Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06241996 MINUTES OF THE PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING JUNE24,1996 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this 24th day of June, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Julie McCulloch, presiding. Present were Kathryn Jenks, lan Keith, Diane Perry-Thompson, Ted Shoulberg, Dan Harpole and Bill Davidson. Jean Camfield was excused. Planning StaffDave Robison and Eric Toews and City Attorney Tim McMahan were also present. The strategy of how to approach deliberations was discussed. Letters of comment received up to the noon deadline that day were looked at and will be further considered after Council has had time to more carefully read them. Councilmember Davidson said he had a little concern because he is scheduled to be out of town the next two weeks and will not be available for any Land Use Map discussions. He noted the Land Use Map and implementation are his main areas of concern and asked if he could write his comments for Council consideration. Mayor McCulloch asked that he have them ready for tomorrow's deliberations. There was brief discussion as to how to deal with the new letters of comment. Mr. Toews pointed out that the Planning Commission listened to all the testimony, reviewed the letters and made substantive policy changes, and then went back to make sure they had responded to every individual written comment they had received to make sure nothing had slipped through the cracks. He said that notes he had taken from previous deliberations showed that there were only four main issues that were still unresolved: · Where to Allow Manufactured Homes · Amount and Location of Multi-Family Upzones · How to Implement the Land Use Map (Phasing) · Large Scale Regional Retailers (Glen Cove UGA and elsewhere) Councilmember Davidson said he thinks those at least are at the top his list. The issue of multi-family homes was raised and Councilmember Keith said he felt they needed more information on the R-III area. Mr. Toews said he would work on that and have more information. for tomorrow's meeting. Councilmember Harpole asked if the Comprehensive Plan is adopted by Council July 15th, at that juncture what would the status be for Glen Cove. Mr. Toews noted the goals and policies of the Plan reflect the recommendations of the Joint Growth Management Committee from May of 1995, as to what should be the conceptual option that warrants further study and analysis. He responded that is what they would be approving. Councilmember Keith asked about consistency with the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and the desire to balance it with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Toews said most of the capital outlays are for noncapacity costs, and he referred to a 70/30 split between noncapacity and capacity expenditures identified in the CFP. He said the Land Use Plan and Map are not going to be affected in a very substantial way with Council decisions to cut what are in many instances noncapacity costs (i.e., O&M costs). PHASING Councilmember Keith made the point with phasing that they move most of those costs onto the developers which means to him the City has very little control over where they actually happen; if someone requests it, it is going to go out there if they are willing to pay for it. If we are not paying for the improvements, and if are going to allow anybody out there to do them that wants to do them, they are going to pay, which impacts phasing of the CFP and implementation. Mr. Toews said it was a real concern for the Planning Commission that there might be a weak connection between the capital expenditures in the CFP and the rest of the Plan. He said non-capacity costs affect City infrastructure regardless of where its located, if it's in a Tier III or a Tier I area, but where there needs to be better connection, and what the Planning Commission is recommending, is in identifying capital improvements in those high priority Tier I and II areas. He said he thinks what they suggest is that the connection will grow in future iterations of the CFP, and does not think they anticipated that would happen prior to initial adoption. During discussion Councilmember Keith spoke about phasing and consistency. Councilmember Shoulberg said theoretically there is balance and spoke about population growth and the match of Level of Service standards. Councilmember Jenks asked if they are in sync now; Councilmember Shoulberg answered her affirmatively. He said they are accurate for 1996 and pretty much for 1997, and then they can be amende& Mayor McCulloch said she wondered how they are going to get any closer on this go around. Mr. Toews suggested discussing phasing land use map implementation further since City Attorney McMahan is present and can add to the discussion. Mr. Toews noted two parts of the issue: 1) Basic options in terms of Plan Implementation: · Conform Zoning to the Land Use Map. Adopt zoning map that is a mirror image of the Land Use Map concurrent with or shortly after Plan adoption. (Major advantage--most consistent with requirements of the Growth Management Act to implement the Land Use Plan through development regulations. · Phased Implementation. Provides for a level of certainty that isn't available to land owners under any other alternatives. · Piecemeal Implementation. That certainty in having definitive zones precludes subordinate incompatible development from occurring over an ensuing period of time, and possibly making it impossible to successfully change the zoning in the future. 