Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072408CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINU"I'ES MEETING OF JULY 24, 2008 7:00 PM CITY HALL ANNEX - "IHIKD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for Ju]y 24, 2008 EXH 2. Port Townsend Housing Element Slide Presentation -printed sununary EXH 3. Jefferson County Housing -Primer EXH 4. Town Meeting: What is Affordable Housing? EXH. 5. Port Townsend/Jefferson County Housing Action Plan Task Summary EXH. 6. J. Surber & R. Hunter, Memo to PTCC and BOCC: Housing Action Plan Network Status Report, April 23, 2008 I. CALL TO OKDER Chair Steve Emery called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM II. ROLL CALL Present: Steve Emery, Jerauld Fry, Bill LeMaster, Monica Mickhager, Kristen Nelson, Julian Ray (arrived 7:13 PM), George Unterseher Staff: Rick Sepler, Plaiming Director RI. ACGEP"LANCE OF AGENDA Commissioner Nelson moved for acceptance oJ'the agenda, which was seconded by Commissioner Fry, and approved all inlavor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 26, 2008 -Correction of wording on page 3, paragraph 4: "Mr. LeMaster said that parking was not discussed in the b¢rlk and scale design committee." Mr. LeMaster moved and Ms. Nelson seconded for approval nJ't/re minutes, as amended. The minutes of Jnne 26, 2008 were approved, as amended, a(l in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT-None VI. UNFINISIIEDBUSINESS-None Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 July Z9, Z008 VII. NEW BUSINESS Update on Housing Issues; Review of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element (Judy Surber, Senior Planner) Rick Sepler said that as a result of the town meetings, the Planning Commission would focus on two areas: changes for Housing and corresponding provisions in the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate. The Plamring Commission had directed staff to arrange for briefings in these areas. Judy Surber would present on the housing issues at this meeting and Team Jefferson would be present on August 14 to discuss economic strategies. Ile said that during August it would be well to drafr a scope for City Council approval and begin the revision cycle. Comprehensive Plan Housing Element- Judy Surber presented an overview of housing and the housing element_ The Planning Commission is charged with monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the goals and policies that are listed in the Comp Plan housing element. Also, as stated in the housing element, per the GMA (Growth Management Act), they must encouraae availability of affordable housing for all economic segments otthe population, and promote a variety of residential densities and housing types. She pointed out that there are a limited number of strategies, most of which arc being applied nationally. Through the Comprehensive Plan in 1996, the City zoned for higher density multi-family units; the need was defined as at least 105 more acres. Currently, there are 155 acres in R-III: 18 acres of R-1V and allowance for multi- family in the mixed districts, C-II general commercial and C-III historic commercial, i.e. another 148 acres, primarily in the upper stories. There was a question regarding the total acreage for the City of Port Townsend. The estimate figured was very roughly 3,000 arres_ Ms. Surber said the Plan also calls for allowing manufactured homes, which are allowed in R-I. R-II and R-Ill zoning districts. Duplexes, triplexes and four-flexes are considered single family homes and are allowed in single family zoning districts. She said ADUs are popular in Port Townsend and clustered housing is increasing. Through the PUD (planned unit development) process, density bonuses up to 20% are possible. A density bonus is available for affordable housing. The housing element also recognizes the link to economic growth and the job/housing balance. There was a brief discussion about density bonuses as incentives and the relatively liberal ADU requirements. Commissioner LeMaster asked what the minimum lot size is for an ADU in this community versus the rest of the State_ Mr. Sepler said that the State specifies minimum lot size to support a well or on site septic system. There is no minimum where there is sewage service. He said there are lots that are as small as 2,000 to 3,000 feet in many jurisdictions. He said the typical size for R-II is 5,000 square feet and for R-I is 10,000 square feet. For PUDs, which are allowed in all residential zones, lot size can be greatly reduced, i.e. down to the footprint of the building, with eornmon open space. Tor cottage housing, the minimum is close to 3,000 square feet. Judy Surber said that the rationale for 10,000 square feet in R-1 is based on storm water concerns in that particular basin, which tends to have issues with filtration. There are many partners involved in the housing issues, with multiple entities working together on subsidized housing development. Among the partners are lenders, builders, OlyCap, Jefferson County Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity, as well as federal, state and local governments, and public-private partnerships. Planning Commission Page Z of 8 July 29, 2008 The housing element indicates that the City's coordinating efforts should include bringing local experts to the table and building an understanding of affordable housing needs in the community. Ms. Surber said that the 2006 Housing Action Plan is a joint City/County effort that addresses that aspect. She pointed out the purple handout, EXH. 4, which addresses `'What is affordable housing?