No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032723 Special Session City Council Business Meeting PacketPORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 540 WATER STREET Special Session Business Meeting 6:00 p.m. March 27, 2023 • Attend in person or virtually via computer or tablet atlahoinwbinar.com enter the 9 digit Webinar ID 242-937-955 Phone only (muted - listen -only mode) United States: Local Dial In — (360) 390-5064 access code: 706-376-505# • Live stream (listen only): https://cityofpt.us/citycouncil/page/agendasminutesvideos. Submit public comment emails to be included in the meeting record to: ubliccomment a)cit of t.us If you are experiencing technical difficulties, please attempt all methods listed above before reporting any issues to: clerksu ortcciaSh I. Call to Order/ Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call III. Unfinished Business a. Ordinance 3306 Related to Increasing Residential Building Capacity; Amending Titles 17, 18, and 20 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code Action: Move to approve Ordinance 3306 Related to Increasing Residential Building Capacity, Amending Titles 17, 18, and 20 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Comment iii. Council Deliberation and Action IV. New Business a. Poet Laureate Action: Move to authorize the Mayor to appoint a Port Townsend Poet Laureate, as recommended by the Port Townsend Arts Commission, for calendar year 2024 L Staff Presentation ii. Public Comment iii. Council Deliberation and Action b. Year End Financial Report Action: None. Discussion only. i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Comment iii. Council Deliberation and Action V. Adjourn n� (�' 1 �, ityof port ���fi11N@INO�llo�4 '10wn e n Agenda Bill AB23-147 Meeting Date: March 27, 2023 Agenda Item: ❑ Regular Business Meeting ❑ Workshop/Study Session 0 Special Business Meeting Submitted By: Emma Bolin, PCD Director Date Submitted: 3/27/2023 Department: Planning/Community Dev. Contact Phone: 360-390-4048 SUBJECT: Ordinance adopting Tactical Infill Code Amendments CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: ❑ Consent ❑ Resolution Expenditure Amount: ❑ Staff Report 0 Ordinance Included in Budget? Yes 0 No ❑ ❑ Contract Approval ❑ Other: Discussion Item 0 Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted) ❑ 3 -Year Strategic Plan: N/A Cost Allocation Fund:'tc��;:�u war Slim SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Tactical Infill Code Amendments to build residential capacity continue the trajectory to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing goals and policies and to further the 2023 City Council Workplan to prioritize and deliver targeted, timed, and impactful zoning code changes to help unlock and inspire affordable, dense, quality infill development. The proposed changes focus on empowering community members to be a part of providing housing for all. As part of the short-term effort to achieve tactical wins that will build residential capacity, the Planning Commission and staff diligently engaged with the community to prioritize actions for quick, effective action to amend zoning, and building residential capacity for a more equitable housing outcome. The project assessed barriers to development of more compact and affordable infill housing and proposes amendments to unlock a housing response to address community demand for more diverse and attainable housing. The proposed amendments reflect considerable community sweat equity that contributed to many meetings and public comment. Some community members submitted draft line in and line out code language that Planning Commission considered, and in some cases, incorporated into their final draft with modifications. Without community engagement and input, this project, though resourced with SCJ Alliance, would have been even more of a herculean lift for the City's Dept. of Planning and Community Development planning and building staff as well as many supportive City departments such as Public Works and the Legal Departments and City Clerk Staff. The process had to be quick as zoning text amendments are due before the April 1, 2023 sunset of the housing infill exemptions in the Growth Management Act. It's important to note that this project is part of a continuing process that will inform future long range planning projects such as a Housing Assessment and Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan Annual and Periodic Update once grant funding opportunities are announced by the Washington Department of Commerce, expected later this year. The Planning Commission public hearing and deliberation on these amendments at their March 9th meeting proposed changes to the draft ordinance (refer to Attachment b for full list of proposed changes), most notably: • integrate Tiny Homes on Wheel industry suggested model codes in the Tiny Homes on Wheels chapter, • Unit Lot Subdivisions modeling the Cities of Arlington and Port Angeles ordinances, • Further relaxation of cottage housing design standards and procedures, • allowing a guardhouse in Public/Park/Open Space zoning, • ensuring no parking requirement for a second accessory dwelling unit, and, • ensuring that townhouses could be constructed in RIV zones subject to a unit lot subdivision or binding site plan process. This modification removes a barrier for non-profit developers such as Habitat for Humanity to build side-by-side attached townhomes. Builders using a sweat equity model can construct the required unit density, but struggle with condominium administration associated with stacked units owning airspace. The Planning Commission made other edits in their recommendation to help improve code clarity and use. The Planning Commission worked on the proposed ordinances page -by -page with motions approving each in topical fashion; however, the group did not move to include the Floor Area Ratio modifications advising future needed work when more studies and data would be available demonstrating efficacy and applicability. The Planning Commission Feb 9, 2023, Joint Planning Commission memo to Council acknowledged, "We are also mindful of the potential unintended consequences of our actions and believe that it is important to consider both content and process in our approach. We have compiled a list of actions that can help advance our housing supply, but recognize that it may not fully demonstrate all the connections or resolve the supply/demand affordability gap." In order to fully consider and minimize these consequences, Staff evaluated the March 9th Planning Commission recommended ordinance and suggested additional edits to minimize any potential unintended consequences. The attached Staff Recommended Changes Matrix provides a crosswalk between the Planning Commission and Staff version. Some of these modifications are Scrivener's edits, or additions or changes to enhance clarity and use of the new regulations. The most important change responds to Guest House/detached bedroom definition changes made on March 9th and correlated language in the residential use table. The staff modification clarifies that only 2 detached accessory living units are allowed. Council should consider how guest houses/detached bedrooms and the new allowance of two ADU's per lot would be counted and attributed to a primary dwelling unit. Without the modification as suggested, the unintended consequence could be a townhouse lot that includes a detached ADU, a Tiny House on Wheels and two detached bedrooms. The other distinction expands allowance of Tiny Homes on Wheel Communities to RIII zones in addition to CII and CII(s) zones. The CII and CII(s) zones, located primarily along Sims way in the Subarea Plan, are important economic drivers for the City. By allowing the use in RIII zones, it relieves pressure and concentration these zones might experience from focused use. Alternatively, Council could opt to allow these communities only in RIII zone until potential symbiotic economic development uses can be researched and implemented, such as a food truck court. Finally, the City continues to follow the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element diligently and methodically and will plan the next steps in the "Roadmap to Housing" to set future policy assisting affordable and attainable housing supply consistent with the 2023 Workplan. After this initial step of removing barriers, staff will examine what didn't make it into these amendments with data and policy analysis. The City should explore objective, administrative, and clear design standards for middle infill housing to remove additional barriers in the permitting process. Update March 21, 2023: Staff incorporated Council directed changes from the first reading of Ordinance 3306 on March 20, 2023. Those changes include clean-up of various scrivener's errors, reduce residential side yard setbacks to 5 -feet. as well as removal of porch requirements for tiny homes on wheels communities, clarity on which zones THOW arterial frontage setbacks apply, and an effective date for the Tiny Homes on Wheels Chapter to July 1 St, 2023 to allow staff time to implement permit processes and outreach/education on this new process. ATTACHMENTS: a. Tactical Infill Ordinance and Exhibits reflecting Council directed changes from 1St reading March 20, 2023, clean copy b. Tactical Infill Ordinance and Exhibits reflecting Council directed changes from 1St reading with changes identified c. Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation d. Infill Affordability Table e. Comparing Unit Lot Subdivisions Handout f. Q and A CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: On March 9, 2023, the Planning Commission approved all of the sections in Exhibit A that the Planning Commission amended including those they did not amend, with exception to Floor Area Ratio section amendments deferred until a second round of amendments. Approve Planning Commission findings, conclusions and recommendations and direct staff to forward to City Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Conduct second reading of ordinance and move to approve Ordinance 3306 related to Increasing Residential Building Capacity, Amending Titles 17, 18, and 20 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code and authorize staff correct any inaccurate citations. ALTERNATIVES: ❑ Take No Action ❑ Refer to Committee 0 Refer to Staff 0 Postpone Action ❑ Remove from Consent Agenda ❑ Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ❑ Other: Ordinance 3306 Page I (?f'5 ORDINANCE NO. 3306 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, RELATED TO INCREASING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CAPACITY; AMENDING TITLES 17, 18, AND 20 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City of Port Townsend is facing a shortage of housing options and the City Council encourages a diversity of housing types and fewer barriers to additional housing development; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1923, to increase urban residential building capacity. Now codified in the Growth Management Act as RCW 36.70A.600, the act encourages cities to increase residential building capacity. WHEREAS, as required by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.130(1)(d), the proposed amendments to the development regulations are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. The recommended zoning, subdivision and administrative procedure amendments are the first step in addressing the community's housing needs. WHEREAS, the City SEPA official has reviewed the potential adverse impacts of the proposed amendments and issued a Determination of Non Significance (LUP23-014) pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); and, WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity to comment on these amendments was provided through • electronic notice to interested parties, • a series of interviews with key stakeholders held December 15-16, 2023, • an Open Mic/Special Planning Commission Meeting on December 15, 2023; • a legal notice of public hearing before the Planning Commission published in the Port Townsend Leader on March 1, 2023, • Planning Commission regular business meetings of January 12 and 26, 2023; February 9, and 23, 2023; • Joint Planning Commission/City Council Community Forum of February 13, 2023 • Planning Commission Hearing of March 9, 2023; • a legal notice of public hearing before the City Council published in the Port Townsend Leader on March 1, and March 8, 2023. d WHEREAS, City Department of Planning and Community Development staff provided notice of intent to adopt the proposed development regulation amendments to the State Department of Commerce (DOC) for review and comment prior to the adoption of this ordinance per RCW 36.70A.106. Planning staff requested and was granted expedited review. DOC did not provide any substantive comments; and, Ordinance 3306 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after timely notice, held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on this matter on March 9, 2023 and recommended to the City Council that Port Townsend Municipal Code Title 17 be amended as proposed; and WHEREAS, the City Council held an open record public hearing on March 20, 2023, and has considered public comments and written submittals and the Planning Commission recommendations.: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Port Townsend ordains as follows: Section 1. Amendments. A. Section 17.08.020 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended with the additional definitions in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit A. B. Section 17.08.040 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended with the additional definitions in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit B. C. Section 17.08.060 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended with the additional definitions in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit C. D. Section 17.16.020(C) of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit D. E. Table 17.16.020 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended at row #3, 10, with added rows 11-13, amended rows 14, 15, added row 16, and amended row 46 as set forth in Exhibit E. F. Table 17. l 6.030 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended at row #51, with additional rows added at row #52 and 54 as set forth in Exhibit F. G. Section 17.16.030(B) of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit G. H. Table 17.20.020 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended at row #52 with additional rows added at row #53 and 55 as set forth in Exhibit H. I. Table 17.20.030 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended at row #1 as set forth in Exhibit I. Table 17.22.020 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended with the additional row at row 58 as set forth in Exhibit J. K. Table 17.24.020 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended with additional rows at row 29 and 30 as set forth in Exhibit K. Ordinance 3306 Page 3 (?f'5 L. Table 17.31.030 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended with additional added at row 15 as set forth in Exhibit L. M. Section 17.34.010 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit M. N. Section 17.34.030 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit N. O. Section 17.34.060 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is repealed as set forth in Exhibit O. P. Section 17.34.110 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit P. Q. Section 17.34.120 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit Q. R. Section 17.34.140 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit R. S. Section 17.34.150 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit S. T. Section 17.34.180 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit T. U. Section 17.34.190 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit U. V. Section 17.34.200 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is repealed as shown in Exhibit V. W. Section 17.34.210(A) of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit W. X. Section 17.34.220 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit X. Y. Section 17.46.030 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit Y. Z. Chapter 17.58 Tiny Houses on Wheels and Tiny House on Wheels Communities is added to the Port Townsend Municipal Code in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit Z. Ordinance 3306 Page 4 of 5 AA. Chapter 17.64 Employer -Provided Housing is added to the Port Townsend Municipal Code in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit AA. BB. Table 17.72.080 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit BB. CC. Section 17.72.170(B) of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit CC. DD. Chapter 18.22 Unit Lot Subdivisions is added to the Port Townsend Municipal Code in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit DD. EE. Section 20.01.040 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is amended in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit EE. Section 2. Severability. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase or work of this ordinance. Section 3. Transmittal to Department of Commerce. The City Clerk shall transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the State Department of Commerce (DOC) within ten (10) days of adoption of this ordinance. Section 4. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in Chapter 1.01.015 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, staff and the Code Reviser are authorized to update and incorporate changes adopted in the Port Townsend Municipal Code. Staff and the Code Reviser are further authorized to make non -substantive edits related to numbering, grammar, spelling, and formatting consistent with this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days following its publication in the manner provided by law. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, at a special meeting thereof, held this 27th day of March 2023. Attest: Alyssa Rodrigues City Clerk David J. Faber Mayor Approved as to Form: Heidi Greenwood City Attorney Ordinance 3306 Page 5 of'5 Exhibit A Section 17.08.020 A through D "Conditional (special) use, minor" means a conditional use which: 1. Is to be established and conducted entirely within an existing building, or conducted entirely within an accessory structure not exceeding 120 square feet in building coverage and 10 feet in height; or 2. Child care centers requiring no new construction other than an outdoor play area and parking improvements. 