Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092806 Minutes CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Third Floor Conference Room Thursday September 28, 2006, 7:00 PM Meeting Materials: EXH. I Agenda for September 28, 2006 EXH. 2 Housing documents EXH. 3 R. SepJer draft memo from Planning Commission to City Council on Tourist Homes EXH. 4 G. Randels, undated, Draft Amendments to Transient Housing Memorandum EXH. 5 Draft transmittal from Planning Commission to City Council, Housing Action Plan, date September 28, 2006 EXH. 6 Proposed Interim Standards Matrix I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL The following Planning Commission members were present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, George Randels, Julian Ray, and George Unterseher. Liesl Slabaugh and Cindy Thayer were excused. Staff members Rick Sepler, Planning Director and Judy Surber, Senior Planner were present for the entire meeting. Tom Beckwith, Consultant, was present for the Housing Needs Assessment item. David Rymph was in attendance representing Jefferson County Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity, and the Housing Advisory group. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Randels said that item IV. Approval of Minutes would be removed from the agenda. There were no other changes. Chair Randels moved for acceptance of the agenda, as amended, and Roger Lizut seconded the motion. Agenda approved, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (None) V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page J ofl I. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Housing Needs Judy Surber began with introductions of Tom Beckwith, consultant on the Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan, and David Rymph of the Jefferson County Housing Authority and Habitat for Humanity who ably served on the advisory group. She also thanked Steve Emery for representing the Planning Commission on the advisory group. Ms. Surber noted that the entire Housing Action Plan report document and a substantial number of appendices had been e-mailed and/or posted online in advance of the meeting. Mr. Beckwith began by noting that these types of studies tend to involve a great deal of statistical data collection and analyses, much of which has been included in the appendices. He said that in essence the statistical analysis is attempting to paint a picture of what is going on in the housing market in general, and as much as possible what is going on in Jefferson County and its communities. In starting out on this process, already knowing without the empirical evidence that there is a housing crunch and that it is affecting certain individuals far more than others, the real ambition was to decide what to do about it. He said this was the reason for calling it an action plan. The committee strove to fashion the tools that would be necessary to "do something about it". The report includes forty-two (42) steps or actions that can be taken. Of the various kinds of tools, some planning policies are related to indirect methods, from zoning ordinances or infrastructure development, etc. However, he said that probably the most important tools, or those with the longest impact, involve more active market intervention. Some ways of doing that include bringing in new sponsors and recruiting the kinds of developers and investors who are specializing in the housing niche market. He cited even more aggressive approaches in cities like Santa Fe, "which in some respects has parallels to what could happen in this county". This might involve the packaging of mixed use concepts and competition amongst both private and non-profit organizations to provide what is needed. He acknowledged that that was a significant challenge and that it may require quite an aggressive follow on group to manage it. It will also require public support, i.e., they will not only recognize the problem but will support aggressive actions or direct market tools. He said that, in this case, the committee felt strongly that the issue should not fall away after the publication of the report. The committee seriously considered how to ensure that not only recognition of the housing problem, but how to make certain that something is done about it. Mr. Beckwith recalled that two important factors emerged from the survey. First, most people surveyed were "relatively okay" (in terms of housing situation and income level, etc.); he said these were not people in need. However, when asked about the housing market in Jefferson County, they responded that they saw a big problem, and that they would be willing to support fairly aggressive action even at a cost to themselves. He said that while the cover letter does not allude to that survey directly, it is a major underline factor for the committee in anticipating that the plan will be well received. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page 2 of 11 Mr. Beckwith asked for questions. Ms. King asked what the next step would be. Mr. Beckwith said that the cover memo lists several near term actions, but that the key item would be to create the Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN) group. That group would coordinate the various market players, private and public, and the information necessary to begin to implement some of these actions - that is number one. He said the City Council and the County Commissioners would need to approve the plan and establish that group. He said the issues are what authority will reside in the group and what public presence is vested in it; which community leaders will serve on and lead the group. There was quite a bit of discussion in the advisory group as the role ofHAPN: should it be a committee that does things, or should it be an oversight body. This group needs to ensure follow through but should not operate at the "on the ground" implementation level. It needs to carry the message to the public that there is a valid need with specific steps to be taken, as well