2) Phasing rezones to coincide with extensions of urban public infrastructure consistent with the City's Capital Facilities & Utilities Element. (Very difficult to accomplish due to weak linkage between the Capital Facilities & Utilities budget elements, and the growth tiers identified in the Capital Facilities Plan. Poses same problems ttutt the incremental approach does in terms of allowing subordinate incompatible development before changes in zoning take place.) Mr. Keith asked if someone comes in wanting to build in Tier III can they build? Mr. Toews said, yes but the developer pays for all of the infrastructure. Councilmember Shoulberg asked with tiering, is there going to be a schedule of tiering and allocation of what areas you are going to open and what period of time? Attorney McMahan said it is a very complicated issue. You will have to have a very different Capital Facilities Element and a very differently written Land Use Element to accommodate tiering. Mr. Shoulberg asked if that isn't what Mr. Toews was advocating. Mr. McMahan answered that it wasn't. Mr. Toews elaborated on the Growth Tiering Policies he said he thought Mr. Shoulberg was referring to that suggest three tiers: ~ TierI Areas that are currently servSng the full range of urban public services. (Highest priority is operations and maintenance. No deterioration in infrastructure.) , Tier II Areas that are identified for commercial, manufacturing, and multi-family upzones that are not yet served with a full range of urban public infrastructure. Councilmember Shoulberg asked to stop at that point for discussion on Tier II multi-family upzones. Mr. Toews replied to questioning by Mr. Shoulberg that in the yearly update of the Capital Facilities Plan, capital outlays would be directed to the extent possible to those geographic locations that are identified upzones that are not yet served. Councilmembers Keith and Shoulberg said they cannot see that happening. Mr. Shoulberg said there is barely enough money to keep the City operating. Mr. Toews said his point initially in talking about the 70/30 split in capacity and non- capacity costs was to acknowledge the fact that most of the Capital Facilities Plan deals with non- capacity costs, not extensions of infrastructure into unserved areas. He said of the 30% he would suspect that most of that deals with growth related or capacity costs that aren't necessarily tied to any specific geographic location, like expansion in wastewater treatment capacity. He said it is a valid point and the link there in the current draft is not a strong one, and in terms of implementing the Capital Facilities growth tiers, the element requires substantial further refinements to make it meaningful policy direction. Mr. Robison discussed growth tiers, further noting the analysis had not yet been done. Mr. Toews referred Council to Policies 2.4 and 2.5 of the draft Capital Facilities & Utilities Element noting the long term projections indicated in those policies. He spoke briefly about a third implementation approach: incremental, ad hoc in response to requests for rezones by landowners to conform with land use designations of the Plan. Councilmember Jenks explained that there are other ways to develop options and referenced Steve Hayden's letter regarding 5 year increments. She offered another possible option might be to partially implement, depending on if the County will be adopting their Plan at the time of the City's first year amendment, dealing with Glen Cove in whatever manner deemed appropriate, and putting offthe remainder to deal with at the time of the City's first amendment. She said she has serious reservations as to whether or not there is the expertise to deal with it totally at this time, and part of the expertise they don't have is contingent upon the County, because they are supposed to be developing these plans concurrently. Mayor McCulloch said it is not her understanding that they are required in any way to have their plans concurrent with the County. Ms. Jenks said they are not required to, but it makes sense. Mr. Toews said the point is a really good one, particularly as it relates to commercial and manufacturing land; however, the multi-family upzones were proposed by the workgroup at a time when an expansion into the Glen Cove area was not thought of. He said they tried to point out at a previous meeting that the Plan as it relates to the area inside the City's corporate limits was really meant to be a stand alone, and not contingent upon what the County did or did not do in its own draft Plan. It understood that certain revisions could be necessary, but it was really intended to serve the Economic Development and employment needs of City residents and also the needs for affordable housing of City residents independent of whether or not Glen Cove happened. Councilmember Davidson said he did not see any advantage in doing it in 5 year increments