3. Employer -Provided Housing in new or existing structures or tiny houses on wheels. "Dwelling, single-family attached" means a duplex, triplex,of fourplex, or townhouse or rowhouse units as defined by this title. "Employer-provided housing" means housing owned by an employer for the exclusive use of their employees and household members. Exhibit B Section 17.08.040 E through Q "Guest house"/"detached bedroom" means a detached building used as sleeping quarters with a bathroom but without a kitchen located on the same lot with a primary residence pfitieipal buildin and eeettpied f6f the sole use of members of the fafflily, tei:ftper-afy guests, of Pefsafts an aeoesser-Y o to a single family 4well;,,.r "Parcel, parent" means those lots, parcels or tracts of land existing at the time of application for development from which all subsequent lots, parcels or tracts are created. Exhibit C Section 17.08.060 R through V "Subdivision, Unit Lot" is a subdivision process by which boundary lines and use areas are defined within a larger "parent"' lot to establish individual sellable lots, allowing for the creation of fee simple lots for townhome and cottage housingdevelopments. cc r:_._, ,, a..,,.ii;__ tet.,,., Ann ,.-P ..,.+ ;..,.i. Aa* ,! I, Q4-„ +,. t.,, .,,.—a ,,,. )ermanent housin accordance with with W-, provisions for livin State , eating, cooking, and sanitation, built in and affixed to a permanent foundation. "Tiny house community" means real property rPr*PVd^Nhold- out _ r re„* to -ether -s for the placement of tiny houses on wheels utilizing the binding site plan process in RCW 58.17.035. "Tiny house on wheels (THOVV)" or "moveable tiny house" means a dwelling no larger than 400 sf, not including lofts, on a wheel chassis to be used as permanent housing with provisions for living sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation built in accordance with ANSI 119.5. "Townhouse or rowhouse" means multiple, single-family dwelling units in a row comprising a single building of at least five s,,,,h aa,elhn . units in which each dwelling unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no dwelling unit is located over another unit, and each dwelling unit is separated from any other dwelling unit by one or more vertical common fire-resistant walls. For purposes of this title, townhouses or rowhouses of five or more residential units are considered multifamily dwellings for the purpose of design review requirements. See also "Duplex," "Triplex," "Fourplex," "Dwelling, single-family attached, " and "Dwelling, multifamily." "Transient accommodations" see "short-term rental" Exhibit D 17.16.020 Permitted, conditional and prohibited uses — Accessory dwelling units. C. Accessory Dwelling Units — Limitations on Use. 8rre Two accessory dwelling units (ADU) may be established ems} as an accessory use to a single-family, detached residence , provided the following conditions are continuously met: A certificate of occupancy pursuant to the currently adopted city construction codes shall be obtained from the building official and posted within the ADU. The code inspection and compliance required to obtain a certificate of occupancy in an existing building shall be restricted to the portion of the building to be occupied by an ADU and shall apply only to new construction rather than existing components, except that any high hazards (i.e., smoke detectors, fire exits, stairways, LP gas appliances and fire separation) shall be corrected. Where additional fire separation is unduly burdensome, the building official may authorize a fire alarm system in lieu of required fire separation. 2. Neither the main nor accessory dwelling units shall be used as a short term rental, except as provided for in PTMC 17.57.020(B)(2). 3. ADUs established in an outbuilding shall not exceed 800 square feet in floor area and ADUs established within or attached to the primary residence shall not exceed 1,000 square feet, and under no circumstance shall the total lot coverage of the primary residence along with the ADU exceed the standard allowed in the underlying zoning district. 4. , the ffof4 4.5. A33 ADUs may be established in a residence or outbuilding that is legal, nonconforming with respect to required setbacks if entrances are no closer than five feet to neighboring property lines, and if each side window that is closer than five feet to a side property line and that is also closer than 20 feet to either the front or rear property line is permanently glazed with translucent material; provided, that the director may permit an entrance as close as three feet to a neighboring property line upon a finding that no feasible alternative exists. 5. ADUs may be established as an accessory use to an existing single-family, detached residence that is a le -al non -conforming use. 6. ADUs may be configured as a duplex structure when detached from primary residence. Exhibit E Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable DISTRICT R -I R -II R -III R -IV APPLICABLE GULATIONS/NOTES Single -Family Residential Uses Accessory dwelling P P P X PTMC 17.16.030, Bulk, dimensional and units density requirements. For ADU's in the R - III zone, the ADU shall be counted toward he maximum housing density as provided in PTMC 17.16.030. Each primary residence is limited to no more than 2 detached accessory living units. This may be comprised of a combination of detached DUs and/or guest bedroom(s). Rows 3-9 STET Single-family dwellings P P P P PTMC 17.16.030, Bulk, dimensional and (including duplexes, density requirements. Single-family triplexes, affd dwellings in the R -IV zone are limited to fourplexes, and fourplexes or townhouses or rowhouses. townhouses or duplex structure may be constructed rowhouses of up to four along a zero lot line provided the structure units which meet the complies with building code fire base density separation requirements Other housing requirements of the es proposing units in individual applicable district) ownership will require a unit lot subdivision or binding site plan. Duplex, triplex, or P P P P_ PTMC 17.16.030 Bulk dimensional and density requirements apply. fou lex conversion of detached single-family ousin types proposing units in individual homes ownership will require a unit lot subdivision or binding site plan. Townhouses or X P P P Ch. 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily Residential rowhouses zero lo Development Standards; and PTMC lines of five or more 17.16.030, Bulk, dimensional and density requirements. units Housing types proposing units in individual ownership will require a unit lot subdivision or binding site j2lan. Cottage housing C -P P P X Ch. 17.34 PTMC, Cottage Housing developments Development Design Standards; Ch. 17.46 TMC, Commercial, Multifamily, Cottage Housing Developments, and Mixed Use Architectural and Site Design Review Processes; Ch. 18.20 PTMC, Binding Site Tans; Ch. 19.06 PTMC, Article III - Standards for Tree Conservation. Transient use of single- X X X X See PTMC 17.08.060, "Short term rentals family residential uses " (including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes and cottage housing) Tiny Home on Wheel X X C X Conditional Use Permit subject to Chapter Communit 17.58. Rows 17-41 STET Accessory Uses Rows 43-45 STET Guest House/Detached bedroom P P X X See definition in PTMC 17.08.030. Each primaKy residence is limited to no more than 2 detached accesso1y living units. This in be comprised of a combination of detached DUs and/or guest bedroom(s), Rows 47-80 STET Exhibit F Table 17.16.030 Residential Zoning Districts — Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements DISTRICT R -I R -II R -III R -IV STET STET STET STET STET STET MINIMUM 20' except: REAR YARD 50' barns and SETBACKS agricultural 10' except: buildings, and 100' = barns and 15' except: 100' if abutting agricultural an R-11, R-111, buildings 10' except: 20' if directly or R -IV zoning 5' for ADUs no setback for abutting an R -I or district provided the rear multifamily R- II district; no 5' for ADUs structures located setback for multifamily property line provided the does not abut a within 200' of an structures located street right of rear property abutting mixed within an line does not way and the use zoning m abuttingg mixed abut a street ADU has no district right of way and door or ag use zoning district _rag_e the ADU has no door facing rear door or garage property line door facing rear property in MINIMUM SIDE 15, ff ,Uffi15' „ ffi 5' except: 15' except: YARD total witn tet 10'= along a 20' if directly SETBACKS minimum of 5- minimum of 5- street r -o -w; 20' abutting an R -I or feet on either feet on either side for garages with R- II district; no side 4-W 1 n' m" 4fPt m o,, vehicle access setback for side and S' facing a street multifamily eiie side aft `' +41+e right- of -way and structures located "' the Othef side. no setback for within 200' of an OtheF Side. 10'= abutting a multifamily abutting mixed 10' = abutting a street r-o-w; 20' for garages with vehicle access facing a street right-of-way and street r-o-w; 20' for garages with vehicle access facing a street right-of-way and 100' = barns and structures located within 200' of an abutting mixed use zoning district use zoning district 50'= barns and agricultural agricultural buildings buildings and 5' for ADUs with 100' if abutting an R-II, R-III, or no door or garage door facing side R-IV zoning district propert. line 5' for ADUs with no door or garage door facing side property line STET 25%-except 40% 35% except 40% 45% 50% MAXIMUM LOT where an ADU where an ADU is is included in COVERAGE included in the the lot lot STET Exhibit G 17.16.030 Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements B Exceptions. The feaf setbaeks pfevided in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to aeeessai-f 1. Outbuildings: The rear setbacks provided in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to accessory structures smaller than 120 square feet in building coverage and 10 feet in height provided, that all such accessory structures shall be a minimum of five feet from rear lot and/or property 2. ADUs: The maximum density provisions in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to accessory dwelling units in the R -I and R-11 zoning districts. 3. Conversion of single-family: The maximum density provisions in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to conversion of a detached single-family dwelling unit into a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. 10 Exhibit H Table 17.20.020 Commercial Zoning Districts — Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses (Excerpt) DISTRIC C -I C -II C- C- APPLICABLE T II(H) III REGULATIONS/NOTES Rows 1-46 STET RESIDENTIAL USES PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, density and dimensional requirements; and Chapter 17.36 PTMC, Apartment houses X P X P Multifamily Residential Development Standards, and permitted on upper floors only. Boarding houses (six or fewer roomers) and lodging and rooming X P X P Same as above. houses (seven or more roomers) PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, dimensional and density Homeless shelters X C C C requirements. The director may authorize a waiver of the basic permit fee. PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, density and dimensional requirements; and Chapter 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily dwellings X P X P Multifamily Residential Development Standards, and permitted on upper floors only. PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, dimensional and density Owner/operator/employee p p p p requirements; such uses shall only residences be allowed if clearly subordinate and accessory to a primary 11 12 commercial use and permitted on upper floors only. Employer-provided PTMC 17.64 standards for housing X X C X employer-provided housing P TMC 17.20.030, Bulk, Residential treatment X X P X dimensional and density facilities requirements. Tiny House Communities X C X X PTMC 17.58 12 Exhibit I Table 17.20.030 Commercial Zoning Districts — Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements (Excerpt) DISTRICT C -I C -II C -11(H) C -III Owner/operator/ Owner/operator Residences employer - residences allowed above provided allowed and the ground floor, residences Residences RESIDENTIAL residences above or as part of a allowed above allowed above REQUIREMENTS commercial uses development ground floor the ground floor allowed subject to combining commercial uses the requirements residential with subject to the below commercial uses requirements below Rows# 2-11 STET 13 Exhibit J Table 17.22.020 Marine -Related and Manufacturing Districts — Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses DISTRICT M/ M M-II(A) M- M- APPLICABLE C I II(B) III REGULATIONS/NOTES Rows 1-55 STET RESIDENTIAL USES Residential quarters as an accessory use (i.e., guard's quarters in large establishments, PTMC 17.22.030, Bulk, where such quarters p p p p p dimensional and density are customarily requirements. provided for security and/or insurability of the premises) PTMC 17.64 standards for Employer-provided C C C C C employer-provided housing housing Rows 59-88 STET - 14 Exhibit K Table 17.24.020 Public, Park, and Open Space Zoning Districts — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses (Excerpt) Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A =Not a licable DISTRIC ,I, P/OS P/OS( B) P -I APPLICABLE REGULATIONS/NOTES Rows 1-27 STET Other facilities designated as essential public facilities by the Washington State Office of Financial Management X X C The siting of "essential public facilities" cannot be precluded by development regulations under RCW 36.70A.200. Employer-provided housing X C C PTMC 17.64 standards for "Employer- provided housing" Residential quarters as an P P P accessory use (i.e.,guard's. quarters in large establishments, where such quarters are customarily provided for security and/or insurability of the premises) Lines 31-49 STET 15 Exhibit L Table 17.31.030 Commercial Zoning District — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable Use Type C-II(S) Specific Use Standards Residential Cottage House X Refer to PTMC 17.31.150, Bulk, dimensional and lot standards by building type, for regulations pertaining to applicable residential building types. Dwelling, Multifamily Apartment House: Small P Apartment House: Large p Townhouse/Rowhouse p Dwelling, Single -Family Attached P Dwelling, Single -Family Detached X Dwelling, Live/Work P Owner/Operator Residences X Accessory Dwelling X Home Occupation X Chapter 17.56 PTMC, Home Occupations Homeless Shelters C Nursing Homes P Tiny House Communities C Chapter 17.58 Rows 16-63 STET 16 Exhibit M 17.34.010 Purpose and intent. The general purposes of the cottage housing development design standards are as follows: A. A cottage housing development is an alternative type of detached housing providing small residences for households . Cottage housing is provided as part of the city's overall housing strategy which intends to encourage affordability, innovation and variety in housing design and site development while ensuring compatibility with existing neighborhoods, and to promote a variety of housing choices to meet the needs of a population diverse in age, income, household composition and individual needs. B. The cottage housing development design standards contained in this section are intended to create a small community of cottages oriented around open space that is pedestrian - oriented and minimizes the visibility of off-street parking. These design standards are intended to ensure that cottage housing developments include pedestrian amenities and take advantage of existing natural features on the site including topography and vegetation. The cottage housing development design standards are intended to maintain traditional cottage amenities and proportions and ensure that cottage housing developments contribute to the overall community character. Because there may be alternative designs that meet the objectives of the design standards, Chapter 17.46 PTMC provides an alternative design review process to consider other acceptable ways to accomplish the objectives of this section. C. Cottage housing may allow higher residential density than is normally allowed in the underlying zone district. This increased density is possible through the use of smaller than average home sizes, clustered parking, and site design standards. feeognize that !and leea4ed in the R 1 zone is mefe likely to havethis deyelejpmep�� de elo Nt E-. D. All cottage housing developments are subject to current city stormwater standards and shall incorporate stormwater low impact development techniques whenever possible. 17 Exhibit N 17.34.030 Density, number of cottage housing units and minimum lot area. A. In cottage housing developments the permitted densities shall be as follows: Zoning District R -I Low Density R -II Medium R -III Medium Residential Density Density Single -Family Multifamily Maximum Cottage 1 cottage dwelling 1 cottage dwelling 1 cottage dwelling Density unit per 5,000 sf unit per 1-2,500 sf unit per 1-2,500 sf Minimum number of cottages subject to zoning base density 24 34 4 requirements Maximum number of cottages per cottage housing 8 12 14 development Minimum lot size 1-20,000 sf 4-05,000 sf 10,000 sf 18 Exhibit O 11 kllllll�" MINA! 19 Exhibit P 17.34.110 Cottage floor area. A. Objective. Structures in cottage housing developments shall be designed to be single story or single story plus a loft. one afid twe Pv ., households and their- eeeasienal ges Maintaining the maximum square footage of residences in cottage housing developments is necessary to prevent overbuilding of the site and to not exceed available off-street parking. 1. The maximum ground floor area for an individual principal structure in a cottage housing development shall be as follows: ab. The ground floor area may be up to 800 square feet. be. The net total floor area of each cottage shall not exceed one and one-half times the area of the main level. 20 Exhibit Q 17.34.120 Yards — Building setbacks from exterior lot lines. A. Objective. Exterior lot line building setbacks in cottage housing developments are based upon setbacks in the R -II zoning district. These yard setbacks are appropriate based upon the allowed density of cottage housing as well as the small size of the structures. Flexible setbacks are allowed per the discretion of the PCD and public works directors to obtain improved site design and to avoid impacting existing physical features on the site such as trees. 1. Front yard and street side yard on corner lots shall be 10 feet: a. Exception: The PCD director in consultation with the public works director may authorize the setback averaging from the public right-of-way. In such cases the setback average shall be 10 feet and at no point less than five feet where the location of all structures, landscaping and other improvements will not conflict with future improvements in the right-of-way. Fences may not be placed in the right-of-way and are subject to Chapter .1 7.6 8.. PTMC. 2. Rear Yard Building Setback. The minimum rear yard shall be 54-0 feet, unless Etbtt an effley, theft the mitiinitiffi setbaek shall be &ve feet. 3. Side Yard Building Setback — Interior Lot Lines. The minimum side yard setback shall be five feet for interior lot lines. 21 Exhibit R 17.34.140 Common open space. A. Objective. Open space that is commonly owned by all members of a cottage housing development is an important feature of any site design. It is intended that the open space be adequately sized and centrally located with indivi"al +sago or4rareo orziefttedtowards the openspaee. 