as generating the support, including the policies and monies, to do that. Mr. Randels asked about the staffing of the committee leader by a volunteer. He said that seemed an approach unlikely to succeed. He asked if assignment of a qualified City or County staff person had been considered, and if so, why it had been rejected. Mr. Beckwith said that the committee had considered the creation of a new entity to implement the plan. However, staff and various organizations are already in place. He said that what is missing is a public voice that says how these entities are coming together and what are the issues each group needs to focus on. Also, what needs to be done to begin to package some of the projects. He said that the County does have such an entity and the authority to do project actions; no additional or different entity is needed to come in to acquire property or package land, or put out a referendum for a levy or a bond. Ms. Surber said that Katherine Baril had recommended that HAPN be led by one ofthe many qualified individuals in the community, and that Brent Butler actually has the title of Housing Planner for the County, as well as special training. Mr. Randels referred to the wording of the Executive Summary: "To staff the HAPN committee, it is recommended that the City/County seek a group facilitator, perhaps a community volunteer." After further discussion, it was agreed that the wording ofthe Executive Summary should be edited to clearly convey the intention: i.e. "To chair the HAPN committee....." The HAPN committee would be led/chaired by a qualified community volunteer, staffed by qualified City/County employees, and composed of the same persons or counterparts in their respective agencies or entities who had served on the Housing Advisory group. George Unterseher asked Mr. Beckwith why the survey had not been given to the people who have the needs. Mr. Beckwith responded that one of the key questions would be public policy and request for public money; more than likely these will be issues decided by voters. The assumption was that elected officials would need to know how voters felt about these issues. Mr. Unterseher asked whether or not this entire plan was desired by those in need. Mr. Emery noted that the Community Action representative was not present, but that he was in total agreement that the need and the desire was there. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28,2006 Page 3 of I I Mr. Unterseher then asked if the committee was assuming that Jefferson County needs and solutions were very much different than those of Seattle and surrounds. Mr. Beckwith cited the Mount Vernon example in Skagit County. He said he did not think this local area was "far behind". Two trends are affecting this. Housing costs are rising faster than income can purchase; this will require the use of new tools, in general. In this county, the people who are least able to buy are ones who service our economic development: service workers, public employees, teachers, fire fighters, police, and that whole basis of the market. These needy newcomers are having the hardest time transposing their purchasing power and buying into the market. Mr. Rymph said that the pressures are very similar in San Juan County, Island County, Whidbey Island and even Clallam County, and that there may be opportunities to work together. Mr. Beckwith eXplained that in Seattle working people are being shoved farther and farther out from employment centers, forcing them into long and expensive commutes. This area is too far out for that type of migration, and the labor force needed to help the economy grow can't afford to live here. Mr. Unterseher said that the primary driver is land cost, and the cheaper land is in Quilcene and Brinnon. He asked why a transit solution was not considered more viable than setting aside chunks ofland for people who could not afford to live in the City. Mr. Randels said that one answer was that many people, himself included, wanted to have a diverse community. People staffing businesses or public agencies should be able to live in this community. Ms. Surber added that the Growth Management Act mandates that various all income sectors must be accommodated, and the Comprehensive Plan states what Mr. Randels had said about diversity. Mr. Randels added that on the land availability side, the City is not yet half built out, so that there is available land. Mr. Beckwith said that the presumption of being able to accommodate greater distances between work and home for affordability is rapidly changing due to rising fuel and transportation costs. He also returned to the issue of the survey, and defended the focus on registered voters. He said that it if the focus is on the people in need, it becomes a social report only. He said they strove for more diversity and balance in the process to ensure that the opinions of those who would help take action were included. Mr. Emery added that the survey was also for the purpose of testing how the ideas would be received as early in the process as possible. Returning to the HAPN committee, Mr. Ray suggested that "a volunteer is a perfect accident, not a perfect plan". He asked for clarification on the future of the Housing Needs Plan and the relationship to the HAPN group. Mr. Randels said his understanding was that the City Council and BOCC would need to approve the Plan, and charter the HAPN , which is a key component. Mr. Beckwith agreed. Ms. Surber said that in the past the Housing Task Force had been hampered by: the lack of a plan, the lack of funds, and the limitation of scope to the City, when what was actually needed was a county- wide approach. Mr. Lizut offered that in his experience, this type of matrix structure (for HAPN) has serious shortcomings, in that line managers are always reluctant to "lend" their staff and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page 4 of I I give priority to a committee outside of their direct responsibility, especially where there are budgets