Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout122106 Minutes . . . , CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Fire Hall, Port Townsend Thursday, December 21, 2006,7:00 PM Meeting Materials: EXH.l Agenda for December 21, 2006 EXH. 2 R. Sepler Memo to Plan. Comm., Draft Omnibus Ordinance: Title 17 and 20 Revisions and Clarifications on Transient Uses, December 11, 2006 EXH. 3 Attachment 1: Draft Omnibus Interim Ordinance, prepared 12/7/ EXH. 4 Attachment 2: R. Sepler memo to Plan. Comm. Interim Ordinance, August 15, 2007 EXH. 5 Attachment 3: Ordinance 2928 (Interim Standards - PTMC amendments regarding density measurement, building heights, off-street parking for ADUs, etc.), September 5, 2006 EXH. 6 Attachment 4: Proposed Interim Standards: Preliminary Approaches (Table) EXH. 7 Attachment 5: R. Sepler Memo to L. Yarberry, Allowable R-I1I Densities, August 1,2006 EXH. 8 Attachment 6: J. Surber Memo to R. Sepler, Background on Bedrooms as a Measure of Density in the R-III and R-IV Zoning Districts, November 9, 2006 EXH. 9 Attachment 7: Plan. Comm. Memo to CC/CDLU and L TAC, Tourist Homes and Transient Accommodations, September 28, 2006 EXH. 10 Attachment 8: Cabins, Sunset Magazine, August 2006, page 85 EXH. II Attachment 9: vem@cablespeed.com(VemGarrison)e-mail to R. Sepler, excerpt from NYTimes.com "The Apartment Atop the Garage is Back in Vogue", December 6, 2006 EXH. 12 Attachment 10: D. Vohs and C. Cosier, Untitled Letter to L. Yarberry regarding Code non- compliance of ADU as Tourist Home, October 11,2006 EXH. 13 Attachment II: A. Raab, Untitled Letter to L. Yarberry regarding Issues and Regulations for Private Getaways, B & B's and Tourist Homes, undated, received October 24, 2006 EXH. 14 Guest List for December 21,2006 (None) I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair George 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, Liesl Slabaugh, Cindy Thayer, and George Unterseher Julian Ray was excused. Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Chair Randels asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There were no changes or comments. The agenda was approved, as written, all in favor. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 21, 2006 Page 1 of6 . . . IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Randels directed that the approval of the minutes for November 30, 2006 be postponed until the following meeting, pending additional input on questions and highlighted sections. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) VII. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing on Draft Omnibus Ordinance (Rick Sepler) Mr. Sepler began by discussing meeting schedule changes. He explained that due to the February expiration date of the Interim Ordinance, it was necessary to schedule this Planning Commission hearing in December and the City Council hearing date for January. Additionally, it was prudent to combine the Transient Accommodation issues with other topics for the sake of efficiency. He said that the draft of the ordinance (Exh. 3) was prepared as directed in workshop sessions, and that he would answer any questions that Commissioners may wish to raise. He reported that there were two phone calls received in response that were not part of the written record. One was from Dave Robison, who conveyed his support for Planning Commission's direction to address his pre-existing use and try to make that a legal use rather than a legal non- conforming use. In response to a request for clarification from Ms. Thayer, Mr. Sepler explained that Dave Robison and Sheila Westermann own an overnight transient accommodation that is a single apartment. A strict interpretation of our current code would make it non-conforming. He noted that that instance and Julie McCullough's use were established and actoally legal at the time, to the best of his analysis, but due to text changes in terms of definitions became illegal. He said they fall under the status of being a legal pre-existing non-conforming use and are allowed to continue indefinitely, but are subject to limitations on expansion or rebuilding in the event of fire, displacement or other disruption. At a prior workshop, the Planning Commission expressed interest in memorializing, as an allowed use, those few narrow uses that were legally established. Mr. Unterseher asked if that would include resale, and Mr. Sepler confirmed that it would if it was a legal use - i.e. it could be conveyed, as it had a value. However, it would be clear that another apartment would not be allowed because it did not meet that special finding. Also, Margaret Lee had called and had comments on the draft ordinance. She asked for clarification on the meaning of "single family attached". He said that after reading the de[mition to her, those concerns were allayed. A second concern was with regard to Attachment 1, page 5, number 7, line 36. She noted that the prior section would negate the "no additional parking". He had explained that it would be too confusing to deal with multiple