Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042805 Minutes . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, April 28, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair George Randels called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Lyn Hersey, Jeff Kelety, Alice King, Roger Lizut, Cindy Thayer. Liesl Slabaugh was excused for the earlier portion of the meeting. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Thayer moved to accept the agenda; Lyn Hersey seconded the notion, which carried. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None V. OLD BUSINESS Continued Open Record Public Hearing: Proposed Revisions to Critical Areas Regulations (Chapter 19.05 PTMC): At 6: 10 p.m., Chair Randels reopened the pubic hearing and noted that the governing rules previously outlined remained in effect. A. Staff Presentation Eric Toews of Cascadia Community Planning Services mentioned several items he had placed in the packet: an overview of the Proposed Draft #4 dated April 21, 2005, containing (highlighted) preliminary changes made during the April 14 meeting; some suggested and revised language for Sections 050 and 060 dated April 28, 2005; also, for the council's consideration, proposed fmdings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance amendments. Mr. Toews clarified that the versions of Sections 050 and 060 incorporate all changes discussed and tentatively agreed to by the Commission to date and supercedes the April 23, 2005 versions. B. Public Comment: None C. Commission Deliberation and Action Mr. Randels moved to focus the Commission's discussion on Draft #4 and updated Sections 050 and 060 dated April 28, 2005, which incorporate all tentative decisions made by the Commission at its April 14 meeting. Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. In response to Mr. Randels' request for clarification about the language under 19.05.060(B)(1)(a)(ii), Mr. Toews explained that the critical areas ordinance regulations are intended to protect both critical areas and public health and safety, which would involve structural development that is authorized/permitted under the City code. The intent is to address site alterations that would adversely impact the proposed structural development. Mr. Randels asked why the public wants to mitigate adverse impacts on the development except to the extent that people build to code for health and safety reasons. Mr. Toews noted that to his mind this addresses the geo-hazard. An example is a proposed site development plan for clearing trees and vegetation in proximity to a bluff edge that would accelerate erosion in a geologic hazardous area and thereby endangering the proposed structural development. Mr. Randels asked if this hazard would not already be covered under B(1)(a)(i) and asked if Mr. Toews could provide an example that would not be included. His intent was not to remove language that might cause harm, but the language that might be unnecessary. Planning Commission Minutes, April 28, 2005 I Page I . Ms. Thayer moved to strike (ii) under 19.05.060(B)(1)(a). Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Mr. Randels moved to remove the second "director" on Draft #4, page 7, 19.05.020(23). Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. On Draft #4, 19.05.050(C)(1), Mr. Kelety asked what type of "notice of an application" is used. Mr. Randall said the publishing is once in the official newspaper of the City, which is the Port Townsend Leader in the Legal Notices section. There is also a posting or postings on site. Mr. Kelety asked whether vested parties could subscribe as being "interested" and therefore receive notification on critical areas issues. Mr. Randall said once a project starts, anyone can ask to be a party of record and could receive notice of all project actions. Currently, there is not yet a list of those wanting notice on all critical areas matters. Mr. Toews said there are provisions under Title 20 that authorize the City to at its discretion provide notice. Mr. Randall said it would be fairly easy for a group to be added to the SEP A notification list. A group might write a letter of interest to the Development Services Department stating their particular interest. Mr. Randels asked why it should be easier for a group than an individual. Mr. Randall said Staff could also try to comply if it were an individual making the request. Mr. Toews said this would be optional, individual notice, so it would not create a legal obligation. Mr. Randall said under SEPA, there can be interested agencies, including environmental groups and nonprofits. . Mr. Kelety said if there were interested parties, he believes it would be reasonable to have a subscription list for parties interested in seeing permit notices. Mr. Randels noted it would have budget implications. Mr. Randall agreed and said this is not so much a code issue as a policy issue. He is unaware of anyone's request that has not been accommodated. Mr. Toews' noted this is precisely the reason for the publication in the newspaper of record. Mr. Randall further explained that groups can request to be on the agency notification list. Mr. Kelety said he believes modification of critical areas has the same level of concern. Mr. Toews said it does not, because projects subject to State Environmental Policy Act Review (SEPA) are broader in scope and there may be projects that require critical area review that are more minor in nature and do not pass the thresholds in SEPA and are SEPA exempt, which is why the notification requirements for SEPA provide the opportunity for agency and interest group mailings. Mr. Kelety then asked if an organization could come to the City and request notification of critical area permit applications. Mr. Randall said yes, especially if they had a particular interest area. Staff errs on the side of giving the public more information. Mr. Randels said if we were talking about mandating notice, then he would