constraints. He said that he was concerned that resources were overly constrained with the approach proposed. Mr. Beckwith agreed that that was an important point. However, he said that there are two types of actions planned. The people who will draft and implement planning measures, such as zoning ordinances and building codes, are already in City and County government. Adding a third person would be a duplication of resources. There are, on the other hand, also rehabilitation programs and development programs in the plan, which may require additional resources on a project level or action basis, not as a generic resource. Mr. Lizut also suggested that it may be well to assign a City or County manager with some authority and control over resources to lead the committee, instead of a community volunteer. Mr. Beckwith restated this is a wide economic and community issue, and that the committee needs to have a cross section of community leaders and interests on it. If it is composed that way and populated with high caliber community leadership, there will be motivation, resources, skills, and action. If it is seen and structured simply as a housing issue, it is more likely to languish. Ms. Surber added that, although not noted in this packet, she had included in the materials for City Council, a motion to have the CDLU of City Council to help to get this group going. She said that her counterpart Brent Butler would be working that out with the respective committees in County administration. Ms. Capron asked what was anticipated for funding. Mr. Beckwith said that for the bulk of the projects, there would be the need for a revolving capital fund to finance more aggressive market interventions. One of the questions in the survey was "Would you support a levy to set up such a fund?" He said that he believed this initiative could not really be effective unless such an approach was taken. There is a limit as to what can be done indirectly, or with the tools currently in place. He said this plan has provision for private market intervention and for lenders etc. but eventually projects must be initiated and that requires money. Since Ms. Surber's draft memo (EXH. 5) was in the form of a memo from Chair Randels to the City Council, Chair Randels asked the other Commissioners whether they would all like to sign off on final wording or allow he and Ms. Surber to handle it. Ms. Capron noted a spelling change and a date correction. Ms. Capron moved that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Housing Action Plan by the City Council; Mr. Emery seconded. The motion was approved, all in favor: 7/0/0. Afr. Lizut moved that the Planning Commission authorize Chair Randels to work with Ms. Surber to finalize the memorandum to City Council regarding the Housing Action Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Unterseher. The motion was approved, all in favor: 7/0/0. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page 5 of I I Tourist Homes and Transient Accommodations - Draft Memorandum to Council (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Sepler said he would be referring to the draft memorandum (Exh. 3), PComm draft memo to CDLU re Tourist Homes etc) and distributed extra copies. He said the direction from City Council on this issue had been clear. In July, they asked the Planning Commission to look at these issues and report back to the CDLU and I. T AC, who would take the recommendation under advisement and report back to the full Council. Mr. Sepler explained that since the report is expected very shortly, he had prepared this draft memorandum for the Planning Commission to consider this evening. Mr. Sepler said that the summary he prepared is largely taken from the earlier staff memorandum. The I. T AC is scheduled to meet on October JO at 3 :00 PM and the CDLU is scheduled for October 24 at 2:00 PM. Both are at City Hall. He asked Commissioners to consider whether or not a subcommittee should be formed to attend these meetings with staff. Issue I. Chair Randels asked if there were any issues that required clarification. Mr. Unterseher asked if the Commission had dealt fully with the June 1989 date. Ms. King said that they had dealt with understanding the reason for the 1989 date. He asked if it meant that everything prior to 1989 was grandfathered, and if so, was there a complete list of all the properties in that category. Mr. Sepler said that there may be buildings that were built before 1989 that could apply for a permit. Ms. King said that that seemed odd, because it is the use not the construction date that is of significance, but they had decided on no change at the last meeting. She said that the only thing that she would change, if anything, would be that the use before 1989 would be grandfathered. Mr. Emery referred to item #1. He asked if Bed and Breakfasts had different criteria than these Tourist Accommodations, and that he was aware of some establishments that did not have a manager in the same building. Mr. Sepler read from the definitions: "Accessory buildings which were lawfully established prior to June I, 1989 may be considered part of a Bed & Breakfast inn. Therefore, an establishment such as the Chanticleer Inn, with a separate cottage in the back, would be considered to be lawful and grandfathered in. Regarding substantive changes, Mr. Randels said he had a possible change to the recommendation with regard to rewording for clarity. He noted that the issue raised by Ms. King was even more substantive, and should be considered. He distributed copies of four changes that he had prepared for consideration. (EXH 4) For Issue I, item I, Mr. Randels read his change aimed at clarifying why ADUs usually do not meet the requirements for a Tourist Home, i.e. because they have kitchens. He said it was important to spell that out. Ms. King asked if ADUs don't always have kitchens. Mr. Sepler said that the issue had come up recently that one could have a sleeping room, a separated bedroom, that as long as they didn't have a stove