over doing it all at once to begin with and looking at it annually and making whatever adjustments are needed. He said it also seems, even though Port Townsend likes to be different and not do things like everyone else, most of the guidance from the State recommends that we adopt it as a whole. He said he tends to agree with that position. City Attorney McMahan noted the difference between a UGA issue out in the County where they are talking about creating land owner expectancies in the Tri Area for an Urban Growth Area vs. a rural area, which probably means 5 and 10 acre lots and no urban scale commercial. He said it came up in appeal -- if we designate a UGA now, and in later study determine that wasn't an appropriate designation, it can be revised later. He said that wasn't persuasive to the Hearings Board, because once it's designated a UGA, it's extremely difficult to undo, so it's an apples and oranges issue. In Port Townsend, while it's rare to downzone after you've upzoned when you create expectancies of land owners, it has been done. It's not quite as difficult as it would be in a UGA setting out in the County. It is rare once a municipality zones something for more intense use, to go back and zone it for a lesser use. Mr. Robison said it is important to recall that the Planning Commission eliminated the recommendation of minimum densities in R-IHs, that doesn't preclude anyone from going in and developing single family lots, which in essence would be a downzone from multi-family housing. Councilmember Perry-Thompson said there are problems anywhere you go. There was continued discussion regarding Implementation Option No. 2 and multi-family housing. Councilmember Jenks noted the abundance of platted lots and the potential for a lot of people within Port Townsend. She said if they honor those plats they could accommodate growth, that regarding density if you wanted 15,000 people within the City Limits there is already platted land for it; they don't need to plat or upzone any more land, if all they are talking about is to accommodate growth. Councilmember Shoulberg said regarding Councilmember Keith's point, he doesn't think there is any market incentive to develop half a block for a fourplex. The costs are prohibitive now for land prices -- you need to go to 16 units/block, minimum. He said the economies of scale are not there, it doesn't allow you to maximize your efficiencies as far as being a developer, and he doesn't think you are going to get affordable housing from it. He said, if you go to the upzones, that is where the real issue is; how much are they going to change the character of the town? Councilmember Harpole asked how much upzoning has been created through this process? Mr. Toews answered you have to consider more than the round number of acres upzoned -- how much is vacant, how much is pm~ally developed and has little or no potential for redevelopment. He said in terms of raw numbers there are roughly 180 acres of commercial and manufacturing upzones proposed, and 175 of multiple-family proposed for R-III and R-IV. Mr. Toews answered Councilmembers Harpole and Perry-Thompson that there are 35 acres designated for R-IV and that the R-m and R-IV are new designations scattered throughout. He pointed out and discussed }~-m development areas which are not on vacant land. Councilmember Shoulberg explained that Mr. Keith's perception is that the market is so strong, that unless yOu establish the minimum density to allow for those who don't have enough to buy their home, the character of the town is not going to change that much. Councilmember Harpole said he wonders right now with the market of over 60/65 retirees here, if it wouldn't be the case if there is R-m out there that the more attractive thing to do in the market potentially is to build high quality condos of some kind and sell them into that market. Mr. Shoulberg said the Massey development of Island Vista was not upscale; they were only $75,000 per unit, really reasonable. Mr. Harpole questioned affordable housing, if what the market is going to dictate with some of the multi-family areas is building some upscale condominiums, that being the dominant theme to a lot of these properties. Mr. Robison said the Housing Workgroup tried to reflect a balance recognizing that multi-family means more than just affordable housing. He said one of the goals of the Vision Statement and the whole Plan is trying to reverse the trend from becoming solely a retirement community. He noted that the only way the market is going to dictate higher density affordable housing is to provide jobs so those people can live in town; without that they will see a lot of multi-family homes going to the market that will cater to more of a retirement community. He said he has had many pre-applications for land available for both types -- manufactured homes or the type of development like Forest Park. Mr. Harpole said he agrees except he thinks the affordable homing economy equation doesn't stop at the City Limits and could create a lot of new jobs, but what is driving the attractiveness of Port Townsend is a whole lot of things, not just jobs. Mr. Robison said it is harder to develop in the County because the rural den~sities are greater, there are