1. Common Open Space. A minimum of 400 square feet per cottage unit of common open space is required. Parking areas, yard setbacks, spaces between buildings of 10 feet or less in width, private open space, and driveways do not qualify as common open space. 2. Proximity to Common Open Space. a. At least 50 percent of the cottage units shall abut a common open space, all of the cottage units shall be within 60 feet walking distance measured from the nearest entrance of the cottage along the shortest safe walking route to the nearest point of the common open space. The common open space shall have cottages abutting at least two sides. b. For the purposes of cottage housing, "common open space" shall be the central space that may be used by all occupants of the cottage complex. O: Exhibit S 17.34.150 Private open space. A. Objective. Each residential unit in a cottage housing development shall be provided an area of private open space. The private open space shall the „,.,..,,.t e aper space to create a sense of privacy and shall be oriented to take advantage of solar orientation and other natural features to create a small but pleasant private yard area. The private open space may be separated from the common open space with a small hedge, picket fence, or other similar visual separation to create a sense of separate ownership. 1. Each cottage unit shall be provided with a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private open sace sepafuted f ,.m the eo ff„mo open s,- ace by „ hedgeor- fence fi„t to &Eeeed 36 i44r-'hP-'-4 in hpight 2. No dimension of the private open space shall be less than eight feet. 23 Exhibit T 17.34.180 Off-street parking. A. Objective. Off-street parking space requirements for cottage housing developments shall be less than normally required for detached single-family residences. These reduced standards are based upon the cottages being smaller than average detached single-family homes and on average containing fewer occupants. Off-street parking shall be located and designed to be less visible from frontage streets than the cottages themselves. Off-street parking shall be designed to maintain a pedestrian character for the overall cottage housing development. Clustering parking to the side or rear of a cottage project will most often best accomplish these goals. However, on a site-specific basis, design solutions other than clustering may be found to meet this objective through the alternative design process. Parking areas shall be attractively landscaped to screen parking from adjacent properties and street rights-of-way and shall meet applicable parking lot landscape standards. 2. Off -Street Parking Location. Parking shall be located on the cottage housing development property. Off-street parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of the cottage housing development (see illustrations below). Subject to the site design administrative review approval process, parking may be adjacent to cottage units. Parking lots shall not be located between the cottage housing development and the primary street frontage. a. Off -Street Parking Screening. Off-street parking may be located in or under a noncottage parking structure (such as a single or multi -auto carport or garage), but such structures shall not be attached to individual cottages. Uncovered parking is also permitted; provided, that off-street parking shall be screened from direct street view from one or more street facades by garage doors, or by a fence and landscaping. b. Preferred locations for parking, in descending order of preference, are as follows: 24 i. To the rear of cottage Alley parMnq smces, gle . . .............. ............. . . .... .. . . Slmet units accessed by an alley. ii. To the side of the cottage housing units access by a private driveway. NMOMbn6MT IrAR iii. Parking on the side (nonprimary street) screened from the side street by either garage doors, landscaping, and/or fencing. Trws, ce"A I'l all o�l� PdrnarV Soi P.0 I= Wmiprfinaq Wcoq ��kw, parWm; WMI 25 Exhibit U 17.34.190 Exterior lighting and heating/cooling equipment noise. A. Objective. Cottage housing developments should be designed to minimize light and noise impacts both within the development and to adjacent properties. 1. Where provided, exterior lighting shall be mounted as low as possible, pointed downward, and the light source shall be shielded from direct observation from above, adjacent properties, and public rights-of-way. Lighting "spillover" to adjacent properties shall be avoided. 2. Heating (and cooling, if applicable) equipment for cottage housing developments shall be designed to cause little or no noise impacts within the development and to adjacent properties. To help prevent noise ,Mems heat pu4nps shal1 ,,,,t he , e for- eottage- i easing developments 26 Exhibit V r�'Z'!!E!i!s'Z9�!!!!!*�1: �R IN I OF -7311 MINT �A�MU - - mm 27 Exhibit W 17.34.210 Ownership and residential use of cottages. A. All cottage housing developments shall be developed utilizing the procedures of Ch 18.22 Unit Lot Subdivisions or Chapter 18.20 PTMC, Binding Site Plans, except that an association, cooperative or other similar ownership technique may be substituted for the requirement of residential condominiums. Appropriate documentation of formal legal ownership of the development shall be recorded with the Jefferson County auditor's office. 28 Exhibit X 17.34.220 Alternative site design. It is possible that an alternative design may fulfill the intent of this chapter while not complying with the provisions herein. Requests for alternative designs shall be processed administratively. Committee review shall be available at the developer's request. ptifsttaR4 te Chapter- 17.46 PTN4C;, Caffiffier-eial, Multifamily, Cottage Housing Develapffleiits, and Mixed Use Ar-ehiteetur-al and Site Design Review Pr-eeesses. 29 Exhibit Y 17.46.030 Applicability and permit review process — Standards. Unless otherwise subject to the historic design review process in Chapter 17.30 PTMC, Historic Preservation Code, all projects in the C -I, C-11, C-II(H), C-I/MU, and C-II/MU zones, cottage housing developments, as well as multifamily projects in any zone regardless of their location or form of ownership shall be subject to the design review process contained within this chapter and processed in accordance with the permit review process in Chapter 20.01 PTMC as set forth below: A. Type IA — Administrative Review Pursuant to PTMC 17.46.060. 1. Commercial and Mixed Use Projects. a. New buildings, canopies or other structures that exceed 1,000 square feet and are less than 4,000 square feet in size or no more than two stories above grade; or b. Buildings, canopies, or other structures, the expansions of which either: i. Exceed 1,000 square feet in size and are less than 4,000 square feet; or ii. Comprise a ground floor expansion exceeding 50 percent of an existing building's ground floor square footage; or c. Substantial alterations of existing structures, where the existing structure exceeds 1,000 square feet and is less than 4,000 square feet; or d. Alterations to exterior facades of buildings (including but not limited to new or altered exterior electrical or mechanical systems such as pole -mounted or other light fixtures) excepting that ordinary (i.e., nonemergency) maintenance and repair activities may be granted a waiver of design review by the director. All work, even that qualifying for a waiver from the review process, must be conducted in accordance with applicable code requirements, including architectural design standards of Chapter 17.44 PTMC. 2. Multifamily Projects. a. Including construction of apartments, townhouses, row houses or other forms of multifamily housing containing five to nine units; or b. Alterations to the exterior facades of buildings (including but not limited to new or altered exterior electrical or mechanical systems such as pole -mounted or other light fixtures) excepting that ordinary (i.e., nonemergency) maintenance and repair activities may be granted a waiver of design review by the director. All work, even that qualifying for a waiver from the review process, must be conducted in accordance with applicable code requirements, including architectural design standards of Chapter 17.36 PTMC. 3. Cottage Housing Developments. All cottage housingdevelopments and alterations to the exterior facades of buildings which are visible from adjacent properties or rights-of-way (including but not limited to new or altered exterior electrical or mechanical systems such as pole -mounted or other light fixtures) excepting that ordinary (i.e., nonemergency) maintenance and repair activities may be granted a waiver of design review by the director. All work, even that qualifying for a waiver from the review process, must be conducted in accordance with applicable code requirements, including architectural design standards of Chapter 17.34 PTMC. B. Type II — Administrative Review with an Advisory Committee Pursuant to PTMC 17.46.070. 30 1. All projects which include requests for departure pursuant to PTMC 17.46.080. 2. All projects in all applicable districts exceeding the following thresholds are further subject to administrative review with the design review advisory committee: a. Any new building canopy or other structure with a ground floor exceeding 4,000 square feet in size; or b. Any new building with more than two stories above grade, or any expansion creating more than two stories above grade; or c. Any building containing 10 or more dwelling units; or d. Substantial alterations of existing structures, where the existing structure exceeds 5,000 square feet of ground floor area or otherwise exceeds categorical exemption limits of SEPA (Chapter 19.05 PTMC); or e. Any project where the PCDD director determines that the proposed design has generated strong public interest, or is proposed for a sensitive or highly visible site; the director may require that review with the advisory committee is warranted. 3. Cottage L ettsing developments i the D 11 of D M z,,,, i*g ll;,,t,ie Uses.G. Type M Administr-ative Review with an Advisory Getnmiffee PufsuapA to PT -MG 17.46.070. Cottage housing developffients iii the R 1 zaiiing distr-iet shall be pfeeessed. established in Chaptef 17.84 PTNW, Conditional C. Standards to Be Applied. Applications for design review shall be subject to the site design and architectural design standards of this title as follows: Commercial and mixed use projects Chapter 17.44 PTMC Subject to a combined single review for Commercial or mixed use projects with five compliance with Chapters 17.36 and 17.44 or more residential units PTMC. No additional fee will be charged above that required for review Multifamily development in any zoning Chapter 17.36 PTMC district Cottage housing development Chapter 17.34 PTMC, Cottage Housing Development Design Standards Note: For development that is subject to historic design review process see Chapter 17.30 PTMC, Historic Preservation Code. 31 Exhibit Z Chapter 17.58 Tiny Houses on Wheels and Tiny House on Wheel Communities 17.58.010 Purpose and Intent 17.58.020 Definition Tiny House on Wheels 17.58.030 Design Standards 17.58.040 Accessory Dwelling Units 17.58.050 Tiny House on wheel Communities 17.58.010 Purpose and Intent The _ general purpose of this section on tiny houses on wheels and tiny house communities is to: A. Permit tiny houses on wheels as accessory dwelling units under certain conditions in all residential districts where detached accessory dwelling units are allowed. B. Permit tiny house communities in the C -II and C -IIS districts, subject to the standards of those districts and those of Section 17.58.030 to ensure development of this type ise�y compatible with surrounding uses. C. Permit tiny houses on wheels as employer-provided housing per Chapter 17.64, 17.58.020 Definition Tiny House on Wheels A tiny house on wheels is a structure no larger than 400 square feet, excluding loft area space, intended for separate, independent living quarters, designed as a permanent, year-round residence for one household that meets these five conditions: A. Is licensed and registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and is constructed and certified to building and inspection standards in 17.58.030; B. Is towable by a bumper hitch, frame -towing hitch, or fifth -wheel connection, and is not designed to move under its own power; C. Is no larger than allowed for movement on public highways; D. Has at least 150 square feet of first floor interior living space and unit does not exceed 16 feet in height; E. Is a detached self-contained unit which includes basic functional areas that support normal daily routines including cooking sleeping, and sanitation. 17. 58.030 Design Standards A. Tiny Houses on wheels must be built to meet requirements of American National Standards Institute ANSI) Standard A119.5. Such standards shall include standards for the installation of heating, electrical systems and fire and life safety. In addition, tiny houses on wheels must meet these standards: 32 1. Insulation to a minimum of R-13 in walls and floors and R-19 in ceilinz; 2. Residential arade insulated doors and windows. with windows to be as minimum double -Pane and of tempered or laminated safety glazing ; 3. Full trim surrounds for all exterior windows and doors. 4. Roof pitch of at least 4: 12-2:12 5. Roofing materials of 20 -year asphalt composite shingle or better, minimum Class A 6. Electrical system that meets NFPA 70 NEC, section 551 or 552 as applicable; 7. Low Voltage Electrical systems meet the requirements of ANSI/RVIA Low Voltage Standard, current edition; and 8. Wall framing studs are 24" on center maximum, with a minimum of 2X4 wood or metal studs or equivalent SIP panels; 9. Mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the structure and not located on the roof. B. Certification. Tiny houses on wheels shall be inspected and certified for compliance with the additional requirements in this ordinance and ANSI 119.5 standards as follows: 1. Under RCW 43.22.355 for compliance with ANSI 119.5 standards; and 2. By a licensed Washington State design professional, architect or engineer for compliance with Design Standards of 17.58.030 above. C. Utilities. Tiny houses on wheels shall be connected to municipal approved water, sewer and electric utilities D. Foundation. Tiny houses on wheels shall incorporate the following foundation elements: 1. The undercarriage (wheels, axles, tongue and hitch) shall be hidden from view with fire retardant skirting surrounding the entire unit. 2. The wheels and leveling or support jacks must sit on a paving surface such as concrete or decomposed granite sufficient to hold the weight of unit on wheels and a� cks. 33 17.58.040 Accessory Dwelling Units As of July 1st, 2023, tiny houses on wheels are permitted as accessory dwelling units in R -I, R -II, and R -III districts subject to the provisions of Section 17.16.020 PTMC and the requirements below: A. Review. Tiny houses on wheels shall be subject to a Type I review. B. Entry. To meet egress requirements, a front porch approved by the Cit.. inquired. C. Separation. A tiny house on wheels shall be located at a fire separation distance of at least ten (10) feet from any other structures on the premises. D Appearance. To maintain the character of residential areas, a tiny house on wheels shall be designed to look like a conventional residential structure rather than a recreational vehicle. This shall be done b. incorporating design features and materials typically used for houses, such as typical siding or roofing materials, pitched roofs, residential windows. E Addressing. All tiny houses on wheels must obtain separate address approval the City for the unit. F Utility Connection. A tiny house on wheels must have a permitted and permanent connection to all applicable municipal utilities. 17.58.050 Tiny House on wheel Communities As of Julv 1st. 2023. tinv houses on wheels communities Dermits may be authorized in concert with a binding site plan that meets the following requirements: A. Intensitv. There shall be a minimum of four tinv houses and maximum of 12 tinv houses Der tiny house community_ B. Location. Tiny house communities shall be setback a minimum of 50 -feet from an arterial frontage in the C -II and C -11(s) zone. C. Centralized common area. The common open space area shall include usable public spaces such as lawn. aardens. Datios. Dlazas or scenic viewing area. with all houses having access to it. 1. Two hundred square feet of usable common open space is required per unit. 2. Fifty percent of units shall have their main entry on the common open space. 3. Setbacks shall not be counted towards the usable common open space calculation. 4. The usable common open space shall be located centrally to the tiny house community_ 5. Community buildings or clubhouses may be counted towards the common open space calculation. 6. Tiny houses shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides. 34 7. Common open space shall be located outside of stormwater/detention ponds, wetlands, streams, lakes, and critical area buffers, and cannot be located on slopes greater than ten percent. D. Standards. Tiny house communities shall comply with applicable bulk, dimensional, and density requirements for the district(s) in which they are located in addition to the standards below: A. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 1,250 square feet. In no case shall the project exceed the base density of the underly zone. one. B. The maximum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 3,000 square feet. C. The maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 40 percent. D. Perimeter setbacks shall be no less than 10 feet along all exterior property. lines. E. Tinv house and porches shall be set back no less than five feet from the usable common open space. F. No structure or portion thereof shall be closer than five feet to any neighboring structure. G. Maintenance of open space and utilities. Before approval is granted, the applicant shall submit covenants, deeds and homeowners association bylaws or other documents guaranteeing maintenance and common fee ownership of public open space, community facilities, private roads and drives, and all other commonly owned and operated property These documents shall be reviewed and accompanied by a certificate from an attorney that they comply with the requirements of this chapter prior to approval. Such documents and conveyances shall be accomplished and be recorded, as applicable, with the county auditor as a condition precedent to the granting of occupancy or the filing of any final plat of the property or division thereof, except that the conveyance of land to a homeowners association may be recorded simultaneously with the filing of a final plat. H. Tiny houses on wheels (THOW) in tiny house communities must comply with the following: 1. THOWs shall be placed in a designated area in the approved site plan of the pocket neighborhood. 