would not Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page 6 of I I be considered an ADU. Mr. Randels said that when it comes to clarifying statutory language, perhaps it should say clearly that one may not designate a bedroom that happens to be in an ADU as a separate tourist bedroom. Mr. Randels moved that his recommendation #1 be added to Issue 1: which was seconded by Mr. Lizut. Ms. King suggested, as a friendly amendment, that the words "almost always" be removed, which was accepted. All were in favor; motion passed 7/0/0. Regarding item 2 under Issue I (EXH 4), Mr. Randels said that his recommendation is that the wording ofthe ordinance be clarified, and that his intention is to prevent people from claiming misunderstanding. He said that he would also accept an amendment that brings in a new grandfather provision. Ms. King said that she did not see that such an amendment would be controversial; others agreed. She suggested that it convey that anything legally permitted under the existing law is permitted, clarify the origin or reason for the date, and clarify that the use, not the construction date, is grandfathered. Mr. Ray suggested that the staff be asked to tighten up the language. Mr. Sepler said that he understood what was desired and would further wordsmith the memo. Mr. Randels accepted that as a friendly amendment and moved that his recommendation #1 (EXH 4), as amended, be incorporated into Issue 1; which was seconded by Mr. Unterseher. The motion was approved, all in favor: 7/0/0 Issue 2: Mr. Randels said that his suggestion deals with one-room hotels. He said that there are at least two instances downtown where apartments are used as transient accommodations exclusively, and have been historically. His suggestion is to acknowledge those anomalies and allow them, but as tightly as possible to avoid future use as a loophole. Mr. Unterseher asked if these cases were licensed. Mr. Sepler said that they were registered and paid L T AC fees as transient accommodations. Ms. Surber added that Hotel is defined as "means any building or portion thereof containing five or more rooms". Mr. Emery cited the case of the Belmont with two suites in existence for quite a while. Mr. Randels said that meant that the exception should not be limited to one-room. When asked ifthe Belmont and others were operating with the endorsement of City process. Mr. Sepler said that he thought the code had changed, that he had not done exhaustive research, but believed these were lawfully existing before the code changes. He said they were legal pre-existing non-conforming uses, which Mr. Randels considered to be "legal limbo". After further discussion regarding about the desired outcomes and the possible loophole that may be created, Mr. Randels suggested new language: 1. Drop the word historically in the second line. 1. For the last clause after the semicolon, "we believe that the ordinance should be amended to exempt such uses via some narrowly tailored means so as to eliminate what now may be non-conforming uses". Mr. Randels moved that, with that amendment, his recommendation #1 be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ray and approved, all in favor: 7/0/0. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page 7 of 1 I Issue 3 Mr. Randels explained that his suggestion was a rewrite of the discussion section for issue 3. He said that he would prefer to emphasize the positive aspect of enforcement, i.e. that it would raise money. Mr. Emery asked if it would be well to specify the strategy of escalating fines; but it was agreed that could be dealt with later. Mr. Unterseher moved to adopt the rewritten discussion section prepared by Mr. Randels, which was seconded by Mr. Ray. Motion approved, all in favor: 7/0/0. Mr. Sepler asked how the Planning Commission would prefer to handle the upcoming L T AC and CDLU meetings: with one representative/spokesperson; with a subcommittee, or by staff alone. Ms. Capron moved to designate Chair Randels to represent the Commission, and Mr. Emery seconded. Mr. Randels determined that he would be available on October 10, but not on October 24. Since several other Commissioners had schedule conflicts, Mr. Sepler was asked to represent the Commission on 10/24, and he agreed. VII. NEW BUSINESS Interim Ordinance Workshop (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Sepler distributed additional copies of the Proposed Interim Standards matrix ( EXH 6) which had been e-mailed in advance. He said that the City Council had adopted six Interim Standards. The approach he recommended was to review each of them and indicate direction or information that is needed from staff for further deliberation at the next meeting. 2.0 ClarifY R-If[ andR-IV Zoning. Mr. Sepler explained that there is an anomaly in the code regarding measurement of development density. This is a problem where using the parameter of bedrooms is not appropriate for duplex, triplex and fourplex development. Mr. Randels questioned that triplex and four-plex dwellings are designated as single family dwellings, even if this was an indirect way of encouraging higher densities. Mr. Sepler said that the idea was not to discourage bedrooms but to eliminate the use of bedrooms as a measure of density. Historically, the intention was to increase the density, but not with squalor. The recommendation is to use dwelling units not bedrooms as the measurement of development density. Mr. Randels asked if the owner of an multi-plex must live in it. Mr. Sepler said no, that was not a requirement, and Mr. Randels noted that an owner could build a four-apartment building. He also asked, "Can they be "condominiumized"? Mr. Sepler, said, "Yes, anything can." He said the The risk of not clarifying the present code is that there is actually no space for parking. After considerable discussion, Mr. Randels stated that multi-plexes should be taken out of the code, especially since no one is building them anyway. Mr. Sepler said he would investigate how many multi-plexes