continue to debate that a group would have a better ability to monitor the newspapers than an individual. Related to the stormwater manual, Mr. Kelety asked whether it would be possible to utilize the 2001 manual solely related to critical areas. Mr. Randall said originally it was, but there was concern by Public Works and Development Services about applying different stormwater manuals to different parts of town as well as the cumulative effect of being able to assess what the cumulative development impacts might be on stormwater. The most practical reason is that Ecology is already saying there would be a much improved 2005 stormwater manual and the 2001 is problematic to implement. Mr. Clow anticipated that it would be adopted by Ecology in the next six month. Mr. Randall noted the Puget Sound Action Team endorsed the City's approach. Mr. Randall suggested that the title under 19.05.060 of the Suggested Additional Revisions (4/28/05) should read "Performance standards for development - mitigation on-site and off.site." There was no objection. . Ms. Thayer moved to recommend to the City Council amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance as embodied in Draft #4 of April 21, 2005, the Suggested Additional Revisions of April 28, 2005, as well as the additional change to the title under Section 19.05.060. Ms. King seconded. Plarming Commission Minutes, April 28, 2005 1 Page 2 . A roll call vote was ordered: Ms. Capron Yes Mr. Emery Yes Mr. Randels Yes Ms. Hersey Yes Mr. Kelety Yes Ms. King Yes Mr. Lizut Yes Ms. Thayer Yes Ms. Slabaugh Yes The motion was adopted. Regarding the findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance, Mr. Randels proposed that he work with Staff to prepare something such as an Executive Summary to provide an overview for the City Council. Ms. Thayer moved that since the Commission has not had the opportunity to review the fmdings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance that it authorize two or three members of the Commission to review and agree to them after Mr. Randels does his summary. Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Volunteers were Ms. Thayer, Mr. Randels, and Mr. Lizut. Mr. Randall said Staff is planning to take this matter to the Council for a June 13 workshop. The fIrst public hearing would be June 20 and the second July 5. Mr. Randels proposed a modification of the agenda to address Upcoming Meetings before beginning New Business. There was no objection. . VI. UPCOMING MEETINGS May: 6/2/05 No scheduled meetings A. Open Record Public Hearing - Continued Hearing Adult Entertainment Facilities Ordinance B. Public Workshop - 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments C. Public Workshop - Formula Store Regulations. Open Record Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendments 6/30/05 The Commission considered a proposal by Mr. Lizut to hold a public meeting or a plarming retreat on May 12 to talk about the Commission's roles and responsibilities, including its internal workings. For new members especially, he thought it might also be helpful to become familiar with the prior work of the Commission. With upcoming intensive issues, his intent is to discuss how the Commission would work together on the many issues coming before it Mr. Randall said he has begun mapping a schedule for upcoming long-range plarming projects. Once the dates are finalized, he would share this with the Commission and Council. He thinks it would be beneficial to get to know each other better and talk about the upcoming projects. Given that the City is in its Comprehensive Plan implementation phase, the Commission might talk about particular implementation strategies but he cautioned against talking about anything site specific or about legislative issues. He would be gone from May 7 to June l, but Judy Surber might be able to come if needed. When discussing schedules, June 23 was favored and Mr. Randels expressed the commitment to dedicate this date for the retreat and not schedule other additional business. Mr. Randels suggested a discussion topic for the retreat might be the possibility of subcommittees to become well versed on issues such as street vacations, formula stores, etc. to help educate other members. Mr. Randall said he had plarmed workshops on these complex topics. . Ms. Slabaugh joined the meeting at 6:58 PM Planning Commission Minutes, April 28, 2005 1 Page 3 . VII. NEW BUSINESS Open Publie Record Hearing on Municipal Code Provision and Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Manufactured Housing and Municipal Code Provisions Regarding Definitions of Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes Mr. Randall distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting the following documents: Proposed Amendments to the Port Townsend Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan related to Manufactured Homes, Duplexes. Triplexes and Fourplexes; SB 6593; and the Director's Code Interpretation Regarding Using Manufactured Homes as Attached Single Family Housing. At 7:01 p.m., Mr. Randels called the hearing to order and read the rules governing the public hearing. A speaker roster was posted. He asked if any Planning Commissioner had any conflicting interests, financial or property, to disclose. There were none. A. Staff Presentation Mr. Randall reminded that in May 2004, the legislature passed a new law, which said manufactured homes have to be treated the same way as single-family homes. This issue occurred too late in the plan review process last year to address Comprehensive Plan and PTMC code issues. The Council also referred the matter to the Planning Commission. The Commission convened a three-member subcommittee (Mr. Randels, Mr. Emery and Ms. Thayer) that met January 24 to look at options to deal with this new law (SB 6593). The prevailing issue is that within the Port Townsend Historic District manufactured homes are currently prohibited, both in Comprehensive Plan policy language and in the PTMC to protect the integrity of the landmark historic district. The plan goes on to say that manufactured housing is a viable housing choice and that the City wanted to make that housing choice, along with others, available. The subcommittee arrived at the following recommendations: . 