2.At least 50 percent of the units shall abut a common open space, all of the units shall be within 60 feet walking distance measured from the nearest entrance of the unit along the shortest safe walking route to the nearest point of the common open space. I. All THOWs shall meet the tie down and skirting requirements of the applicable building codes. The Building Official may require additional standards to ensure the porches hide any hitches. J. Applications for tiny house communities shall be processed according to Type III review. 35 Exhibit AA Chapter 17.64 Employer -Provided Housing Sections 17.64.010 Purpose 17.64.020 Applicability 17.64.030 Criteria 17.64.040 Review Process 17.64.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to permit safe, healthy, and temporary quartering of employ. elf institutional, marine -related, or manufacturing operations for up to one year, accommodating seasonal worker demand and providingemployees an opportunity to reside in Port Townsend while seeking permanent housing. 17.64.020 Applicability This chapter applies to the C-II(H), M-II(A), M-II(B), M -III, P/OS(B), and P/I districts, permitting employer-provided housing. 17.64.030 Criteria Employer-provided housing shall be permitted under the following circumstances: A. Employer-provided housing shall comply with applicable bulk, dimensional and density requirements of the zoning district. B. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Table 17.78.020 C. Housing units may be upper -story multi -family or Lipper-story_group quarters. Units may also be tiny houses on wheels, subject to the design standards of Chapter 17.58.020. 17.64.040 Review process Applications for employer-provided housing shall be subject to a Type II review process. 36 Exhibit BB Table 17.72.080 Vehicular and Bicycle Parking Standards (Excerpt) RESIDENTIAL USES Use Minimum Maximum Required Bicycle Required Permissible Spaces (minimum of Parking Spaces Parking two spaces if not listed) Spaces None No additional Accessory dwelling None None the f4FSt pt units Adult family homes 2 None None cottage ______-_ See TnvrGT7.34. Notle None Home occupations See PTMC 17.56.060 See PTMC 17.56.060 See PTMC 17.56.060 Multifamily dwellings and mixed-use dwellings in the C -III zoned portions of the I space per unit None None Uptown National Landmark Historic District Multifamily dwellings 2 spaces, plus 1 space (including apartment I—.2 -5 -spaces per None per each 5 vehicle houses and townhouses dwelling unit parking stalls or row houses) Multifamily dwellings restricted to use for 2 spaces, plus 1 space seniors (i.e., 65 and 1 space per dwelling 2 spaces per per each 10 vehicle unit dwelling unit older) and disabled parking stalls persons Residential treatment 1 space per each staff 2 spaces, plus 1 space facilities including member plus 1 space None per each 10 vehicle 37 group homes for the for each 5 residents parking stalls disabled Detached-Ssingle- family dwellings (including manufactured and modular homes affd 1 space per unit 1,200 a gross sf in size or less +r; duplexes, ��� 2s paces per dwelling None None cottage unit over 1,200 gross sf houses4h-at meeting the in size. base density requirements of the applicable district) Du lexes triplexes, and 1 space per dwelling None None fourplexes meeting base density unit requirements of the applicable district 38 Exhibit CC Section 17.72.170 Parking Facilities — Landscaping B. Applicability. This section applies to all surface, off-street parking lots in the city of Port Townsend, excluding those that are accessory to single-family dwellings or multi -family dwellings of four or fewer units. For multi -family dwellings of four or fewer units adjoining public rights of way, provisions of PTMC 17.72.170(D)(1) and 17.72.170(D)2(a)(ii) shall apply. 39 Exhibit DD Chapter 18.22 Unit Lot Subdivisions Sections 18.22.010 Purpose 18.22.015 Scope 18.22.020 Application 18.22.030 Preliminary unit lot plat — Preparation 18.22.040 Preliminary unit lot plat — Contents 18.22.050 Approval criteria 18.22.060 Unit lot plat review process 18.22.070 Preliminary approval 18.22.080 Modifications to an approved preliminary unit lot plat 18.22.090 Improvement method report 18.22.100 Public works director's certificate of improvements 18.22.110 Preparation of final unit lot plat 18.22.120 Accompanying documents — Final unit lot plat 18.22.130 Final plat application 18.22.140 Time limitation on final unit lot plat submittal 18.22.150 Effect of an approved final unit lot plat — Valid land use. 18.22.160 Distribution of copies and filing of final unit lot plat 18.22.170 Transfer of ownership following final unit lot plat approval 18.22.180 Building and occuhancv hermits — Issuance after final unit lot plat ahhroval 18.22.010 Purpose. This chapter is established to provide an alternative to the traditional method of land division for creatine sellable lots for townhouse and cottage housing developments. The unit lot subdivision (ULS) process provides opportunities for fee -simple ownership of land. Unit lot subdivisions allow development on individual unit lots to avoid complying with typical dimensional standards if the parent lot conforms to all such development standards. 18.22.015 Scope A. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the unit lot subdivision of land for townhouse, cottage housingor house community developments in zones where such uses are allowed. 40 B. As allowed by this chapter, development on individual unit lots within the unit lot subdivision need not conform to the minimum lot area or dimensional standards of Title 17 —Zoning provided that overall development of the parent parcel meets the development and design standards of the underlying and the requirements of this section. There shall be no minimum required lot area for individual lots within a unit lot subdivision, provided that the area of the unit lot shall be large enou4h to contain the dwelling unit and any accessory structures, decks, fences, garages, driveways, private yard areas, parking, landscaping or other improvements that are accessory to the dwelling unit; provided further, so long as conforming to the approved site development plan, such accessory improvements may encroach upon or be located in an adjoining unit lot or common area pursuant to an appropriate easement. C. Overall development of the parent lot shall meet the development and design standards of the underlying land use district. D. Access easements, joint use and maintenance agreements, and covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) identifyingthe he rights and responsibilities of property owners and/or the homeowners' association must be executed for use and maintenance of common garage, parking and vehicle access areas; underf4round utilities; stormwater treatment and/or detention facilities; common open space; exterior building facades and roofs; and other similar features, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. E. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use the parking is formalized by an easement recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. 18.22.020 Application. To be considered complete, the application for a unit lot subdivision shall include the following: A. The application for approval of a unit lot subdivision shall be submitted on forms to be provided by the department along with the appropriate fees; B. A completed land use permit application form, including all materials required pursuant to PTMC 20.01.100, and including any application submittal requirements under Chapter 19.05 PTMC, Critical Areas; C. The area and dimensions of each proposed lot or parcel; D. Five paper copies of a preliminary unit lot plat meeting the standards and requirements of PTMC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050; E. The applicant shall submit a stormwater drainage plan in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 13.32 PTMC, including any soil test information as may be deemed necessary by the public works director; and F. The applicant shall state the estimated quantities of any fill to be exported from the site and imported to the site. 18.22.030 Preliminary unit lot plat — Preparation. The preliminary unit lot plat shall be prepared in accordance with the following requirements: A. The preliminary unit lot plat shall be prepared by a Washington State licensed engineer or land surveyorgistered or licensed by the state of Washington. The preparer shall certify on the plat that it is a true and correct representation of the lands actually surveyed. The preparation of the plat shall comply with the Survey Recording Act, Chapter 58.09 5,x.,0,9. RCW and Chqpter.3.32 130 WAC as now adopted or hereafter amended. Upon surveying 41 the property, the surveyor shall place temporary stakes on the property to enable the city to locate and appraise features of the unit lot plat in the field. The datum to be used for all surveying and mapping shall be as follows: The projection name is the state plane; the projection spheroid is QRS 1980; the coordinate system is the Washington State Plane North Zone; and the horizontal datum is NAD 83. B. All geographic infonnation portrayed by the preliminary unit lot plat shall be accurate, legible and drawn to a horizontal scale of 50 feet or fewer to the inch, except that the location sketch and typical street cross-sections may be drawn to any other appropriate scale. C. A preliminary unit lot plat shall be 18 inches by 24 inches in size, allowing one -half-inch borders, and if more than one sheet is needed, each sheet shall be numbered consecutively and an index sheet showing the entire property and orienting the other sheets, at any appropriate scale, shall be provided. In addition to other map submittals, the applicant shall submit one copy of each sheet reduced to 8-1/2 inches by 11-1/2 inches in size. If more than one sheet is required, an index sheet showing the entire subdivision with street and highway names and block numbers (if any) shall be provided. Each sheet, including the index sheet, shall be of the above specified size. D. The area of each proposed lot or parcel depicted on the preliminary unit lot plat map shall accurately show the location and dimension of each proposed lot or parcel. 18.22.040 Preliminary unit lot plat — Contents. A. A preliminary unit lot plat shall be submitted on one or more sheets and shall provide the following information. All specifications for public improvements shall conform with the engineering design standards: 1. The name of the proposed unit lot subdivision together with the words "Preliminary Unit Lot Plat"; 2. The name and address of the applicant; 3. The name, address, stamp and signature of the professional engineer or professional land surveyor who prepared the preliminary unit lot plat; 4. Numeric scale (50 feet or fewer to the inch), graphic scale, true north point, and date of preparation, 5. Identification of all land, trees, and tree canopy intended to be cleared; the trees or tree canopy intended to be preserved per PTMC 19.06.120, Tree conservation standards; and the location of the proposed access to the site for clearing andrgrading during site development and construction; and 6. A form for the endorsement of the director of PCDD, as follows: APPROVED BY CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND Planning and Community Development Date Department Director Zvi B. The preliminary unit lot plat shall contain a vicinity sketch sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision with respect to surrounding property, streets, and other major manmade and natural features. C. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, the preliminary unit lot plat shall contain the following existing_ geographic features, drawn lightly in relation to proposed geographic features: 1. The boundaries of the property to be subdivided, and the boundaries of any adjacent property under the same ownership as the land to be subdivided, to be indicated by bold lines; 2. The names of all adjoining property owners, or names of adjoining developers; 3. All existing_ property lines lying within the proposed unit lot subdivision, including lot lines for lots of record which are to be vacated, and all existing property lines for any property lying within 200 feet of the subject property which is under the same ownership as the property to be subdivided (as described in PTMC 18.12.030(C)) shall be shown in broken lines; 4. The location, right-of-way widths, pavement widths and names of all existing or platted streets, whether public or private, and other public ways within 200 feet of the property to be subdivided; 5. The location, widths and purposes of any existing easements lig within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 6. The location, size and invert elevations of sanitary sewer lines and stormwater management facilities lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision or those which will be connected to as part of the proposed unit lot subdivision; 7. The location and size of existing water system facilities including all fire hydrants lying within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision or those which will be connected to as part of the proposed unit lot subdivision; S. The location, size and description of any other underground and overhead facilities lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 9. The location of any environmentally sensitive areas as described in Chapter 19.05 PTMC, including all floodplains, lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 10. The location, size and description of all significant trees as defined in PTMC 18.04.060 lying within existing public rights-of-way to be improved within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 11. The location of existing sections and municipal corporation boundary lines lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 12. The location of any well existing within the proposed unit lot subdivision; 13. Existing contour lines at intervals of five feet for average slopes exceeding five percent, or at intervals of two feet for average slopes not exceeding five ive percent. Existing contour lines shall be labeled at intervals not to exceed 20 feet. If applicable, indicate slopes equal to or greater than 15 to 25 percent, equal to or greater than 26 to 39 percent, and equal to or greater than 40 percent, by shading or color; 14. The location of any existing structures lig within the proposed unit lot subdivision. Existing structures to be removed shall be indicated by broken lines, and existing structures not to be removed shall be indicated by solid lines. 43 D. The preliminary unit lot plat shall show the following aronosed aeoaraphic features: 1. The boundaries in bold solid lines of all Proposed lots, the area and dimensions of each proposed lot, and the proposed identifying number or letter to be assigned to each lot and/or block; 2. The right-of-way location and width, the proposed name of each street, alley, or other public way to be created and the estimated tentative grades of such streets. Where roadways may exceed the maximum allowable grade or alignment, the public works director mayquire sufficient data, including centerline profiles and cross-sections if necessary, to determine the feasibility of said roadway; 3. The location, width and purpose of each easement to be created; 4. The boundaries, dimensions and area of public and common park and open space areas; 5. Identification of all areas proposed to be dedicated for public use, together with the purpose and any condition of dedication; 6. Proposed final contour lines at intervals of five feet for average slopes exceeding g five percent, or at intervals of two feet for average slopes not exceeding five percent. Final contours shall be indicated by solid lines. Contour lines shall be labeled in intervals not to exceed 20 feet; 7. The buildingenvelopes, as defined in PTMC 18.04.060, shall be indicated for each lot, 8. Proposed monumentation; 9. Proposed location and description of all water system improvements, including all proposed fire hydrants; 10. Proposed location and description of all sewer system improvements, including profiles, and, if needed, all pump stations and their connections to the existing system; 11. Proposed location and description of all stormwater management system improvements; 12. Proposed street cross-sections, showing proposed bicycle and pedestrian pathways and sidewalks (if applicableh 13. Proposed type and location of street lighting (if applicable) 14. Proposed type and location of landscaping (if applicable), 15. Proposed location and typical cross-section of trails (if applicable); 16. Proposed location and description of transit stops and shelters (if gpplicable); 17. Proposed restrictions or conditions on development (if applicable). Upon review of an application, the director and/or public works director may require additional pertinent information as needed to satisfy any re ug latoa requirements. 18.22.050 Approval criteria. In addition to the review criteria provided in Chapter 20.01 PTMC, the following criteria are the minimum measures by which each proposed unit lot subdivision will be considered: A. Unit lot subdivisions shall be aiven nreliminary annroval. including nreliminary annroval subject to conditions, upon finding by the city that all the following have been satisfied: 1. The proposed unit lot subdivision conforms to all apl2licable city, state and federal zoning, land use, environmental and health regulations and plans, including, but not limited to, the following: 44 a. Port Townsend comprehensive plan; b. Port Townsend zoningcode; c. Engineering design standards; d. Critical Areas Ordinance (Chapter..! PTMC 2. Utilities and other public services necessary to serve the needs of the proposed unit lot subdivision shall be made available, includingopaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, potable water, transit facilities, sanitary sewers, parks, playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other improvements that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; 3. Conservation of existing trees, and/or the planting of new trees, shall be provided consistent with Chanter 111.06 PTMC. Article III. Standards for Tree Conservation: 4. The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed unit lot subdivision, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts, have been considered such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment, in accordance with Chapter 19.04 PTMC and Chapter 4:�1 �.21 C RCW; ............................................... 5. Approving the proposed unit lot subdivision will serve the public use and interest and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and general welfare. B. Notwithstanding, approval criteria set forth in subsection A, in accordance with RCW 5 ,,.,,17,._120 ' as now adopted and hereafter amended, a proposed unit lot subdivision may be denied as of flood, inundation or swamp conditions. Where any portion of the proposed unit lot subdivision lies within both a flood control zone, as specified by Chapter ! 