changes and deletions in the same body oftext; the explanation was acceptable to her. Ms. Lee also had comments on other Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 21,2006 Page 2 of6 . portions of the ordinance that were not subject to amendment. Ms. Lee was advised that any comments she submitted would be held on file for futore considerations directed by Council. Chair Randels invited Commissioners to direct their questions to Mr. Sepler. Mr. Unterseher asked for clarification on the following: "If the owner of a property builds an ADU, they cannot live in or use the ADU and rent out the primary house - is that correct?" Mr. Sepler stated that that was an area of contention. He said that he had asked the City Attorney to clariJy that, since the City has given permits to do just that. Mr. Sepler said that the clarification may need to be addressed at some point in the future. Mr. Emery pointed out the text in Section 2, page 5, which states "Owner of subject property shall reside on premises whether in the main or accessory dwelling." Chair Randels noted the apparent legislative imprimatur, and questioned whether or not this wording would take the matter out of the Attorney's hands. Mr. Sepler agreed that was so, unless Mr. Watts asked for consideration of a potential amendment. . When asked by Mr. Unterseher why the text should be changed, Mr. Sepler said that the original purpose and intent of the ADU was to provide affordable housing. He cited the case of individuals who build a home as a future residence, rent it out, and come to town on weekends to use the ADU. He said the issue was whether or not it did serve that end. Ms. Thayer said that her recollection was that when the ADU regulations were written, the owner was required to live in the main house and rent out the ADU; she later added that she believed owners had to occupy the house at least six months of the year. There was further discussion indicating that the code had then been amended, but the timing and rationale for that had to be researched. Mr. Sepler said that he had asked the City Attorney to assist in that regard; he clarified that he was interested in fmding the line-in/line-out drafts that the Attorney may have on file. Chair Randels raised a question about the Bedrooms/Density issue, referring to page 2 (EXH. 3). He recalled that at the last workshop the Commission had agreed to eliminate bedrooms as a measure of density altogether, in both R-III and R-IV for both single family attached and multi- family. Other Commissioners and Mr. Sepler agreed that had been the conclusion, and recalled the rationale. Mr. Sepler said that he would amend the section. Chair Randels also asked for and received clarification on the specific properties to which Section 9, pages 6 and 7, applied. Ms. Slabaugh asked for more clarification on the issues of density, affordability and units versus bedrooms. There was a brief discussion of whether or not the combination of regulations encouraged higher density and affordability, and/or prevented circumvention of the intention of the law. Planning Commission Deliberation Since there were no further questions, Chair Randels closed the public hearing portion ofthe meeting, and moved to deliberation. He suggested that the Commission consider the document section by section, beginning with the Whereas clauses. . Chair Randels noted a missing and at the end of line 2, page 2. He also noted that if the Commissioners decided to vote on each section individually, they may have to rewrite the paragraph dealing with the vote. Ms. Thayer suggested that they review each Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 21, 2006 Page 3 of6 . section, noting any changes and agreeing preliminarily on each, and vote on the entirety at the end. Chair Randels agreed. Section 1. Ms. Thayer recommended that bedrooms as a measure of density be deleted in both R-III and R-IV for single family attached and multi-family. After a brief discussion, Commissioners agreed that the arguments in favor of bedrooms were weak in comparison to the units alternative selected. Chair Randels asked and received confirmation from Mr. Sepler that the law is clear that the number of units allowed is proportional when applied to lots less than or greater than 40,000 square feet. Section 2. Chair Randels asked if the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size for single family attached applies to duplex only. Mr. Sepler said that 5,000 square feet is the smallest single family attached you can have; the required area would increase by 2,500 for each additional unit, e.g. 7500 for a triplex and 10,000 for a four plex. Chair Randels suggested that that be spelled out accordingly in tbe ordinance. Mr. Sepler said that he would make that adjustment. Section 3. After a brief discussion about the wording, Mr. Sepler said that the text reflected the input of the Planning Commission on the building height and was taken from the International Building Code. Ms. Thayer suggested the addition of a diagram for