more people moving into Port Townsend because of not being able to settle there. Councilmember Keith said he doesn't think they have to rely entirely on the market, they can write development regulations that provide either incentives or requirements for a certain amount of market rate or a certain amount of lower income housing. They have a policy choice; they can provide incentives for more smaller units than fewer larger units. Councilmember Jenks said they have all these changes in zoning, but also have the existing underlying zoning of a large quantity of platted lots. She asked City Attorney McMahan if it is possible to erase some of these platted lots? City Attorney McMahan said they had received an Attorney General's opinion several months ago stating the City has the authority to require all platted lots be consolidated, and that they could review all plats as if those lot lines did not exist at all under the State law. He said they are whole plats, and explained that happened before the modern subdivision statutes, and the Attorney General's Office said that when these lots were platted at the end of the century, they weren't subdivided under modern subdivision law. They were platted without any regulatory review and were just filed with the County Auditor. He said there was essentially a surveying mechanism, a land partition and sale mechanism that didn't have any' regulatory review of what impact that would have on the infrastructure, the community, land use, etc. So the Attorney General's Office made the opinion that the City has the authority to require every platted lot owner come through for a subdivision before a building permit could be issued, if the City wants them to do that.. He said they are looking at different options at the Stafflevel on how to deal with this, that they are long ove~ue on amending the City's subdivision code; they wanted to see what came out of the Comprehensive Plan before they did that. He said their intention is to begin to address this issue with the subdivision code amendment that they will probably be bringing forward toward the end of the summer and take to the Planning Commission. He said there has been a need for a fair amount of community education as they move forward. One suggestion they talked about at staff level is to create some sort of abbreviated, expedited process for people to come in through a short plat review administratively, to have platted lots recognized under the current zoning that comes out of the Plan adoption if they provide for the infrastructure requirements and bring themselves into compliance with environmental regulations, etc., so they essentially get through that kind of project review with the minimum requirements of the State subdivision statute. He answered Ms. Jenks' question if there is a lot of single ownership, that if someone came in with one lot, the City would be hard pressed to make them subdivide that one lot. Ms. Jenks asked, "So all the single lots are grandfathered?" Mr. McMahan replied that they are, and said this is really going to need some Council policy direction as they move forward. He said if a single property owner comes through, it is a little hard to tell that one individual they can't have a building permit because they were tmfortunate enough to have purchased just one lot without knowing about this problem that exists in the lot. He said what they are really talking about is the two, three or more ownership situations, but they need to figure out what to do with the single lot. Ms. Jenks asked, don't they need to figure out what to do concurrently without figuring out what to do with the rest of the zoning; isn't that another argument for phasing some of the harder decisions? Mr. McMahan said one thing the map proposed is taking some of those areas that have allowed 5,000 square foot lots that have drainage problems, etc. and rezoning those to 10,000 square feet, and said the mechanism is what he is talking about, by having those lots consolidated or having them come in for subdivision review. He noted other jurisdictions have done a consolidation 6 ordinance that says that if you own two lots, and the zoning changes, and those two lots combined meet minimum densities, that you have to bring both in together. He said that's an easier way of doing it, but he said in reviewing the map he would suggest they consider that those lot lines do not exist, because they are dealing with more of a conceptual level on the zoning with the community and he thinks the platted lot lines don't make much of a difference with that. Mr. Toews noted they have two very basic problems related to the City's historical legacy. He said they have a residential land surplus, and there's no way to divest themselves of that surplus. They can't downzone it much below 4 units per acre without running afoul of hearings board decisions that say lower densities are not urban densities, and can't permit densities that low in a UGA. He said absent shrinking the limits of the City of Port Townsend, it's difficult to conceive of an alternative that would alleviate that problem. Mr. Keith said the land owner can erase those lot lines at will. Ms. Jenks asked what if they reinstituted minimum densities, and Mr. Keith said they