1. The imposition of desigo guidelines for all single family housing in Port Townsend would not be desirable 2. Adopting the standards authorized by SB 6593 seemed appropriate. These standards would require all manufactured homes located in Port Townsend to be new and meet the minimum dimensional standards for "desigoated manufactured homes," and be sited on a foundation. It was clarified that the Committee did not recommend the roof requirements as stipulated in the bill because they felt it would apply to everyone, which Mr. Randall indicated would not be the case and would only apply to manufactured homes exclusively. Following that committee meeting, as Staff prepared the draft Code Amendment for the Commission to consider, several issues emerged. Currently there is a cap on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). They cannot be larger than 800 square feet if they are a detached building. If the City were to go with a minimum 864 square feet for manufactured homes, that would prohibit someone from having an ADU that is a manufactured home. Staff recommends modifying that standard so we are not precluding that option. The second issue related to the definition of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. He noted that last year and earlier this year, there were proposals to construct duplexes consisting of two single-wide manufactured homes connected in a non-structural way. Years ago, there was a code interpretation that said two buildings could be considered attached for purposes of the building code if they had something as minimal as a walkway, but did not have a structural attachment. Another part of the code said all buildings must be separated by ten feet. Instead of amending the code to address the latter statement, the Planning Director issued the previous interpretation. The statement about the ten-foot separation is now removed, but there were no definitions about how the attachment between the two buildings had to occur. Two proposals were then brought forward for attaching single-wide manufactured home, but the building code did not consider them connected or a duplex, but because of this interpretation, the zoning did consider them a duplex. The proposed amendments were meant to address all of these issues. . He then gave a brief presentation with photos of various duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. He reported that in the last ten years, there were 77 manufactured homes located in Port Townsend. Only two of the 77 were listed as used. Of the ones that do not meet the 864 sq. ft. minimum, he is only aware of seven. Planning Commission Minutes, April 28, 2005 1 Page 4 . He explained manufactured homes are built to and regulated by HOD construction code standards, whereas modular homes are regulated under the International Building Code. He also showed 14 x 36 park models, which originally were not designed for year-round living. Although newer versions now meet manufactured home standards, it would not meet the designated manufactured home criteria. Mr. Randall suggested the Commission review the original suggested amendments along with the proposed amendments. He mentioned the manufactured home industry's argument has been that manufactured housing is a legitimate choice. He explained that the International Residential Code and International Building Codes replaced the Uniform Development Code. The International Residential Code applies to single-family residences and duplexes, but does not cover manufactured homes, which are covered under HOD. The only crossover that he believes we need to address is the issue of duplexes and when and how you must attach two manufactured homes, which is not addressed in the HOD code. Mr. Emery asked if we could use the more stringent IRBC criteria instead of the HOD. Mr. Randall responded that local communities are precluded by both federal and state law from requiring that all manufactured homes meet the IRBC or any other code. Mr. Emery recalled that during the last meeting of the Affordable Housing Task Force, Vanessa Brower had provided an update on the manufactured homes in the "South 7 Project" in Port Hadlock. She mentioned the IBC or the IRBC, but not HOD. Their units are 24 x 24 with a square footage of 576, which is a difference of 288 square feet. If it works well, they plan to continue building these homes. Mr. Randall said this would be an argument against using the state's numbers. However, when he had asked Ms. Brower whether the manufacturer could sell her a different unit that met a higher square footage limit and she agreed it was possible. . When asked by Mr. Randels whether he would suggest varying the standards or getting a variance if someone were to want to replicate this development in Port Townsend, Mr. Randall said he believes both. A planned unit development (PUD) approach might be a better idea. A variance would be harder because it has more to do with limitations due to the slope or size of your land. Mr. Emery said that his internet search for manufactured home ordinances yielded little information. Smith County, V A had come up with dimensions of20 x 36, for 720 sq. feet. Mr. Randall observed that a restrictively narrow, nonconforming lot might present a case for a vatiance. Ms. King expressed concern that by putting restrictions on this affordable housing - such as requiring the unit to be brand new - we are making it unaffordable and used the example of someone who gets a deal from their brother-in-law on a nearly-new mobile home. Mr. Randall clarified that they would not have to be new-we could specify our own date of manufacture. Mr. Randels