2.....95 PTMC and Chapter.86.16 RCW, and either the one percent flood hazard area or the regulatory floodway, the city shall not approve the preliminary unit lot plat unless it imposes a condition requiring the applicant to comply with Chapter 19.0 PTMC and any written recommendations of the Washington Department of Ecology. In such cases, no development permit associated with the proposed unit lot subdivision shall be issued by the city until flood control problems have been resolved. 18.22.060 Unit lot plat review process. A. An application for a unit lot subdivision smaller than five acres in area shall be processed according to the procedures for Type 11 land use decisions established in Chapter 20,01:. PTMC, Land Development Administrative Procedures. An application for a unit lot subdivision of five acres or greater shall be processed according to the Type III procedures. B. The director shall solicit comments from the public works director, fire chief or designee, local utility providers, police chief, building official, school district, adjacent jurisdictions, if the proposal is within one mile of another city or jurisdiction, Washington State Department of Transportation, if the proposal is adjacent to a state highwqy, and any other state, local or federal officials as may be necessary. C. Based on comments from city departments and applicable agencies and other information, the city shall review the application subject to the criteria of PTMC 1, ,,.,,�_ L06 . A proposed full subdivision shall only be when consistent with all the provisions of PTMC 18.16.060. D. An applicant for a full subdivision may request that certain requirements established or referenced by this chapter be modified. Such requests shall be processed accordingto the 45 procedures for variances in Chapter ,,�,,PTMC, and shall satisfy the criteria of Chapter 17,86 PTMC, Variances. 18.22.070 Preliminary abbroval. A. The Director or Hearing Examiner, as appropriate, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the preliminary unit lot subdivision within the applicable time requirements. This preliminary decision shall be in writing and shall set forth findings of fact supporting the decision. B. Preliminary approval or approval with conditions shall authorize the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final unit lot subdivision. 18.22.080 Modifications to an approved preliminary unit lot plat. Minor modifications to a previously approved preliminary plat, not involving the location or relocation of a lot, tract or parcel lot line and not involving the location or relocation of a street, may b�quested by the applicant and approved by the director subject to the provisions for Type I decisions in Chapter 2,0;,01 PTMC. Before approving such amendment, the director shall make written findings and conclusions that the following exist: 1. The modification will not be inconsistent or cause the subdivision to be inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and decision of the city approving the subdivision; 2. The modification will not cause the subdivision to violate any applicable city policy or regulation; 3. A subdivision may be modified only if the intent of its original conditions is not altered. A. Modifications which exceed the criteria above shall be processed as a new preliminary plat application. 18.22.090 Improvement method report. Following preliminary unit lot plat approval and approval of all plans and prior to submission of a final plat for the director's approval, the applicant shall submit to the director, three copies of a report describing the method by which the applicant proposes to carry out the minimum improvements required and the time within which such improvements will be completed. The applicant shall submit all design and construction drawings required in conformance with the engineering design standards. This improvement method report shall be signed b, t�pplicant and be accompanied by any applicable proposed performance guarantees. The director shall transmit two copies of the improvement method report with all drawings and other submittals to the public works director. Improvements may be made or guaranteed by either of the following methods, subject to the discretion and approval of the director: A. By actual installation and approval of all improvements in accordance with the preliminM plat, city engineering design standards, and approved construction drawings; B. By the formation of a local improvement district consistent with the provisions of applicable requirements of the city and the state and by requiringthe h�position of covenants as a condition of final plat approval requiring hat purchasers of any lots waive any protest to the formation and implementation of a local improvement district; C. By actually installing the minimum improvements as provided by the local improvement district laws of the state and the city, and in accordance with city standards and specifications and under the supervision of the public works director; 46 D. By furnishing to the city a plat or subdivision bond or cash deposit in escrow for the full cost of the improvements, or other security satisfactory to the director, in which assurance is given the city that the installation of the minimum improvements will be carried out as provided by plans submitted and approved and in accordance with city engineering design standards, and under the supervision of the public works director. The amount of the performance bond or other security shall be 120 percent of the estimated cost for the city to contract for construction of the improvements as determined by the public works director, and shall be of a duration in accordance with the engineering design standards. If the phased installation of improvements is proposed, the improvement method report shall describe the proposed phasing, the timing for construction, and proposed methods of guaranteeing and assuring the he city that adequate installation of improvements will occur in conformance with the phasing schedule; or E. By a combination of these methods. 18.16.100 Public works director's certificate of imbrovements. No permit for the construction of improvements within an approved subdivision shall be issued by the city until the improvement method report, all construction drawings, proposed performance guarantees, and other submittals in conformance with the engineering design standards have been received and approved by the public works director. All construction of improvements shall be inspected and approved in conformance with the engineering design standards. After completion of all required improvements or the guarantee of the construction of all required improvements, the public works director shall submit a certificate in triplicate to the director statin the he required improvements or guarantees are in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, the preliminary_ plat, includingthe he city's decision approving the plat, and in accordance with cit.�gineering design standards. The director shall transmit one cop of f the certification to the subdivider, together with a notice advising the subdivider to prepare a final plat for the proposed subdivision. One copy of the certificate shall be retained by the director. 18.16.110 Preparation of final unit lot plat. The final unit lot plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.16.120 PTMC. 18.16.120 Accompanying documents — Final unit lot plat, A. In cases where any deed covenants or restrictions, including any CC&Rs, will apply to lots or parcels within a subdivision, a typewritten copy of such covenants bearing all necessgU signatures shall be submitted along with the final plat. B. The final plat shall be accompanied by a complete survey of the section or sections in which the plat or replat is located, or as much thereof as may be necessary to properly orient the plat within such section or sections. The plat and section survey shall be submitted with complete field and computation notes, showingthe he original or re- established corners, with the descriptions of the same, and the actual traverse showing error or closure and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable etfor of closure shall not exceed one foot in 10,000 feet. C. The final plat shall be accompanied by a current (within 30 days) title company certification of - 1. £1. The legal description of the total parcel sought to be subdivided; 47 2. Those individuals or corporations holding an ownership interest or an,, other encumbrances affecting the title of said parcel. Such individuals or corporations shall sign and approve the final plat prior to final approval; 3. Any lands to be dedicated shall be confirmed as being owned in fee title by the owner(s) signing the dedication certificate; 4. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property to be subdivided with a description of purpose and referenced by the auditor's file number and/or recording number; and 5. If lands are to be dedicated or conveyed to the city as part of the subdivision, an A.L.T.A. title policy may be required by the public works director. D. The applicant shall provide the public works director with a computer disk containing a complete set of the final plat maps and as -built drawings on CADD© or other GIS - compatible software as acceptable to the public works director. E. All documents submitted under this section shall contain the name of the subdivision and the name and address of the subdivider. F. All maintenance, performance and guarantee bonds or other guarantees as may be required by the public works director in accordance with PTMC Titles 12 and ;13 and the improvement method report to guarantee the acceptability and/or performance of all public improvements. For all improvements constructed after final plat approval, reproducible as -built drawings and CADD© files shall be submitted within 15 days of completion of construction. 18.22.130 Final plat application. Application for a final unit lot plat shall be prepared and processed in accordance with Sectionl8.16.140 PTMC. 18.22.140 Time limitation on final unit lot plat submittal. Time limitations on final unit lot plats shall be in accordance with Section 18.16.150 PTMC 18.22.150 Effect of an approved final unit lot plat — Valid land use. Any lots in a final unit lot plat filed for record shall be a valid land use notwithstanding any change in zoning laws for a period of seven years from the date of filing. A unit lot subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances and regulations in effect on the date of preliminary unit lot plat approval for a period of seven years after final unit lot plat approval unless the city council finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety of residents within or outside the unit lot subdivision. 18.22.160 Distribution of copies and filing of final unit lot plat. The director shall distribute the original and copies of the approved plat in accordance with Section 18.16.170 PTMC. 18.22.170 Transfer of ownership following final unit lot plat approval. Whenever anyparcel of land lying within the city is divided under the provisions of this chapter, no person, firm, or corporation shall sell or transfer, or offer or advertise for sale or transfer, any such lot, tract or parcel without having first had an approved final plat for such subdivision filed for record. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that a final plat is fully certified and filed for record with the Jefferson County auditor prior to transferring ownership of an.. land. 48 18.22.180 Building and occupancy permits — Issuance after final unit lot plat approval. A. No building permit for a structure other than a temporary contractor's office or temporary storage building shall be issued for a lot or parcel within an approved subdivision prior to a determination by the fire chief or designee that adequate fire protection and access for construction needs exists. B. No building permit for a structure other than a temporary contractor's office or temporary storage building shall be issued for a lot or parcel within an approved subdivision until the applicant complies with the improvement method report, all requirements of the public works department's certificate of improvements, and all requirements of the final plat approval. C. No occupancy permit for a structure other than a temporary contractor's office or other approved temporary building shall be issued for a structure on a lot or parcel within an approved subdivision prior to final inspection and approval of all required improvements which will serve such lot or parcel, to the satisfaction of the public works director and city building official. 49 Exhibit EE 20.01.040 Project permit application framework (excerpt). These tables provide guidance to permit applications. In the event of a conflict between the table and a development code, the development code shall apply. Table 1- Permits/Decisions Type h Type I -A Type II Type III Type IV Type V Short Tin house Site-specific Binding site subdivisions, communities, rezones Permitted plans co, ttage unit lot preliminary full consistent with the uses not housing subdivisions subdivisions; Port Townsend less than one requiring developments unit lot Comprehensive acres notice of subdivisions of Plan, including application one acre or Final plats' rezones/alternative (e.g., building R Yffiajerg eater plat parcel -specific permits, etc.) R 11 ajid III CUP eettagevacations, zones considered - � including short in conjunction Tiny house as h6t1Sifi9 developm employer subdivisions that with the annual involve right -of- comprehensive ADU provided way vacations or plan amendment housing plat alterations process 50 Exhibit A Section 17.08.020 A through D "Conditional (special) use, minor" means a conditional use which: 1. Is to be established and conducted entirely within an existing building, or conducted entirely within an accessory structure not exceeding 120 square feet in building coverage and 10 feet in height; or 2. Child care centers requiring no new construction other than an outdoor play area and parking improvements. 3. Employer -Provided Housing in new or existing structures or tiny houses on wheels. "Dwelling, single-family attached" means a duplex, triplex,of fourplex, or townhouse or rowhouse units as defined by this title. Commented [EB1]: Changed from" his" or" her" to "their" Exhibit B Section 17.08.040 E through Q "Guest house"/"detached bedroom" means a detached building used as sleeping quarters with a bathroom but without a kitchen located on the same lot with a primary residence Prifleipa1 ungiand OeOtipied IfOr- a,o S610 ..So ,.r i o "F the f ".'i" tefnPO..""„ ""oSt` Or-per-SO14SI Commented [EB21: Scriveners edit an aeeessofy use to a single family dwelling. "Parcel, parent" means those lots, parcels or tracts of land existing at the time of application for development from which all subsequent lots, parcels or tracts are created. Exhibit C Section 17.08.060 R through V "Subdivision, Unit Lot" is a subdivision process by which boundary lines and use areas are defined within a larger "parent"' lot to establish individual sellable lots, allowing for the creation of fee simple lots for townhome and cottage housingdevelopments. "Tiny house community" means real property eente d ^" held * +^v ���*Ise ethers for Lthe CCommented [EB3]: Scrivener s edit.7 placement of tiny houses on wheels utilizing the binding site plan process in RCW 58.17.035. "Tiny house on wheels (THOW)" or "moveable tiny house" means a dwelline no larger than 400 sf, not including lofts, on a wheel chassis to be used as permanent housing with provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation built in accordance with ANSI 119.5. "Townhouse or rowhouse" means multiple, single-family dwelling units in a row comprising a single building in which each dwelling unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no dwelling unit is located over another unit, and each dwelling unit is separated from any other dwelling unit by one or more vertical common fire-resistant walls. For purposes of this title, townhouses or rowhouses of five or more residential units are considered multifamily dwellings for the propose of design review requirements. See also "Duplex," "Triplex," "Fourplex," "Dwelling, single-family attached, " and "Dwelling, multifamily." "Transient accommodations" see "short-term rental' Exhibit D 17.16.020 Permitted, conditional and prohibited uses — Accessory dwelling units. C. Accessory Dwelling Units — Limitations on Use. One Two accessory dwelling units (ADU) may be established e*ly as an accessory use to a single-family, detached residence (and eifi..,rry not including a duplex, t,iple., o f� provided the following conditions are continuously met: 1. A certificate of occupancy pursuant to the currently adopted city construction codes shall be obtained from the building official and posted within the ADU. The code inspection and compliance required to obtain a certificate of occupancy in an existing building shall be restricted to the portion of the building to be occupied by an ADU and shall apply only to new construction rather than existing components, except that any high hazards (i.e., smoke detectors, fire exits, stairways, LP gas appliances and fire separation) shall be corrected. Where additional fire separation is unduly burdensome, the building official may authorize a fire alarm system in lieu of required fire separation. 2. Neither the main nor accessory dwelling units shall be used as a short term rental, except as provided for in PTMC 17.57.020(B)(2). 3. ADUs established in an outbuilding shall not exceed 800 square feet in floor area and ADUs established within or attached to the primary residence shall not exceed 1,000 square feet, and under no circumstance shall the total lot coverage of the primary residence along with the ADU exceed the standard allowed in the underlying zoning district. 4. of the pr-imafy r-esidenee shall have only one exterior entfanee. 4.5. An ADUs may be established in a residence or outbuilding that is legal, nonconforming with respect to required setbacks if entrances are no closer than five feet to neighboring property lines, and if each side window that is closer than five feet to a side property line and that is also closer than 20 feet to either the front or rear property line is permanently glazed with translucent material; provided, that the director may permit an entrance as close as three feet to a neighboring property line upon a finding that no feasible alternative exists. 