°` and the orange handout, EXH. 3, which shows where the County stands in terms of affordability, i.e. second least affordable in the State. The pink handout. EXH. 5, summarizes the 42 tasks of the Housing Action Plan. She pointed out that the City and County play a lead role in the formation of the HAPN structure and planning measures. Other entitiesare expected to lead nn most of the other items. Chair Emery added that the County would play a more prominent role than the City in pursuing funding solutions, such as a levee, than the City. Judy Surber said the County is also looking at affordable housing issues in considering UGAs, LAMIRDs (limited area of more intensive rural development) and resorts. There are also funds that the County can collect through recording fees, which are currently administered by OlyCap. Mr. LeMaster asked staff to point out issues or areas, in the code, where the Planning Commission might be able to facilitate positive movement in the overall process. Ms. Surber said that would be included in the presentation. Ms. Surber acknowledged that the affordable housing strategies in place have not been very effective, noting that housing prices have continued to climb. Phis is also a national and international problem. In addition, because of the desirability of the location, and the fact that retirees with equity can afford to pay higher prices for homes, the problem is even worse. Median home prices are outpacing median income in this area. The affordability index is shown in the purple handout. Local housing lacks capacity. Obtaining grant funding to preserve or expand housing stock requires a demonstration of capacity, as well as showing urgent need. The local entities are too small to compete with larger and more experienced entities. 'l'ax credits are also more difficult to get than in the past. Another factor is expiring contracts for subsidized housing. Long term arrangements (forty years) will likely be transitioned to market rates. Also, the prices for many of these will be too high for any housing network entities to be able to buy them. Mr. Sepler added that the ability to build 300 units and take advantage of the economies of scale is hampered by the inability to absorb those units quickly enough. Big development, and infrastructure development, is not possible because there is insufficient workforce to absorb that number of units. fhe Housing Action Plan Network is now looking at what it can do to build capacity. This can be done by applying for grants. which would help the existing housing providers build their capacity. Or, they can recruit an outside group that has a track record, such as Mercy Housing or Snohomish Housing Authority. Ms. Surber said that both approaches arc being examined by IIAPN at this time. Ms. Surber also referred to the HAPN Status Report in the packet (EXH. 6) which had just been presented to City Council and the BOCC on May I. The activities of HAPN are constrained by the lack of funding for housing. A few low cost items were accomplished, including setting a minimum density for R-III. They also successfully sponsored two grants, one for the Dove House; there will be four units near the hospital. Another grant for Habitat for Humanity will fund infrastructure improvements to serve six homes- She noted, however, that for relatively small sums of money, these types of grants have heavy administrative and reporting requirements and overhead. The City, as the sponsor, is responsible for that monitoring. In addition, David Timmons and Rick Sepler are looking at larger publicly held lands that are located near services and not bound by special constraints. Mountain View and a County property near the QFC were mentioned. The City Manager and School District may pursue a feasibility analysis on the Planning Commission Page 3 of B July 24, 2008 Mountain View property, to be vacated in 2010. Mr. Sepler mentioned the possible formation of a PDA (public development authority) to consider the Mountain View property and restoration of the Post Office building for office space. He pointed out the possible advantages for the School District of leasing the Mountain View site for a period of years. Commissioner Nelson asked for clarification on the role of the City. Mr. Sepler said that the PDA would be formed by the City Council, i.e. established with a Board of Directors as a semi- public semi- autonomous organization working within public controls. One of the biggest challenges would be a funding source for start up. A desirable outcome would be the blend of uses for the site which would make a portion of the units affordable housing. Grant dollars would likely be needed to fund the feasibility study and establish the PllA. Then the PDA would seek equity partners in the private sector. Mr. LeMaster asked if the school board would be responsible