are not at all related to lot lines. Ms. Jenks asked if they could erase their lot lines if they were in a zone with minimum densities. Mr. Keith said that' is per acre and not at all related to lot lines. Mr: McMahan said Mr. Keith is right, if someone comes in with a number of platted lots for a permit to develop them, in terms of serving that grid with infrastructure, it's actually cheaper to put them into a configuration that looks different from the grid platting, and they encourage that. He said if someone came in for one house on two lots, and wants to put it somewhere in the middle of the lot line, and they give us a restrictive covenant, they essentially eliminate that lot line. He said that happens now just on the regular permit review. Discussion continued on minimum and maximum densities; timing, phasing and implementation strategies for affordable housing. Councilmember Shoulberg said a lot consolidation is only a downzone. Councilmember Keith said if you zone incrementally, you will have single family. He said, save those spots that are well suited for higher density. Councilmember Perry-Thompson said this discussion never came up at the beginning of this process two years ago, are we going to phase it, etc., because it probably could have been part of this whole planning process. She said her Housing Committee allowed itself to dream and imagine and they put all that work into this, and the Planning Commission did. She said, "Now we're talking about, do we want to do a little at a time, which is going to skewer it all. It's not going to go the way these people were dreaming about. She said she just had to put that in, because she is a dreamer herself. We have been heating about market driven economy, and instead of that we said, "Can't we change things with zoning; can't we be real creative and make smaller houses; Can't we create codes? She said she is getting really frustrated listening to t_his discussion, because it is all being lost; this discussion did not happen in the beginning, because this plan might have gone a whole different way. Conncilmember Davidson thanked her for commenting. Councilmember Shoulberg said given Councilmember Perry-Thompson's concerns, and if they are not going to phase, but are going to lxy to influence market forces, he thought you would 7 want to have R-m fixed at a minimum density. If they are going to make that change, he would go that direction. Councilmember Jenks said, if they agree to do R-ii1 and R-IV at minimum densities, they should examine very carefully where they are on the Land Use Map and be rather surgical about the plethora of especially R-IHs. Mr. Toews said one of the options that was considered by the Planning Commission and rejected was developing more than one R-III designation, R-IIIA and R-IIIB; R-IIIA to areas that were vacant and undeveloped and applying a minimum density to those areas; R-IIIB perhaps applying to areas that had some existing single family development, but nevertheless had some redevelopment potential, and not establishing a minimum density for those areas. The Planning Commission was concerned, however, that the Plan already had such detail in the number of different zoning classifications, that they were trying to keep it as simple as possible. He said Councilmember Jenks' point is a good one, if you are to establish a minimum density -- had the Planning Commission retained a minimum density for the R-III, they would probably have sought to eliminate some of the R-III designations that were substantially developed. Councilmember Jenks responded to Councilmember Perry-Thompson's comments, that she understands the investment of time and energy it takes to develop something personally, and realizes you really do get invested in your product. She said, nevertheless, what we do in this town is historical, it's hysterical. She entreated her to abandon her attachments, generally, that they need to abandon their attachments to some extent in this process ~- it would best serve them -- so she is going to try to abandon some of hers. She also said she thinks that phasing does not mean every year, and she thinks "skewering" is over reacting a little bit. She said she thinks phasing can happen twice or three times, and that could be a way of looking at this map and watching for the next few years and with the development of commercial districts and where they actually happen. Looking at what happens and waiting for GMA to come up to speed, and the rest of the area in which we live -- Jefferson County, for that reason she thinks they should revisit a large portion of the zoning at some future time. She said she doesn't see it as every year; there's got to be a way to say, "This is what we will do for the first 7 years, and this is what we will do for the next 7 years," after we see what happens. Councilmember Perry-Thompson asked that if in 7 years development has happened in places where we hadn't foreseen it- Councilmember Jenks interjected, "Or maybe it hasn't, who knows? I think it's a bit arrogant to think we know what's going to happen over the next 20 years." Councilmember Perry-Thompson said she thought that pm't of the whole planning process is to direct and to dream. She said she is not hanging on to her own things; what she is looking at is the whole process that has included the community to quite an extent, and said she is not sure that is what they had in mind when they were working on all that - to put all that work into it and come up with the conclusions based on data, and then to say if we phased it is it going to go the way we' re looking at it? Nobody in my committee was guaranteeing anything~ Councilmember Jenks said one of the three major alternatives is "no action." She answered objections that she is not saying to do it, but it has always been on the table to change a little bit, and timing is one way to deal with the level of change. 