5. ADUs may be established as an accessory use to an existing single-family, detached residence that is a ler?al non -conforming use. 6. ADUs may be configured as a duplex structure when detached from primary residence. Exhibit E Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable ISTRICT R -I R -II R -III R -IV APPLICABLE REGULATIONS/NOTES Single -Family Residential Uses Accessory dwelling P P P X PTMC 17.16.030, Bulk, dimensional and units density requirements. For ADU's in the R - III zone, the ADU shall be counted toward the maximum housing density as provided in PTMC 17.16.030. Each primary residence is limited to no more than 2 detached accessory living units. This may be comprised of a combination of detached ADU s and/or uest bedroom(s). Rows 3-9 STET Single-family dwellings P P P P PTMC 17.16.030, Bulk, dimensional and (including duplexes, density requirements. Single-family triplexes, aftd dwellings in the R -1V zone are limited to fourplexes, and fouiplexes or townhouses or rowhouses. townhouses or A duplex structure may be constructed owhouses of up to four along a zero lot line provided the structure nits which meet the complies with building code fire base density separation requirements Other housing requirements of the types proposing units in individual applicable district) ownership will require a unit lot subdivision or binding site plan. Duplex, triplex, or P P P P PTMC 17.16.030 Bulk dimensional and Idensity requirements apply. fou lex conversion of detached sin le-famil Housing es proposing units in individual homes ownership will require a unit lot subdivision or binding site plan. Townhouses or X P P P Ch. 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily Residential owhouses zero lot Development Standards; and PTMC lines of five or more 17.16.030, Bulk, dimensional and density requirements. units Housing es proposing units in individual ownership will require a unit lot subdivision or binding site plan. Cottage housing EP P P X Ch. 17.34 PTMC, Cottage Housing developments Development Design Standards; Ch. 17.46 PTMC, Commercial, Multifamily, Cottage Housing Developments, and Mixed Use Architectural and Site Design Review Processes; Ch. 18.20 PTMC, Binding Site Plans; Ch. 19.06 PTMC, Article III — Standards for Tree Conservation. Transient use of single- X X X X See PTMC 17.08.060, "Short term rentals family residential uses pian.." (including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes and cottage housing) Tiny Home on Wheel X_ X C X Conditional Use Permit subject to Cha ter Communit 17.58. Rows 17-41 STET Accessory Uses Rows 43-45 STET Guest House/Detached bedroom P P X X See definition in PTMC 17.08.030. Each primary residence is limited to no more than 2 detached accesso a livinR units. This may be comprised of a combination of detached ADU s and/or guest bedroom(s). Rows 47-80 STET Exhibit F Table 17.16.030 Residential Zoning Districts – Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements DISTRICT R -I R -II R -III R -IV STET STET STET STET STET STET MINIMUM 20' except: REAR YARD 50' barns and SETBACKS agricultural 10' except: buildings, and TOO'– barns and 15' except: 100' if abutting agricultural an R -II, R-TII, buildings 10' except: 20' if directly or R -IV zoning 5' for ADUs no setback for abutting an district provided the rear multifamily R- TT district; no t; no 5' for ADUs structures located setback for multifamily property line provided the does not abut a within 200' of an structures located street right of rear property abutting mixed within 200' of an line does not way and the use zoning abutting mixed abut a street ADU has no district right of way and door or garage use zoningdistrict the ADU has no door facing rear door or garage property line door facing rear property line MINIMUM SIDE I, c, —15' n, ,. faifa m 5' except: 15' except: YARD . ith total with .. ,, 10' along a 20' if directly SETBACKS minimum of 5- minimum of 5- street r -o -w; 20' abutting an R -I or feet on either feet on either side for garages with R- IT district; no side 4-W t O'mininitim e vehicle access setback for P ^idP A41 facing a street multifamily ORP qedP, A41d 51 ffliniffittm on *' right- of -way and structures located on t OtheF side. no setback for within 200' of an other- side. 10' = abutting a multifamily abutting mixed Commented IEBMI: Council motion to modify minimum setbacks to 5 -feet on each side. Strikeout of 15 feet minimum total. [�.mmented [EBS]: Scrivener's edit to remove strikeout "si" 10' = abutting a street r -o -w; 20' for garages with vehicle access street r -o -w; 20' for garages with vehicle access facing a street structures located within 200' of an abutting mixed use zoning district facing a street right-of-way and right-of-way and 100' = barns and use zoning district 50'— barns and agricultural agricultural buildings and 100' if abutting buildings 5' for ADUs with no door or garage an R -II, R -III, or door facing suede property line R -IV zoning district 5' for ADUs with no door or garage door lacin;; side property line STET 25% -except 40% 35% except 40% 45% 50% MAXIMUM LOT where an ADU where an ADU is is included in COVERAGE included in the the lot lot STET [�.mmented [EBS]: Scrivener's edit to remove strikeout "si" Exhibit G 17.16.030 Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements B Exceptions I . Outbuildings: The rear setbacks provided in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to accessory structures smaller than 120 square feet in building coverage and 10 feet in height; provided, that all such accessory structures shall be a minimum of five feet from rear lot and/or property lines. 2. ADUs: The maximum density provisions in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to accessory dwelling units in the R -T and R -TT zoning districts. 3. Conversion of single-family: The maximum density provisions in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to conversion of a detached single-family dwelling unit into a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. 10 Exhibit H Table 17.20.020 Commercial Zoning Districts — Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses (Excerpt) DISTRIC C-1 C-11 C- C- APPLICABLE T II(H) IH REGULATIONS/NOTES Rows 1-46 STET RESIDENTIAL USES PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, density and dimensional requirements; and Chapter 17.36 PTMC, Apartment houses X P X P Multifamily Residential Development Standards, and permitted on upper floors only. Boarding houses (six or fewer roomers) and lodging and rooming X P X P Same as above. houses (seven or more roomers) PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, dimensional and density Homeless shelters X C C C requirements. The director may authorize a waiver of the basic permit fee. PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, density and dimensional requirements; and Chapter 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily dwellings X P X P Multifamily Residential Development Standards, and permitted on upper floors only. PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, dimensional and density Owner/operator/employee P P p p requirements; such uses shall only residences be allowed if clearly subordinate and accessory to a primary 11 12 commercial use and permitted on upper floors only. Employer-provided PTMC 17.64 standards for housing X X C X employer-provided housing P TMC 17.20.030, Bulk, Residential treatment X X P X dimensional and density facilities requirements. Tiny House Communities X C X X PTMC 17.58 12 Exhibit I Table 17.20.030 Commercial Zoning Districts — Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements (Excerpt) DISTRICT C -I C -II C -Ii H C -III Owner/operator/ Owner/operator Residences employer - residences allowed above provided allowed and the ground floor, residences Residences SIDENTIAL residences above or as part of a allowed above allowed above EQUIREMENTS commercial uses development ground floor the ground floor allowed subject to combining commercial uses the requirements residential with subject to the below commercial uses requirements below ows# 2-11 STET 13 Exhibit J Table 17.22.020 Marine -Related and Manufacturing Districts — Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses DISTRICT MI M M-1I(A) M- III- APPLICABLE C I IIB III REGULATIONSAOTES Rows 1-55 STET RESIDENTIAL USES Residential quarters as an accessory use (i.e., guard's quarters in large establishments, PTMC 17.22.030, Bulk, where such quarters P P P P P dimensional and density are customarily requirements. provided for security and/or insurability of the premises) PTMC 17.64 standards for Employer-provided C C C C C employer-provided housing housing Rows 59-88 STET - 14 Exhibit K Table 17.24.020 Public, Park, and Open Space Zoning Districts — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses (Excerpt) Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable DISTRIC P/OS P/OS( P -i APPLICABLE T B REGULATIONS/NOTES Rows 1-27 STET Other facilities designated as The siting of "essential public essential public facilities by facilities" cannot be precluded the Washington State Office X X C by development regulations of Financial Management under RCW 36.70A.200. PTMC 17.64 standards for Employer-provided housing X C C "Employer- provided housing" Residential quarters as an accessory use (i.e., guard's quarters in large establishments, where such P P P quarters are customarily provided for security and/or insurability of the premises) Lines 31-49 STET is Exhibit L Table 17.31.030 Commercial Zoning District — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not aDDlicable Use Type C-II(S) Specific Use Standards Residential Cottage House X Refer to PTMC 17.31.150, Bulk, dimensional and lot standards by building type, for regulations pertaining to applicable residential building types. Dwelling, Multifamily Apartment House: Small P Apartment House: Large P Townhouse/Rowhouse P Dwelling, Single -Family Attached P Dwelling, Single -Family Detached X Dwelling, Live/Work P Owner/Operator Residences X Accessory Dwelling X Home Occupation X Chapter 17.56 PTMC, Home Occupations Homeless Shelters C Nursing Homes P Tiny House Communities C Chapter 17.58 Rows 16-63 STET 16 Exhibit M 17.34.010 Purpose and intent. The general purposes of the cottage housing development design standards are as follows: A. A cottage housing development is an alternative type of detached housing providing small residences for households of typioall One *^ tlA ^ i^a^^dua, . Cottage housing is provided as part of the city's overall housing strategy which intends to encourage affordability, innovation and variety in housing design and site development while ensuring compatibility with existing neighborhoods, and to promote a variety of housing choices to meet the needs of a population diverse in age, income, household composition and individual needs. B. The cottage housing development design standards contained in this section are intended to create a small community of cottages oriented around open space that is pedestrian - oriented and minimizes the visibility of off-street parking. These design standards are intended to ensure that cottage housing developments include pedestrian amenities and take advantage of existing natural features on the site including topography and vegetation. The cottage housing development design standards are intended to maintain traditional cottage amenities and proportions and ensure that cottage housing developments contribute to the overall community character. Because there may be alternative designs that meet the objectives of the design standards, Chapter 17.46 PTMC provides an alternative design review process to consider other acceptable ways to accomplish the objectives of this section. C. Cottage housing may allow higher residential density than is normally allowed in the underlying zone district. This increased density is possible through the use of smaller than average home sizes, clustered parking, and site design standards. D. Gettage housing developments proposed in the R 1 zone are subjeet to speeial density recognize th-At I -and- laeated- in the -R -1 Zone is more likely to havethis develo must address stermwAef related e()HStFffiRtSeOntain or be loeated in elese proximity te .. tally sensitive ., eas, fi /of lack W11 ttf ban inff stftfetufe ., the time o Ao r*r. 1J. D. All cottage housing developments are subject to current city stormwater standards and shall incorporate stormwater low impact development techniques whenever possible. 17 Exhibit N 17.34.030 Density, number of cottage housing units and minimum lot area. A. In cottage housing developments the permitted densities shall be as follows: Zoning District R-1 Low Density R-11 Medium R -III Medium Residential Density Density Single -Family Multifamily Maximum Cottage 1 cottage dwelling 1 cottage dwelling 1 cottage dwelling Density unit per 5,000 sf unit per 1-2,500 sf unit per 1�„500 sf Minimum number of cottages subject to zoning base density 24 34 4 requirements Maximum number of cottages per cottage housing 8 12 14 development Minimum lot size (aeeemm ,, to 4 t ge) 120,000 sf 405,000 sf 10,000 sf 18 —'” Commented i0q. Scriveners Error fix to ensure 21 struck. Exhibit O 2. Eaves of a4 least 12 ittehes shall be pfavided an all b e s4fuetufes aft at least two sides of eaeh building. Whefe buildingg afe not 4quafe (one get of extefiot: pafallel walls af-e longef thEffl the otheF), the eaves shall be pfevided on the pafaliel walls that afe the leflgest. 19 Exhibit P 17.34.110 Cottage floor area. A. Objective. Structures in cottage housing developments shall be designed to be single story or sing le story pIUS a IOfY. Commented [EB7]: Strikeout language for consistency Ofte .,.,,7 r...,...ovS..« h,,..S01.,,1,7S .,..,7 their -,,,.,..,.,:,,,,,,1 guests. Maintaining the maximum SC]U1Ye with other stakeout language in cottage housing. .... ..... .... ..... .... .... footage of residences in cottage housing developments is necessary to prevent overbuilding of the site and to not exceed available off-street parking. 1. The maximum ground floor area for an individual principal structure in a cottage housing development shall be as follows: -A. VR_F at I -eat -4- -50 pereent ofthe units, the gratmd floor area may not exe-eed- 6_50 square- €ee. A The ground floor area may be up to 800 square feet. be. The net total floor area of each cottage shall not exceed one and one-half times the area of the main level. 20 Exhibit Q 17.34.120 Yards — Building setbacks from exterior lot lines. A. Objective. Exterior lot line building setbacks in cottage housing developments are based upon setbacks in the R -II zoning district. These yard setbacks are appropriate based upon the allowed density of cottage housing as well as the small size of the structures. Flexible setbacks are allowed per the discretion of the PCD and public works directors to obtain improved site design and to avoid impacting existing physical features on the site such as trees. 1. Front yard and street side yard on corner lots shall be 10 feet: a. Exception: The PCD director in consultation with the public works director may authorize the setback averaging from the public right-of-way. In such cases the setback average shall be 10 feet and at no point less than five feet where the location of all structures, landscaping and other improvements will not conflict with future improvements in the right-of-way. Fences may not be placed in the right-of-way and are subject to Chapter :1..:7.,.68.. PTMC. 2. Rear Yard Building Setback. The minimum rear yard shall be 54-0 feet afi alley, then the ffiinimuiffi setbaek shall be five fee . 3. Side Yard Building Setback — Interior Lot Lines. The minimum side yard setback shall be five feet for interior lot lines. 21 Exhibit R 17.34.140 Common open space. A. Objective. Open space that is commonly owned by all members of a cottage housing development is an important feature of any site design. It is intended that the open space be adequately sized and centrally located .Aith :44a^^a-i4' eottage en4ra- ees o44.oa tA-A.V rds the epen spffee• 1. Common Open Space. A minimum of 400 square feet per cottage unit of common open space is required. Parking areas, yard setbacks, spaces between buildings of 10 feet or less in width, private open space, and driveways do not quality as common open space. 2. Proximity to Common Open Space. a. At least 50 percent of the cottage units shall abut a common open space, all of the cottage units shall be within 60 feet walking distance measured from the nearest entrance of the cottage along the shortest safe walking route to the nearest point of the common open space. The common open space shall have cottages abutting at least two sides. b. For the purposes of cottage housing, "common open space" shall be the central space that may be used by all occupants of the cottage complex. 22 Exhibit S 17.34.150 Private open space. A. Objective. Each residential unit in a cottage housing development shall be provided an area of private open space. The private open space shall separate the main en4ra ee to the eottage 4 -^— the eonim^^ open space to create a sense of privacy and shall be oriented to take advantage of solar orientation and other natural features to create a small but pleasant private yard area. The private open space may be separated from the common open space with a small hedge, picket fence, or other similar visual separation to create a sense of separate ownership. 1. Each cottage unit shall be provided with a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private open space sepafated f the eommon open spaee b a hedge t: fi o of to exeeed 36 ,.hpg it height 2. No dimension of the private open space shall be less than eight feet. 23 Exhibit T 17.34.180 Off-street parking. A. Objective. Off-street parking space requirements for cottage housing developments shall be less than normally required for detached single-family residences. These reduced standards are based upon the cottages being smaller than average detached single-family homes and on average containing fewer occupants. Off-street parking shall be located and designed to be less visible from frontage streets than the cottages themselves. Off-street parking shall be designed to maintain a pedestrian character for the overall cottage housing development. Clustering parking to the side or rear of a cottage project will most often best accomplish these goals. However, on a site-specific basis, design solutions other than clustering may be found to meet this objective through the alternative design process. Parking areas shall be attractively landscaped to screen parking from adjacent properties and street rights-of-way and shall meet applicable parking lot landscape standards. 2. Off -Street Parking Location. Parking shall be located on the cottage housing development property. Off-street parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of the cottage housing development (see illustrations below). Subject to the site design administrative review approval process, parking may be adjacent to cottage units. Parking lots shall not be located between the cottage housing development and the primary street frontage. a. Off -Street Parking Screening. Off-street parking may be located in or under a noncottage parking structure (such as a single or multi -auto carport or garage), but such structures shall not be attached to individual cottages. Uncovered parking is also permitted; provided, that off-street parking shall be screened from direct street view from one or more street facades by garage doors, or by a fence and landscaping. b. Preferred locations for parking, in descending order of preference, are as follows: 24 i. To the rear of cottage housing units accessed by an alley. Alley parking spaces ,.w �....1mm [J 1Gl • c+rm vd o Y6411"n."W% Inp swatkergA� ii. To the side of the cottage housing units access by a private driveway. Wj,bh ing IVAS 0" I.,,,,,,,,,,NI � F1 I I 'wrMnr vb' rg �1� FA........ iii. Parking on the side (nonprimary street) screened from the side street by either garage doors, landscaping, and/or fencing. 