for the decision to lease or sell the property. Mr. Sepler said that was the case, but he hoped all the alternatives would be discussed. Returning to the question of what more can be done to promote affordable housing, Ms. Surber noted that there need not be reconsideration of policy unless something is seen as an obstacle to progress or if something essential is missing. Support creation of PDAs for affordable housing -Currently, the housing element speaks about public private partnerships, but not directly to PDAs. The language of the Comp plan could be modified to include PDAs. Bonus density outside of a PUD -For new policy, it may be pendent to investigate the bonus density that is allowed in a PUD and apply that to other multi-family housing. [nclusionary housing -The Builders Association is strongly opposed to mandatory measures because of the impact on profits and/or pricing of market rate homes. An alternative would be incentives for inclusionary housing. Tliis will be investigated further, but initial information is that this approach may not work well in a relatively "low demand"jurisdiction like Port Townsend. Additional multi-family zoning -Prior to recent changes, it appears that much of the R-Ill zoning was being used up by single family homes. One idea is to investigate the amount of land that was used up and to determine if more is needed. It was also noted that the allowance of multi- family in C-II was added after the Comp Plan. Determining whether or not more multi-family zoning is required could be examined. The tact that few builders in this area build to this model of housing is also a consideration, but recmiting from outside the county is a possibility. Conversion of apartments to condominiums - Ms. Surber mentioned that a policy to address conversion of apartments to condominiums could be investigated further. She said the State has language that could be adopted which deals with relocation and costs. etc. Single room occupancy-This type of housing, also called "efficiency unit or apartment", is more affordable due to the small size. Density bonuses could be allowed for developing this type of housing, with the provision that rent would be controlled and units used appropriately, nol as vacation homes. Mr. Sepler noted the need to link any of these measures with controls to ensure the units would serve "affordable housing" goals. Ms. Surber said that the planning measures listed in the matrix would not necessarily require policy changes. However, many do not lead directly to more affordable units on the ground. Planning Commission Page 4 of 8 July 24, 2008 Those mentioned include low impact development, efficiency, green building, performance based design standards, eta '1"here are already multi-family design guidelines and mixed use design gntidelines in place. She said that much of the list above had been discussed within HAPN, but not in depth. She said [hat staff could prepare white papers analyzing the various ideas and recommending which tools would be useful in Port Townsend and%or Jefferson County. Mr. LeMaster raised a question related to affordability, property values and the options for owners to do lots splits and ADUs that would lead to more affordable small units on smaller lots. He said he was seeking any possible ~i~ays for the Planning Commission to foster more affordable housing. Mr, Sepler responded with information about sub-divisions, noting the challenge that none fit within the standards. He mentioned that (condominium) ownership in common prevents one from conveying a piece of it, that one owns a share of the entirety. "To do asub-division on it, we would have to modify standards. We do have state law requiring water and sanitary facilities, so they'd have to have their own hook-up and meet building code. The challenge comes up that none of them have any standards." There would be issues with minimum size, setbacks, eventual attempts at expansion, and ensuring continuing affordability. He said an easier tact is to allow small lots if done from ground zero. If standards are set at the outset, that eliminates the need to deal with various idiosyncratic histories of earlier buildings and uses. Ms. Nelson added that it would also not have its own utilities. Mr. Sepler mentioned an article on a situation in Seattle dealing with a back yard. With significant restrictions, they allowed taking space and creating new setbacks, building new and conveying it. He recalled that that case had challenges, including more cars for the neighborhood. It works best in areas that are more uniform. He questioned whether the Port "Townsend uptown would lend itself to carving out suitable space for this model. Mr. Sepler said he is comfortable looking at very small lots as part of a new plat, incentivizing it and making it happen. He said that was something that the Planning Commission had a right to recornmend. It could be done as part of asub-division. He said he would retrieve the article, which had been published about 18 months ago in the Seattle Times Sunday magazine. Mr. Emery mentioned Rosewind. Mr. Sepler said that was a co-housing agreement, where each owns their own houseifootprint and share common areas; they own in co~mnon. That