in compliance with these regulations have been built since this has been adopted? He said that perhaps the standard should be revised, either allowing a duplex on 5,000 square feet, if it can be made to fit. Or, establish a minimum Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page 8 of I I lot size, under which it is not permitted at all. Several Commissioners expressed their confusion with the examples. Mr. Sepler said that he would send the findings he had written up earlier, and attempt to frame the issues more clearly. Mr. Randels said that if all those involved could figure out a way, logically, to allow more bedrooms, larger units, more affordable housing, greater density, etc. they should do that, provided it doesn't create slums. He said, however, that the current and proposed approaches do not seem to accomplish that. 3.0 Building Height - Mr. Sepler cited two types of problems that have arisen. There are instances where people modify the site to increase the base elevation. The proposed interim standard is a disincentive; it measures from much further out, forcing the movement of much more material to raise the base; it will also lessen the height because of the way the average height is measured. The second concern is maximum building height; the proposed standard is based on the IBC, but is a hybrid standard. Mr. Sepler offered to bring in graphics to show all three alternatives more clearly. 4.0 Require Off Street Parkingfor AD Us Mr. Sepler said that this issue was identified by Public Works. Current requirements for off street parking for ADUs are inadequate to address on-street parking impacts. In some cases, property owners are filling in ditches and culverts in order to prepare space for on-street parking, creating more problems with run-off. Options are to make no change, to develop interim standards for ADU off-street parking, or to adopt criteria to determine when off-street parking is required. Ms. Surber noted that some neighborhoods have plenty of on-street parking while others cannot accommodate higher numbers of vehicles on the street. Commissioners raised questions about the Umatilla Hill example and noted that since on-street parking is first come, first served, there is a cumulative impact as ADUs are added over time. Mr. Sepler said that staff would draft some language for the Planning Commission to consider. 5.0 ADU development as an accessory use to single.Jamily. attached development Mr. Sepler cited an example of an owner of a triplex who wished to build 3 ADUs behind the triplex. He said this would be an intensity of development much greater than anticipated. Mr. Randels expressed his opinion that this is another negative effect of the provision for multi-plexes being defined as single family. There was a multi-faceted discussion considering the differences in requirements and restrictions in various zones for a number of scenarios. Mr. Randels said he did not understand the rationale for allowing ADUs to be built by single family dwelling owners, but not developers. There was also discussion about whether the minimum lot sizes should be reviewed. Mr. Sepler stated that he would attempt to get the background on ADUs. He will also determine what has happening with duplex, triplex, and four-plex permits. 6.0 Establish a uniform method for counting days in the PTMC. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page 9 ofl I The Commissioners agreed with the intent on this measure and there was no further discussion. 7.0 Establish interim standards for required o.tFstreet parking in the Uptown Commercial District. Mr. Sepler noted that this issue would be discussed at the Uptown Charette. The people who raised the issue should have the opportunity there to share their concerns. The background is that the City took away uptown off-street parking requirements and had not yet implemented a parking improvement district. That is, in lieu of off-street parking, there would be contribution to a district to do amenities, improvements, sidewalks, better transit service - all things that would help limit the impacts. De facto, this has allowed buildings to get much bigger. A Charette has been scheduled for October 25 at the Uptown Community Center beginning at 6:00 PM. In the interim, one off-street space is required. In response to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Sepler gave brief updates on the status of the Rienstra and Key City Players properties. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 12, 2006 -- SMP Update (Judy Surber, Senior Planner); Interim Ordinance Workshop 2 (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Chair Randels urged members of the Planning Commission to attend upcoming workshops and charettes, if at all possible: October 10; October 26; and November 7. October 26, 2006 - Cancelled Chair Randels requested that this meeting be shifted to November 2, if possible; there were no objections. November 2, 2006 -- Upper Sims Debrief; SMP Hearing?; Comp Plan Update Workshop; Interim Ordinance Workshop 3 IX. COMMUNICATIONS Derelict Creosote Pilings --Ms. Surber reported that Port Townsend Bay had been selected by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), after doing a regional SEP A review and JARP A (shorelines application), for pilings removal. This is part of the Governor's initiative to clean up Puget Sound. She and Ken Clow, Public Works, met with Larry Crocket and Jim Pivarnik, Port of Port Townsend, and David Roberts, DNR. The permitting has been completed and plans call for the work to begin in October. There is a possibility that the incineration may be done by Kimberly-Clark in Edmonds, which would save substantial money. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page 10 of I I X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lizut moved to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 9:00 PM. ~) . ~) / ~ ~. k ' // /' ~/ ' Georgf Randels, Chair M~/~1 Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006 Page II of II