ease of understanding, and Mr. Sepler agreed to provide that. . Section 4. Chair Randels reviewed the intention to provide flexibility in this provision. Ms. Slabaugh expressed her concern that the public may view the requirements as arbitrary, or that the process was impractical. Mr. Sepler said that he had followed up on the City Attorney's concerns about the need for more definitive standards. The Public Works Director had indicated that engineering design standards are applied to parking. He had also spoken with the Development Services Director; the Director would write an interpretation if a situation was unclear. After a brief discussion, Chair Randels suggested a change in the footnote: substitute proposed for used. There were no further changes to this section. Section 5. Chair Randels asked if it were the case that the Monroe Street property (fourplex with one ADU) would be in compliance if this ordinance was adopted as proposed. Mr. Sepler confirmed that it would. He said that only one ADU associated with a duplex, triplex or fourplex was allowed. Mr. pointed out a typographical error on page 4, line 27: than not that. It was noted that if Section 4 were adopted that nmnber 7 of Section 5 would be eliminated and Section 5 would be renmnbered. There was further discussion about the history, intention and specificity ofnmnber 2 in Section 5. Mr. Emery pointed out that the change which allows the owner to live in the ADU may have been made in City Council after the Planning Commission had made a different recommendation. He also summarized a possible rationale which recognizes the stages of life of a family, and which would allow downsizing to the ADU after children leave the home and less space is needed. Mr. Lizut asked which would be the more typical case in the next 10-15 years: well to do retirees planning a future move to Port Townsend and exploiting the ADU situation, or the model described by Mr. Emery. Commissioners decided to retain the wording of Section 5, nmnber 2 without alteration. . Section 6. Chair Randels asked if this provision was initiated in response to an appeal about a filing deadline, and Mr. Sepler confIrmed that it was. He indicated that additionally, in the futore, a standardized notice provision should be developed, but that this would solve part of the problem in the meantime. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 21, 2006 Page 4 of6 . . . Section 7. Mr. Sepler reviewed the reason for and the intention of the provision. There was no further discussion. Section 8. Chair Randels referred to the letters received about this issue. Mr. Sepler summarized the letters, indicating that most concerned ADUs and all argued in support of providing transient accommodations. Ms. Slabaugh noted that most of the letters reflect confusion about the law, and that she had some sympathy for those who argued against this provision. She said she did not share the fear that Port Townsend would be transformed to a totally transient population, and that perhaps allowing these accommodations may provide some public good. Ms. King and others noted that the intention was clearly to prohibit transient accommodations, and suggested that property owners were still free to operate permitted Tourist Homes. There was no further discussion on Sections 9, 10 and 11. Cindy Thayer made a motion, as follows. "I move that we recommend to City Council approval of Attachment 1 (Draft Omnibus Interim Ordinance, prepared 12/7/2006) as we have corrected it, which includes: Section 1. Strikeout on bedrooms as a measure of density; Section 2. Spelling out of squore footage in R-III; Section 3. Include a diagram for clarity; Section 4. Change from "used" to "proposed" on page 4, line 19; Section 5. Deletion of item 7, and renumbering; Section 5. Change from "that" to "than" on page 4, line 27. The motion was seconded by Steve Emery. Results of roll call vote: Capron, Emery, King, Lizut, Randels, Slabaugh, Thayer, Unterseher were in favor. There were none opposed and no abstentions. Motion was approved unanimously, 8/0/0. Chair Randels closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS: January 4, 2007: Reception for Cindy Thayer (6:00 PM) and Special Joint Meeting with City Council on Upper Sims Way (6:30 PM). Mr. Sepler briefly explained the purpose of the joint meeting and accelerated schedule for Sims Way in relation to the $2 million grant that had been recently approved. IX. COMMUNICATIONS: (None) Ms. Thayer thanked all members of the Planning Commission for their special dedication and commitment, and her confidence in their future work. She expressed her enjoyment in working with this group, in particular. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 21, 2006 Page 5 of 6 . . . x. ADJOURNMENT: Ms. Thayer nwved that the meeting be adjourned; MI'. Unterseher seconded. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:08 PM. y/~ George Randels, Chair ./ ;:,/~ ' / /:Jt~~ , <;'J i"~1..oA-.-- Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 21, 2006 Page 6 of6