was a PUD arrangement. Ms. Surber said that the community land trust is a model that is appealing to many people. She said the land trust keeps ownership olihe underlying land and the individual owns the unit. It allows equity in the unit, but keeps underlying land ownership out ofthe equation, and therefore makes it more affordable. In response to a question about property tax, Mr. Sepler said that the property owner pays it, but there is contract specifying what happens to [he ]and when ii sells. The contract requires recording of sales price and the disposition of excess returns. He said the dtallenge on that has been the perpetual model. For example, with Mountain View, there would be the market rate, and what is affordable. In time, would it be possible to buy it back down for the next buyer. A funding pool is needed for the buybacks. He noted that building equity is part of the dream of getting into home ownership. Otherwise, you might as well just rent it to them. Ms. Nelson said that if you take the cost of land out of the equation, then the house will become much more affordable. Mr. Sepler said the key would be to do that; there will still be a cos[, even if leased, but hopefully less. Planning Commission Page S of 8 July 24, 2008 Mr. LeMaster posed a hypothetical situation. Would the current desigm standards in place in Port Townsend allow building on a very small lot, using concrete and straw, modules, and other creative energy conservation designs'? is there any active work going on at looking how the design standards could be changed to allow building more affordable homes? He noted that appearances may not fit the current conununity norms. Mr. Sepler said that building code standards are adopted by City Council. The IBC (International Building Code) is adopted as a particular Title, none that the Planning Commission deals with. He noted that in recent years there had been significant pushback for 1BC to allow for innovative materials, for modulazpre-assembled homes, for alternative materials-both for sustainabillry and for affordability. He said the Council will not make exception to IBC. In the past, they have adopted different sections of it, and/or declined to adopt the most current versions of it. He said that Leonard Yarberry is an expert on the IBC. There are working groups looking at all of these issues. He noted, as examples, that straw bale materials or yurts were not allowed until recently. Mr. LeMaster said he would like to push the ideas oY less expensive land, more sustainable and less costly building materials and smaller units. He sought clarification on the scope and authority of the Planning Commission to pursue these ideas. Mr. Sepler mentioned liability/insurance rates as another significant factor and a major reason for adhering to standard building codes such as the IBC. He suggested focusing on lot size and building size, with the understanding that there are minimum standazds for certain rooms and functions. For example, an efficiency unit must have its own bathroom. Ms. Nelson pointed out several line items from the HAPN work plan. In addition to modular design standards, she noted the task (1 ~ of creating a catalog ofpre-approved building plans, which is similar to the ideas discussed above. She said that this and the next task (18) of establishing progressive building/permit fees would answer "100% of those questions", as well as expedite the whole process. Chair Emery mentioned that a smaller percentage of the population are now able and will be able to afford to own homes in the future. HAPN has discussed the serious lack of funding available to enable first time buyers to acquire a home. Mr. Sepler said there is also little funding available for developers who wish to engage in development of affordable housing. Mr. Emery noted that one impact of "condo-izing" apartments is that the remaining apartments always go up in price because of decreased supply. Mr. Sepler suggested that families should he the target for provision of new housing products. The biggest need in the County at the present is single parents (primarily women) with children. Mr. Pry asked for clarification on the shortage of affordable units. He was told that about 2,000 more were need for the County. Staff said that they would need to extrapolate the number of units for the City. Mr. Sepler said that the first cut of the housing needs assessment determined the approximate number of units in total for the County and City, and those in most need. However, it did not specify the number of City families, for example, who should be served by affordable housing. Ms. Surber said that the Census data included number of women with children and their income brackets, but summary statements about unit shortages are at the combined Cowtty/City level. There was further discussion about the nature of the information in hand and what additional information may be helpful. Ms. Surber listed a number of tables she had created to explore the data relationships and conclations related to the problem. It was agreed that further analysis is needed to fill out the picture for the City. Mr. Sepler said that staff would also do more research and seek help from other sources. Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 Ju/y 24, 2008 Mr. Fry mentioned that he had seen a variation on the cottage concept, where a communal room was designed for and used as a day care center. He noted the obvious applicability to the local situation for single parents with children. Mr. Sepler agreed it would be well to study that model and how it was developed. Mr. LeMaster noted the need to address other segments of the population such as elderly women (or men) living alone. Mr. Sepler cited a recent University of Michigan study. He noted that the broader demographics for the USA indicate that the elderly will be the wealthiest segment of the population. On the other hand, increasingly people are outliving their wealth. Afrer a brief discussion, Commissioners acknowledged the complexity of the problem, but agreed that staff should return to the August 28 meeting with a preliminary task List for the Planning Commission. Mr. Sepler reminded that they would produce a list of strategies/actions, not new policies, and would not be redundant of the HAPN work plan. Meanwhile, HAPN is likely to focus on building capacity and looking for a piece of land. Ms. Mickhager asked why there was such focus on home building, rather than rents. Mr. Sepler said that typically rural populations are less interested in and accustomed to rental arrangements. than urban residents. There was a brief discussion about rental efficiency units and SROs (single room occupancy) options. Mr. Sepler mentioned asingle-family tax credit that could possibly be adopted by the City and applied to building of rental units with the purpose of increasing the rental stock. However he said that there has been a lack of interest from builders in this type of development. The PDA approach may he necessary to make this happen. Ms. Surber noted that another HAPN idea was for the City to target areas where tax credits could be applied, which might be coupled with Main Street funds to encourage use of the upper stories downtown. There was a brief discussion on how the cos[ of development and ownership also drives up rental costs, and about demographic trends. Ms. Mickhager raised the issue of homelessness. Judy Surber noted that this topic has been discussed frequently at HAPN and is a key concern for OlyCap. She said there is a link between provision of affordable housing and homelessness. However, the charge of HAPN is affordable housing, and not homelessness. OlyCap is the key organization dealing with homelessness. She said they are required to have two plans. One is a continuum of care that shows transitional housing leading to permanent housing to home ownership. The other is the ten year plan, with the goal of reducing homelessness by 50%. deForrest Walker is updating the ten year plan which was last done in 2005. The County and other entities will be asked to endorse this plan. Judy Surber noted that the most recent counts indicated that there were 176 homeless people in 2005 and 31 ~ as of January 2008. There has been a 25% increase in homeless with children. Statistics indicate that the homeless population served by this community is continually shifting, with people moving in and out of the community. Tn terms of community strengths, Mr. Sepler said that families or parents with children receive the best resources; those seeking transient, emergency help and unwilling to inter the program have the lowest priority. Ms. Surber said that Ms. Walker at OlyCap would like to see a "housing first approach, instead of the continuum of care model There is transitional housing and other forms of subsidized housing available in Port Townsend. Ms. Mickhager said she was impressed with the availability and affordability of housing services for those who arc in need in this area. Chair Emery referred to HAPN discussion about the target audience for housing assistance. He pointed out that the middle income strata (beriveen $30,000 Planning Commission Page 7 of 8 >u/y 24, 2008 to $60,000) are experiencing difficulty with housing. He said that people in lower income brackets seem to have more options. The length of time required to establish new housing was seen to beat least three to seven years. There was a brief discussion about other larger jurisdictions with fully staffed housing authorities and entitlement communities. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Mr. Sepler summarized the next steps and noted that the following meeting, August 10, would be an opportunity to hear from Team Jefferson. He said staff will follow up on the housing topic at the August 24 meeting. Conunissioner Nelson asked about the schedule for Sign Code matters. Mr. Sepler said that the City Council second workshop for Sign Code would be in September, with a vote in October. IX. COMMUNICA"TIONS Staff mentioned the 15t° Annual Affordable Housing Conference, September 15 -16, Tacoma, WA. Judy Surber said she and Ryan Hunter would be attending. Full information is available on the web. X. .~1DJOURNML-NT Ms. Nelson moved for adjournment, with a second from Mr. LeMaster. Chair Emery adjourned the meeting at 835 PM. -y'<'~QC~1~- - Gail Bernhard_ Recorder Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 July 24, 2008