11 * NIX11rrinnaryrsOM oa f y 84pakaq wuVW asILAges za W*;�eg;+C 111r1� PWr imary .u8'mF;i .....,...................... ......... ........ 9"mer 25 Exhibit U 17.34.190 Exterior lighting and heating/cooling equipment noise. A. Objective. Cottage housing developments should be designed to minimize light and noise impacts both within the development and to adjacent properties. 1. Where provided, exterior lighting shall be mounted as low as possible, pointed downward, and the light source shall be shielded from direct observation from above, adjacent properties, and public rights-of-way. Lighting "spillover" to adjacent properties shall be avoided. 2. Heating (and cooling, if applicable) equipment for cottage housing developments shall be designed to cause little or no noise impacts within the development and to adjacent properties. To help p nt neise fobl,..., heat pwnps shall not bei .a fi3f eet4age 26 Exhibit V 27 Exhibit W 17.34.210 Ownership and residential use of cottages. A. All cottage housing developments shall be developed utilizing the procedures of Ch 18.22 Unit Lot Subdivisions or Chapter 18.20 PTMC, Binding Site Plans, except that an association, cooperative or other similar ownership technique may be substituted for the requirement of residential condominiums. Appropriate documentation of formal legal ownership of the development shall be recorded with the Jefferson County auditor's office. 28 Exhibit X 17.34.220 Alternative site design. It is possible that an alternative design may fulfill the intent of this chapter while not complying with the provisions herein. Requests for alternative designs shall be processed administratively. Committee review shall be available at the developer's request. ptifstiant ta Housing Developments, and Mixe Use mid Quo i)P,,;i 41 Revs e.. PFOOesses 29 Exhibit Y 17.46.030 Applicability and permit review process — Standards. Unless otherwise subject to the historic design review process in Chapter 17.30 PTMC, Historic Preservation Code, all projects in the C-1, C-11, C-II(H), C-1/MU, and C-II/MU zones, cottage housing developments, as well as multifamily projects in any zone regardless of their location or form of ownership shall be subject to the design review process contained within this chapter and processed in accordance with the permit review process in Chapter 20.01 PTMC as set forth below: A. Type IA — Administrative Review Pursuant to PTMC 17.46.060. 1. Commercial and Mixed Use Projects. a. New buildings, canopies or other structures that exceed 1,000 square feet and are less than 4,000 square feet in size or no more than two stories above grade; or b. Buildings, canopies, or other structures, the expansions of which either: i. Exceed 1,000 square feet in size and are less than 4,000 square feet; or ii. Comprise a ground floor expansion exceeding 50 percent of an existing building's ground floor square footage; or c. Substantial alterations of existing structures, where the existing structure exceeds 1,000 square feet and is less than 4,000 square feet; or d. Alterations to exterior facades of buildings (including but not limited to new or altered exterior electrical or mechanical systems such as pole -mounted or other light fixtures) excepting that ordinary (i.e., nonemergency) maintenance and repair activities may be granted a waiver of design review by the director. All work, even that qualifying for a waiver from the review process, must be conducted in accordance with applicable code requirements, including architectural design standards of Chapter 17.44 PTMC. 2. Multifamily Projects. a. Including construction of apartments, townhouses, row houses or other forms of multifamily housing containing five to nine units; or b. Alterations to the exterior facades of buildings (including but not limited to new or altered exterior electrical or mechanical systems such as pole -mounted or other light fixtures) excepting that ordinary (i.e., nonemergency) maintenance and repair activities may be granted a waiver of design review by the director. All work, even that qualifying for a waiver from the review process, must be conducted in accordance with applicable code requirements, including architectural design standards of Chapter 17.36 PTMC. 3. Cottage Housing Developments. All tiew cottage housing developments and alterations to the exterior facades of buildings which are visible from adjacent properties or rights-of-way (including but not limited to new or altered exterior electrical or mechanical systems such as pole -mounted or other light fixtures) excepting that ordinary (i.e., nonemergency) maintenance and repair activities may be granted a waiver of design review by the director. All work, even that qualifying for a waiver from the review process, must be conducted in accordance with applicable code requirements, including architectural design standards of Chapter 17.34 PTMC. B. Type Il — Administrative Review with an Advisory Committee Pursuant to PTMC 17.46.070. 30 All projects which include requests for departure pursuant to PTMC 17.46.080. All projects in all applicable districts exceeding the following thresholds are further subject to administrative review with the design review advisory committee: a. Any new building canopy or other structure with a ground floor exceeding 4,000 square feet in size; or b. Any new building with more than two stories above grade, or any expansion creating more than two stories above grade; or c. Any building containing 10 or more dwelling units; or d. Substantial alterations of existing structures, where the existing structure exceeds 5,000 square feet of ground floor area or otherwise exceeds categorical exemption limits of SEPA (Chapter 19.05 PTMC); or e. Any project where the PCDD director determines that the proposed design has generated strong public interest, or is proposed for a sensitive or highly visible site; the director may require that review with the advisory committee is warranted. 3. Cottage housing developffients in the R 11 of R W b . 17.46.070. Cottage housing developments in "J., R, I distfiet shall be pfocesse C. Standards to Be Applied. Applications for design review shall be subject to the site design and architectural design standards of this title as follows: Commercial and mixed use projects Chapter 17.44 PTMC Subject to a combined single review for Commercial or mixed use projects with five compliance with Chapters 17.36 and 17.44 or more residential units PTMC. No additional fee will be charged above that required for review Multifamily development in any zoning Chapter 17.36 PTMC district Cottage housing development Chapter 17.34 PTMC, Cottage Housing Development Design Standards Note: For development that is subject to historic design review process see Chapter 17.30 PTMC, Historic Preservation Code. 31 Exhibit Z Chapter 17.58 Tiny Houses on Wheels and Tiny House on Wheel Communities 17.58.010 Purpose and Intent 17.58.020 Definition Tiny House on Wheels 17.58.030 Design Standards 17.58.040 Accessory Dwelling Units 17.58.050 Tinv House on wheel Communities 17.58.010 Purpose and Intent Theeg neral purpose of this section on tiny houses on wheels and tiny house communities is to: A. Permit tiny houses on wheels as accessory dwelling units under certain conditions in all residential districts where detached accessory dwelling units are allowed. B. Permit tiny house communities in the C -II and C -IIS districts, subject to the standards of those districts and those of Section 17.58.030 to ensure development of this type iseg nerally compatible with surrounding uses. C. Permit tiny houses on wheels as employer-provided housing per Chapter 17.64, 17.58.020 Definition Tiny House on Wheels A tiny house on wheels is a structure no larger than 400 square feet, excluding loft area space, intended for separate, independent living quarters, designed as apermanent, year-round residence for one household that meets these five conditions: A. Is licensed and registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and is constructed and certified to building and inspection standards in 17.58.030; B. Is towable by a bumper hitch, frame -towing hitch, or fifth -wheel connection, and is not designed to move under its own power, C. Is no larger than allowed for movement on public highways; D. Has at least 150 square feet of first floor interior living space and unit does not exceed 16 feet in height, E. Is a detached self-contained unit which includes basic functional areas that support normal daily routines including cooking, sleeping, and sanitation. 17. 58.030 Design Standards A. Tiny Houses on wheels must be built to meet requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Al 19.5. Such standards shall include standards for the installation of beating, electrical systems and fire and life safety. in addition, tiny houses on wheels must meet these standards: 32 1. Insulation to a minimum of R-13 in walls and floors and R-19 in ceiling; 2. Residential grade insulated doors and windows, with windows to be as minimum double -pane and of tempered or laminated safety glazing ; 3. Full trim surrounds for all exterior windows and doors. 4. Roof pitch of at least 442-2:12 5. Roofing materials of 20-yearphalt composite shingle or better, minimum Class A 6. Electrical system that meets NFPA 70 NEC, section 551 or 552 as applicable; 7. Low Voltage Electrical systems meet the requirements of ANSI/RVIA Low Voltage Standard, current edition; and 8. Wall framing studs are 24" on center maximum, with a minimum of 2X4 wood or metal studs or equivalent SIP panels; 9. Mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the structure and not located on the roof. B. Certification. Tiny houses on wheels shall be inspected and certified for compliance with the additional requirements in this ordinance and ANSI 119.5 standards as follows: 1. Under RCW 43.22.355 for compliance with ANSI 119.5 standards; and 2. By a licensed Washington State design professional, architect or engineer for compliance with Design Standards of 17.58.030 above. C. Utilities. Tiny houses on wheels shall be connected to municipal approved water, sewer and electric utilities D. Foundation. Tiny houses on wheels shall incorporate the following foundation elements: 1. The undercarriage (wheels, axles, tongue and hitch) shall be hidden from view with fire retardant skirting surrounding the entire unit. 2. The wheels and leveling or support jacks must sit on a paving surface such as concrete or decomposed granite sufficient to hold the weight of unit on wheels and 'at cks. 33 17.58.040 Accessory Dwelling Units As of July 1", 2023, tiny houses on wheels are permitted as accessory dwelling units in R -I, R -I1, and R-111 districts subject to the provisions of Section 17.16.020 PTMC and the requirements below: A. Review. Tiny houses on wheels shall be subject to a Type I review. B. Entrv. To meet egress requirements_ a front Dorch annroved by the Citv is required C. Separation. A tiny house on wheels shall be located at a fire separation distance of at least ten (10) feet from any other structures on the premises. D Appearance. To maintain the character of residential areas, a tiny house on wheels shall be designed to look like a conventional residential structure rather than a recreational vehicle. This shall be done by incorporating design features and materials typically used for houses, such as typical siding or roofing materials, pitched roofs, residential windows. E Addressing. All tinv houses on wheels must obtain separate address aooroval the Citv for the unit F Utility Connection. A tiny house on wheels must have a permitted and permanent connection to all applicable municipal utilities. 17.58.050 Tinv House on wheel Communities As of July 1", 2023, tiny houses on wheels communities permits may be authorized in concert with a binding site plan that meets the following requirements: A. Intensity. There shall be a minimum of four tiny houses and maximum of 12 tiny houses per tiny house community. C. Centralized common area. The common open space area shall include usable public spaces such as lawn. gardens. Datios. plazas or scenic viewing area. with all houses having access to it Commented [EB81: Added clarity in which zones frontage setbacks would be required. 1. Two hundred square feet of usable common open space is required per unit. 2. Fifty percent of units shall have their main entry on the common open space. 3. Setbacks shall not be counted towards the usable common open space calculation. 4. The usable common open space shall be located centrally to the tiny house community. 5. Community buildings or clubhouses may be counted towards the common open space calculation. 6. Tiny houses shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides. 34 7. Common open space shall be located outside of stormwater/detention ponds, wetlands, streams, lakes, and critical area buffers, and cannot be located on slopes greater than ten percent. D. Standards. Tiny house communities shall comply with applicable bulk, dimensional, and density requirements for the district(s) in which they are located in addition to the standards below: A. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 1,250 square feet. In no case shall the project exceed the base density of the underlying zone. B. The maximum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 3,000 square feet. C. The maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 40 percent. D. Perimeter setbacks shall be no less than 10 feet along all exterior property lines. E. Tiny house and porches shall be set back no less than five feet from the usable common open space. F. No structure or portion thereof shall be closer than five feet to any neighboring structure. G. Maintenance of open space and utilities. Before approval is granted, the applicant shall submit covenants, deeds and homeowners association bylaws or other documents guaranteeing maintenance and common fee ownership of public open space, community facilities, private roads and drives, and all other commonly owned and operated property_ These documents shall be reviewed and accompanied by a certificate from an attorney that they comply with the requirements of this chapter prior to approval. Such documents and conveyances shall be accomplished and be recorded, as applicable, with the county auditor as a condition precedent to the granting of occupancy or the filing of any final plat of the property or division thereof, except that the conveyance of land to a homeowners association may be recorded simultaneously with the filing of a final plat. H. Tiny houses on wheels (THOW) in tiny house communities must comply with the following: 1. THOWs shall be placed in a designated area in the approved site plan of the pocket neighborhood. 2.At least 50 percent of the units shall abut a common open space, all of the units shall be within 60 feet walking distance measured from the nearest entrance of the unit along the shortest safe walking route to the nearest point of the common open space. 1. All THOWs shall meet the tie down and skirting requirements of the applicable building codes. The Building Official may require additional standards to ensure the porches hide any hitches. J. Applications for tiny house communities shall be processed according to Type III review. 35 Exhibit AA Chapter 17.64 Emplover-Provided Housing Sections 17.64.010 Purpose 17.64.020 Applicability 17.64.030 Criteria 17.64.040 Review Process 17.64.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to permit safe, healthy, and temporaryquarteringof f employees of institutional, marine -related, or manufacturing operations for up to one year, accommodating seasonal worker demand and providing employees an opportunity to reside in Port Townsend while seeking permanent housing_ 17.64.020 Applicability This chapter applies to the C-ll(H), M-II(A), M-ll(B), M-lll, P/OS(B), and P/1 districts, permitting employer-provided housing_ 17.64.030 Criteria Employer-provided housing shall be permitted under the following circumstances: A. Employer-provided housing shall comply with applicable bulk, dimensional and density requirements of the zoning district. B. Parking shall be provided in accordance with (Table 17.72.030 Commented PW. Scrivener's edit to correct citation C. Housing units ma be multi-familyor upper -story group quarters. Units may also be tiny houses on wheels, subject to the design standards of Chapter 17.58.030 and 050.1 � Commented [EB10]: Scrivener's edit to correct citation 17.64.040 Review process Applications for employer-provided housing shall be subject to a Type IT review process. 36 Exhibit BB Table 17.72.080 Vehicular and Bicycle Parking Standards (Excerpt) RESIDENTIAL USES Use Minimum Maximum Required Bicycle Required Permissible Spaces (minimum of Parking Spaces Parking two spaces if not listed) Spaces None Accessory dwelling moi, ed None None the first ADU. A units Adult family homes 2 None None See Pinar 17.3 4ian Nene Nefte Home occupations See PTMC 17.56.060 See PTMC See PTMC 17.56.060 17.56.060 Multifamily dwellings and mixed-use dwellings in the G111 zoned portions of the 1 space per unit None None Uptown National Landmark Historic District Multifamily dwellings 2 spaces, plus 1 space (including apartment I -25 -spaces per None per each 5 vehicle houses and townhouses dwelling unit parking stalls or row houses) Multifamily dwellings restricted to use for 2 spaces, plus 1 space seniors (i.e., 65 and 1 space per dwelling 2 spaces per p per each 10 vehicle unit dwelling unit older) and disabled parking stalls persons Residential treatment 1 space per each staff 2 spaces, plus 1 space facilities including member plus 1 space None per each 10 vehicle 37 group homes for the for each 5 residents parking stalls disabled Detached -9single- family dwellings (including manufactured and modular homes ft" 1 space per unit 1,200 gross sf in size or less 2 spaces per dwelling None None €e""', cottage unit over 1,200 gross sf houses4h-a4 meeting the in size. base density requirements of the applicable district) Duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes meeting base density 1 space per dwelling None None unit requirements of the applicable district 38 Exhibit CC Section 17.72.170 Parking Facilities — Landscaping B. Applicability. This section applies to all surface, off-street parking lots in the city of Port Townsend, excluding those that are accessory to single-family dwellings or multi -family dwellings of four or fewer units. For multi -family dwellings of four or fewer units adjoining public rights of way, provisions of PTMC 17.72.170(D)(1) and 17.72.170(D)2(a)(ii) shall apply. 