8 Co'~,ci!member Perpy-Thompson used *,he holly orchard as an example of mimmum and maximum densities and where you want to change where you originally thought about putting them, R-m for instance, one of the things they talked about in their committee was, when you have multi- family housing, those people should not be put all at the edge of town, block after block of multi- family units. They deserve everything that lovely neighborhood talked about up on Scott Street, and she urged them to think about those things, that this was a real high priority, that people who live in multi-family should be able to live on Scott Street, that as Penelope said, "Is safe for my children, that is quiet, that has narrow streets, that has access to all this stuff." When you think of changing back to R-III or R-IV, please just think about that, if you want to erase some of those places that we are looking at as R-III. Councilmember Davidson said he thinks that the perfect place to have an R-III laid out is in design regulations, and it would apply to every R-III in the City. He said they have already agreed there are going to be some minor changes to this map, but he said if they do major revamping of this map at this stage of the game, they will be moving backwards, and may not be able to adopt the Comprehensive Plan in any kind of a timely way. Councilmember Harpole said if they don't phase, phasing will happen on its own by the market. He said he had thought of adopting this map and perhaps have areas of it that are earmarked and go through some unique review process if they wanted to go against what is here on this map. He said that is a step backwards as well. He said that he would like to aim at adopting this without phasing with the caveat that they look at changing R-III and R-IV minimum densities, and also having to look at this, especially R-m and R-IV in a bit more surgical mariner, especially if they do implement that. Councilmember Keith said he agreed with most of that, but what he would add would be with development regulations, if they are going to have minimum densities what they can do in the line of open space trades and cl.ustefing. He made reference to the holly orchard. Councilmember Perry-Thompson agreed. Councilmember Shoulberg asked Councilmember Jenks, since they are the only ones in favor with phasing does she still want to support it. She replied that she still wants to support it, that it is a very wise thing to do, and hope for the best. Mr. Shoulberg said he came at it from the point that if you rezoned the land, you would create expectations of higher market values, but it was pointed out there is little difference bet~veen multi-family and single family zones. Mayor McCulloch said that no motion is needed, since there is no change, but what they need to have is general agreement. She said what she thought she was recognizing, was that there were four people at this point in favor of not phasing it; therefore, that is the direction at this point. MULTI-FAMILY UPZONES Councilmember Harpole said the thinks that is probably the next topic, but thinks it's contingent on having more information -- what is the actual acreage; where is the development already happening? He said he would like to have a look at the R-III for minimum densities, and eliminating areas. Mayor McCulloch said she heard general consensus to pursue this. Discussion ensued about concerns regarding need for minimum densities in R-III, the reason to eliminate them and market factors. Issues surrounding R-IV were also brought up. Mr. Toews noted after looking at the workgroup recommendations, the Planning Commission recommended that Staff do some additional work and highlight those areas that had some existing residential development. He said Staff took the next step of identifying within those areas that had existing development which they believe to be resistant to redevelopment (ratio of the value of the improvements on the land to the value of the underlying raw land -- basic criterion was two to one ratio), so if the -value of the improvements was twice or greater the value of the underlying land, that was an area that would be highly resistant to redevelopment over the long term. He said, after looking at that, the Planning Commission decided that rather than to eliminate those parcels from the R-m designation and retain the minimum density, they preferred to let the market fill the needs of the community and eliminate the minimmm density and let the private sector determine which areas were appropriate for redevelopment. Councilmember Jenk~s said that is one thing that