distinguished between single-wide mobile homes and double- and triple-wide homes, which are not meant to be moved once they are assembled on-site. Mr. Randall noted that the code specifies minimum double-wide consisting of two, twelve-foot wide sections. It is not the minimum double wide, but this is the size that the manufactured home industry was able to lobby to include. . Mr. Randels initiated a page-by-page review of the Exhibit A, Sections 050 and 060 dated April 28, 2005. On Page 2, Mr. Randall explained that the intent of his changes to Table 17.16.020 was to clarify that the regulations apply to both designated manufactured homes and new manufactured homes used as ADUs. The Commission suggested the following additional corrections: On Page 2, the table notes should begin with "Manufactured homes, whether used as a single-family residence or as an ADU, meeting the defmitions for both 'designated manufactured homes' and 'new manufactured homes' - are permitted." In the center of that same section, "; and" should be replaced with "subject to...." The word "Bulk" should not be capitalized. In the second sentence, "are" should be replaced with "is." On Page 3, the references to "which" in Item 6 should be "that." The last sentence in Section 3(C)(2) should read "...1971, if the property on which the ADU is located complies...except ownership occupancy, the property may continue without occupancy by the owner until sold, exchanged...." Planning Commission Minutes, April 28, 2005 1 Page 5 . . . Under Section 6, line 33, the first sentence was revised to read "Townhouse or rowhouse means multiple single family dwellings in a row comprising a single building of at least five such units in which each unit...." . B. Public Testimonv - None. C. Plarming Commission Deliberation and Action Ms. Thayer moved that the Commission recommend that City Council approve the Proposed Amendments to the Port Townsend Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan related to the Manufactured Homes and Duplexes, Triplexes and Fourplexes as discussed tonight. Mr. Emery seconded the motion. During discussion, Mr. Emery asked if there is a way to allow through variance or director's discretion for a smaller square footage, so "South 7" would be possible in Port Townsend. Other members suggested that it could still be accomplished through a plarmed unit development. Mr. Emery then noted that SB6593 prohibits distinguishing between manufactured homes or stick homes. Mr. Randels noted that under the rule of a statutory interpretation, when a general provision conflicts with a specific one, the specific rules. Some discussion ensued about whether by adopting the 24' x 36' criterion the City would prevent someone who wanted a South 7 or a single-wide. It was thought that you could obtain a vatiance or it could be stick built. Ms. King also raised the issue that it appears that single-wide homes are not being allowed for aesthetic reasons. They might instead be considered a viable means to getting people into affordable housing. Ms. Slabaugh mentioned that affordable housing is a noble goal that we do want to support. Mr. Randels pointed out that those who live next to the smallest of the manufactured homes are also concerned about the negative impact to property values. Regarding accessibility or ADA housing, Mr. Emery noted that "South 7" units are easily adaptable to different styles and types of handicap. He suggested adding language that allows smaller square footage units if they also are ADA compliant. He is afraid we are putting limits on a certain segment of the population or limiting options in general. Ms. King said she might vote against these restrictions because their aesthetic standards are elitist-for purely aesthetic reasons, we would add restrictions that would make it more expensive to build. Ms. Slabaugh said she understands this perception, but when she hears that these are all rentals, what she then thinks is that it is not as much about affordable housing as it is about people sort of exploiting the rental market. Mr. Randels pointed out that rentals are also part of the affordable housing solution. Ms. Thayer mentioned the other issue with affordable housing is the availability of affordable lots. Mr. Randall pointed out the possibility of looking at the variance criteria and offered talking to the City attorney. Mr. Emery asked to clarify that there is a process, which would allow him to build a 24' x 24' unit without a PUD. Mr. Randall agreed you would have to meet the variance criteria. Mr. Emery again expressed his concern that we would be eliminating a viable alternative. He would like to come up with a standard that does not permit a single-wide, but possibly a 23' x 20'. Plarming Commission Minutes, April 28, 2005 1 Page 6 . . . A roll call vote was ordered on the motion to recommend to City Council the proposed amendments to the Port Townsend Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan regarding Manufactured Homes and Duplexes, Triplexes and Fourplexes: Ms. Capron Yes Mr. Emery No Mr. Randels Yes Ms. Hersey Yes Mr. Kelety Yes Ms. King No Mr. Lizut Yes Ms. Thayer Yes Ms. Slabaugh No The motion was adopted by a vote of six in favor and three against. Mr. Randall suggested the drafting of a minority report, given that there was consensus on the majority of this section and a narrow area of disagreement. Ms. King said Mr. Emery's ADA accessibility concern was slightly different than hers, but would try to write something. Mr. Randall suggested these three members voting "No" consider and report to him via e-mail. Mr. Randels said individual views might also be submitted with the motion or the topic could be revisited in the future. VIII. COMMUNICA nONS - There were none. IX. ADJOURNMENT /-1 Ms. Hersey moved to adjourn the meeting; the 76; was~~onded. All were in favor. The meeting concluded at 8:24 p.m. --;r!.' / b ~~~/ .:?/ Planning Commission Minutes, April 28, 2005 1 Page 7