteria for CHDs in the R-I zone CONSENSUS: Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 17 · · · Delete Entire Section M and change Table 17.16.020 to reflect the change N. Required Separation between Cottage Housing Developments CONSENSUS: Delete Entire Section N and allow to be dealt with in R-I by the conditional use process. O. Cottage Housing Development - Design CONSENSUS: 2. Change to include in a table: "Applications for cottage housing developments in R-I shall be processed as:Iïill< III land use decisions; in R-II processed as :Iïill< n land use decisions: in R-III processed as :Iïill< I-A land use decisions. Table 17.16.020 CONSENSUS: Change to conditional use in R-I MOTION Ms. Thayer Recommend approval of proposed revisions to Exhibit A, Cottage Development regulations PTMC 17.060.050 with tonight's changes and forward to the City Council. SECOND VOTE Mr. Emery Passed unanimously, 5 in favor by roll call vote; Ms. Hersey excused. MOTION Ms. Thayer Recommend approval of proposed revisions to the Municipal Code with tonight's changes and forward to the City Council. SECOND VOTE Mr. Randels Passed unanimously, 5 in favor by roll call vote; Ms. Hersey excused. EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Draft Revisions to Port Townsend Municipal Code Breakdown of Lot Area Used in Sample Cottage Development Suggested illustrations of off-street parking, PTMC 17.16.050 Written testimony, read by Susan Miller Written testimony, read by Michael Dawson for Laurel and Michael Dawson Written testimony, read by Patti Mulrony Mr. Randall explained they will draft the changes to the code, and same as for the Comp Plan, draft a cover memorandum saying what action was taken by the Planning Commission, have Mr. Berg check it and sign it. It will then go on to City Council. Ms. Thayer and other Commissioners thanked Staff for all the help; this has been a long process. Mr. Randall referred to this as a course correction on the cottage ordinance. He appreciated everyone's work on it. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS To be determined. IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr~ndels and seconded by Ms. Thayer. meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. {0 d- ~ ~ ~ Jùch...d B""" Chaù Sheila Avis, Minute Taker All were in favor. The Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2004 / Page 18