could be done over the yearly or every few year's review, if they didn't have minimum densities, and they did develop single family, you could designate different areas, either R-III or R-IV, and then you could move to more multi-family designation if you found your existing multi-family designations were being eaten up by singles. Discussion ensued regarding the rationales, criteria, and impacts on multi-family designations. MANUFACTURED HOUSING Councilmember Perry-Thompson spoke of the contrast in homes across from Fort Worden, the large, beautiful homes and the little home that looked like an old style manufactured home. She urged Councilmembers to give up their attachment to the old image of the manufactured home: There was brief discussion on the image of manufactured homes. Councilmember Perry-Thompson mentioned the statement Michelle Sandoval and others have made regarding changes in property value of property surrounding a manufactured home. She said that none of them that have made that statement have come up with any verification. She said she went to see Jack Westerman to check on thah but he was on vacation, and that she would pursue it. Mr. Shoulberg said you could say the same for modular homes, and it comes down to the fact there is no fundamental difference in their appearance -- they are both the same. 10 Councilmember Harpole spoke about the argument of the roof pitch, and said he is not sure the roof pitch on some of these new homes is any different than some of the new stick built homes like at Howard and Discovery. He said those houses can go anS-,vhere. He admitted 4 years ago he went into his sister's home and said that even though he had been in construction, until he was told, he did not know it was a manufactured home. Councilmember Jenks said there are a lot of people in Port Townsend who build fine quality one-of- a-kind housing. She said that is what they should be encouraging. She said that one of the choices the community can also make is toward quality and toward supporting economically those builders who build one beautiful house at, er another. She said that in the last 10 to 20 years, they have done for Port Townsend what they did at the beginning, creating a base of long-lasting, exquisitely built homes that in 50 years they are going to be doing homes tours as examples of architecture of this period. She said to encourage such homes as basically assembly line homes of any kind, modular or manufactured (Harpole--or log cabins; Jenks--they're kind of cute though), if you're going to encourage economic development in the town, let's give the one-of-kind builder some incentives too. Councilmember Keith said that is pretty much where he started on this, thinking that we (small builders) should be able to compete with this, and maybe even to a certain extent should be protected from this competition, but that's the incentive. He said it took him quite awhile to get around to where he is; if you' re going to compete with them, you' re going to have to do it. That in a way it will be a challenge, competing with manufactured homes. Councilmember Jenks said to remember manufactured homes are still allowed in Port ToWnsend in PUDs. Councilmember Perry-Thompson said the discussion of what it does to local builders came up in committee and they spent a lot of time on it. She said several agreed they did not want tract homes to happen all over town, row after row. She said she is not addressing PUDs. Mr. Toews said regarding aesthetic considerations, what some jurisdictions have done is allow HUD built homes on single lots providing that the energy code standards are satisfied. He said the early HUD code homes did not satisfy the energy code; those generally are the least aesthetically pleasing of the manufactured homes. He said by doing that you would ensure having new manufactured homes rather than used manufactured homes being relocated. He went on to explain that if you allowed HUD code homes on all individual lots, you could set up a situation where old ones (1978 - 1979) could be moved in. Mr. Harpole said what we want is for ours to meet the Washington State Energy Code. Mr. Toews noted the new manufactured homes do meet the Washington State Energy Code. Mr. Keith said when HUD tests them to those specs they meet the Washington State Energy Code. Councilmember Perry-Thompson brought up two more issues: homes on wheels presented by Forrest Rambo, and the wording change recommended by Orabelle Connally regarding group homes. She said she agrees with Ms. Connally. Another thing she mentioned was the Callahan issue, the peach colored house behind Safeway is another thing she would like addressed. 11 Councilmember Shoulberg asked if they had completed the manufactured home issue. It was mentioned there was no need for a motion, since Ms. Jenks was the only dissenting voice. Mayor McCulloch recapped: "Leave manufactured homes throughout town except in the National Register Historic District." Mr. Harpole noted they still need Staff input on some of the energy requirements, etc. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 9:15 p.m., Mayor McCulloch adjourned the meeting. Julie McCulloch, Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk Sheila Avis, Minute Taker 12