39 Exhibit DD Chapter 18.22 Unit Lot Subdivisions Sections 18.22.010 Purpose 18.22.015 Scope 18.22.020 Application 18.22.030 Preliminary unit lot plat— Preparation 18.22.040 Preliminary unit lot plat — Contents 18.22.050 Approval criteria 18.22.060 Unit lot plat review process 18.22.070 Preliminary approval 18.22.080 Modifications to an approved preliminary unit lot plat 18.22.090 Improvement method report 18.22.100 Public works director's certificate of improvements 18.22.1 l0 Preparation of final unit lot plat 18.22.120 Accompanying documents — Final unit lot plat 18.22.130 Final plat application 18.22.140 Time limitation on final unit lot plat submittal 18.22.150 Effect of an apuroved final unit lot plat— Valid land use. 18.22.160 Distribution of copies and filing of final unit lot plat 18.22.170 Transfer of ownership following final unit lot plat approval 18.22.180 Building and occupancy permits — Issuance after final unit lot plat approval 18.22.010 Purpose. This chapter is established to provide an alternative to the traditional method of land division for creatine sellable lots for townhouse and cottage housing developments. The unit lot subdivision (ULS)process provides opportunities for fee -simple ownership of land. Unit lot subdivisions allow development on individual unit lots to avoid complying with typical dimensional standards if the parent lot conforms to all such development standards. 18.22.015 Scope A. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the unit lot subdivision of land for townhouse, cottage housingor r tiny house commtmity developments in zones where such uses are allowed. 40 B. As allowed by this chapter, development on individual unit lots within the unit lot subdivision need not conform to the minimum lot area or dimensional standards of Title 17 —Zoning Code, provided that overall development of the parent parcel meets the development and design standards of the underling and the requirements of this section. There shall be no minimum required lot area for individual lots within a unit lot subdivision, provided that the area of the unit lot shall be large enough to contain the dwelling unit and any accessory structures, decks, fences, mages, driveways, private yard areas, parking, landscaping or other improvements that are accessory to the dwelling unit; provided further, so long as conforming to the approved site development plan, such accessory improvements may encroach upon or be located in an adjoining unit lot or common area pursuant to an appropriate easement. C. Overall development of the parent lot shall meet the development and design standards of the underlying land use district. D. Access easements, joint use and maintenance agreements, and covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) identifying in the he rights and responsibilities of property owners and/or the homeowners' association must be executed for use and maintenance of common garage, parking and vehicle access areas, underground utilities; stormwater treatment and/or detention facilities; common open space; exterior building facades and roofs; and other similar features, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. E. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use the parking is formalized by an easement recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. 18.22.020 Application. To be considered complete, the application for a unit lot subdivision shall include the following: A. The application for approval of a unit lot subdivision shall be submitted on forms to be provided by the department along with the appropriate fees; B. A completed land use permit application form, including all materials required pursuant to PTMC 20.01.100, and including any application submittal requirements under Chapter 19.05 PTMC, Critical Areas, C. The area and dimensions of each proposed lot or parcel; D. Five paper copies of a preliminary unit lot plat meeting the standards and requirements of PTMC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050; E. The applicant shall submit a stormwater drainage plan in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 13.32 PTMC, including any soil test information as may be deemed necessary by the public works director; and F. The applicant shall state the estimated quantities of any fill to be exported from the site and imported to the site. 18.22.030 Preliminary unit lot plat — Preparation. The preliminary unit lot plat shall be prepared in accordance with the following requirements: A. The preliminary unit lot plat shall be prepared by a Washington State licensed engineer or land surveyor registered or licensed by the state of Washington. The preparer shall certify on the plat that it is a true and correct representation of the lands actually surveyed. The preparation of the plat shall comply with the Survey Recording Act, Chapter 58.09 ,5.8.... O RCW and Chapter .3.3.2:::..x.30 WAC as now adopted or hereafter amended. Upon surveying 41 the property, the surveyor shall place temporary stakes on the property to enable the city to locate and appraise features of the unit lot plat in the field. The datum to be used for all surveying and mapping shall be as follows: The projection name is the state plane; the projection spheroid is GRS 1980; the coordinate system is the Washington State Plane North Zone; and the horizontal datum is NAD 83. B. All geographic information portrayed by the preliminary unit lot plat shall be accurate, legible and drawn to a horizontal scale of 50 feet or fewer to the inch, except that the location sketch and typical street cross-sections may be drawn to any other appropriate scale. C. A preliminary unit lot plat shall be 18 inches by 24 inches in size, allowing one -half-inch borders, and if more than one sheet is needed, each sheet shall be numbered consecutively and an index sheet showing the entire property and orienting the other sheets, at any appropriate scale, shall be provided. In addition to other map submittals, the applicant shall submit one copy of each sheet reduced to 8-1/2 inches by 11-1/2 inches in size. If more than one sheet is required, an index sheet showing the entire subdivision with street and highway names and block numbers (if any) shall be provided. Each sheet, including the index sheet, shall be of the above specified size. D. The area of each proposed lot or parcel depicted on the preliminary unit lot plat map shall accurately show the location and dimension of each proposed lot or parcel. 18.22.040 Preliminary unit lot ulat — Contents. A. A preliminary unit lot plat shall be submitted on one or more sheets and shall provide the following information. All specifications for public improvements shall conform with the enlzineering design standards: 1. The name of the proposed unit lot subdivision together with the words "Preliminary Unit Lot Plat"; 2. The name and address of the applicant; 3. The name, address, stamp and signature of the professional engineer or professional land surveyor who prepared the preliminary unit lot plat; 4. Numeric scale (50 feet or fewer to the inch) graphic scale, true north point, and date of preparation; 5. Identification of all land, trees, and tree canopy intended to be cleared; the trees or tree canopy intended to be preserved per PTMC 19.06.120, Tree conservation standards; and the location of the proposed access to the site for clearing ndagx dine during site development and construction: and 6. A form for the endorsement of the director of PCDD, as follows: APPROVED BY CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND Planning and Community Development Date Department Director 42 B. The preliminary unit lot plat shall contain a vicinity sketch sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision with respect to surrounding property, streets, and other major manmade and natural features. C. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, the preliminary unit lot plat shall contain the following existing geographic features, drawn lightly in relation to proposed geographic features: 1. The boundaries of the property to be subdivided, and the boundaries of any adjacent property under the same ownership as the land to be subdivided, to be indicated by bold lines; 2. The names of all adjoining property owners, or names of adjoining developers; 3. All existing property lines lying within the proposed unit lot subdivision, including lot lines for lots of record which are to be vacated, and all existing property lines for any property ying within 200 feet of the subject property which is under the same ownership as the property to be subdivided (as described in PTMC 18.12.030(Cl) shall be shown in broken lines; 4. The location, right-of-way widths, pavement widths and names of all existing or platted streets, whether public or private, and other public ways within 200 feet of the property to be subdivided, 5. The location, widths and purposes of any existing easements lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 6. The location, size and invert elevations of sanitary sewer lines and stonnwater management facilities lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision or those which will be connected to as part of the proposed unit lot subdivision; 7. The location and size of existing water system facilities including all fire hydrants lying within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision or those which will be connected to as part of the proposed unit lot subdivision; 8. The location, size and description of any other underground and overhead facilities lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 9. The location of any environmentally sensitive areas as described in Chapter 19.05 PTMC, including all floodplains, lig within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 10. The location, size and description of all significant trees as defined in PTMC 18.04.060 lying within existing public rights-of-way to be improved within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 11. The location of existing sections and municipal corporation boundary lines lying, within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 12. The location of any well existing within the proposed unit lot subdivision, 13. Existing contour lines at intervals of five feet for average slopes exceeding five percent, or at intervals of two feet for average slopes not exceeding five percent. Existing contour lines shall be labeled at intervals not to exceed 20 feet. If applicable, indicate slopes equal to or greater than 15 to 25 percent, equal to or greater than 26 to 39 percent, and equal to or greater than 40 percent, by shading or color; 14. The location of any existing structures lying within the proposed unit lot subdivision. Existing structures to be removed shall be indicated by broken lines, and existing structures not to be removed shall be indicated by solid lines. 43 The preliminary unit lot plat shall show the following proposed geographic features: 1. The boundaries in bold solid lines of all proposed lots, the area and dimensions of each proposed lot, and the proposed identifying number or letter to be assigned to each lot and/or block; 2. The right-of-way location and width, the proposed name of each street, alley, or other public way to be created and the estimated tentative grades of such streets. Where roadways may exceed the maximum allowable grade or alignment, the public works director may require sufficient data, including centerline profiles and cross-sections if necessary, to determine the feasibility of said roadway; 3. The location, width and purpose of each easement to be created; 4. The boundaries, dimensions and area of public and common park and open space areas 5. Identification of all areas proposed to be dedicated for public use, together with the purpose and any condition of dedication; 6. Proposed final contour lines at intervals of five feet for average slopes exceeding five percent, or at intervals of two feet for average slopes not exceeding five percent. Final contours shall be indicated by solid lines. Contour lines shall be labeled in intervals not to exceed 20 feet; 7. The building envelopes, as defined in PTMC 18.04.060, shall be indicated for each lot 8. Proposed monumentation; 9. Proposed location and description of all water system improvements, including all proposed fire hydrants; 10. Proposed location and description of all sewer system improvements, including profiles, and, if needed, all pump stations and their connections to the existing system; 11. Proposed location and description of all stormwater management system improvements; 12. Proposed street cross-sections, showing proposed bicycle and pedestrian pathways and sidewalks (if applicable); 13. Proposed We and location of street lighting (if applicable), 14. Proposed type and location of landscaping (if applicable); 15. Proposed location and typical cross-section of trails (if applicable 16. Proposed location and description of transit stops and shelters (if applicable); 17. Proposed restrictions or conditions on development (if applicable). E. Upon review of an application, the director and/or public works director may require additional pertinent information as needed to satisfy any regulatory requirements. 18.22.050 Approval criteria. In addition to the review criteria provided in Chapter 20.01 PTMC, the following criteria are the minimum measures by which each proposed unit lot subdivision will be considered: A. Unit lot subdivisions shall be given preliminary approval, including preliminary approval subject to conditions, upon finding by the city that all the following have been satisfied: 1. The proposed unit lot subdivision conforms to all applicable city, state and federal zoning, land use, environmental and health regulations and plans, including, but not limited to, the following: 44 a. Port Townsend comprehensive plan; b. Port Townsend zoning code; C. Engineering design standards; d. Critical Areas Ordinance (Chapter j..9..05 PTMC 2. Utilities and other public services necessary to serve the needs of the proposed unit lot subdivision shall be made available, including open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, potable water, transit facilities, sanitary sewers, parks, playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other improvements that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; 3. Conservation of existing trees, and/or the planting of new trees, shall be provided consistent with Chapter .> 9..06 PTMC, Article III, Standards for Tree Conservation; 4. The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed unit lot subdivision, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts, have been considered such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment, in accordance with Chapter 1.9.04 PTMC and Chapter 4.x..:.2..1,.0 RCW; 5. Approving the proposed unit lot subdivision will serve the public use and interest and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and general welfare. B. Notwithstanding approval criteria set forth in subsection A, in accordance with RCW 5...,..7.'.7.....1.2.1), as now adopted and hereafter amended, a proposed unit lot subdivision may be denied because of flood, inundation or swamp conditions. Where any portion of the proposed unit lot subdivision lies within both a flood control zone, as specified by Chapter .➢..9 05 PTMC and Chapter 86.....:4.6 RCW, and either the one percent flood hazard area or the regulatory floodway, the city shall not approve the preliminary unit lot plat unless it imposes a condition requiringthe he applicant to comply with Chapter 'i 9.05 ............................ PTMC and any written recommendations of the Washington Department of Ecology. In such cases, no development permit associated with the proposed unit lot subdivision shall be issued by the city until flood control problems have been resolved. 18.22.060 Unit lot plat review process. A. An annlication for a unit lot subdivision smaller than five acres in area shall be nrocessed accordin to o the procedures for Type 11 land use decisions established in Chapter 20,..01..�._ PTMC, Land Development Administrative Procedures. An application for a unit lot subdivision of five acres or greater shall be processed according to the Type III procedures. B. The director shall solicit comments from the public works director, fire chief or designee, local utility providers, police chief, building official, school district, adjacent jurisdictions, if the proposal is within one mile of another city or jurisdiction, Washington State Department of Transportation, if the proposal is adjacent to a state highway, and any other state, local or federal officials as may be necessary. C. Based on comments from city departments and applicable agencies and other information, the city shall review the application subject to the criteria of PTMC J 816.....Yj6..O. A proposed full subdivision shall only be approved when consistent with all the provisions of PTMC 1...8..�..,4..6,.7 60. D. An applicant for a full subdivision may request that certain requirements established or referenced by this chapter be modified. Such requests shall be processed according to the 45 procedures for variances in Chapter OAM. PTMC, and shall satisfy the criteria of Chapter 17.86 PTMC, Variances. 18.22.070 Preliminary approval. A. The Director or Hearing Examiner, as appropriate, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the preliminM unit lot subdivision within the applicable time requirements. This preliminary decision shall be in writing and shall set forth findings of fact supporting the decision. B. Preliminary pproval or approval with conditions shall authorize the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final unit lot subdivision. 18.22.080 Modifications to an approved preliminary unit lot plat. Minor modifications to a previously approved preliminM plat, not involving the location or relocation of a lot, tract or parcel lot line and not involving the location or relocation of a street, may be requested b,, t�pplicant and approved by the director subject to the provisions for Type I decisions in Chapter Z0,.01 PTMC. Before approving such amendment, the director shall make written findings and conclusions that the following exist: 1. The modification will not be inconsistent or cause the subdivision to be inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and decision of the city approving the subdivision; 2. The modification will not cause the subdivision to violate any applicable city policy or regulation; 3. A subdivision may be modified only if the intent of its original conditions is not altered. A. Modifications which exceed the criteria above shall be processed as a new preliminary plat application. 18.22.090 Improvement method report. Following preliminary unit lot plat approval and approval of all plans and prior to submission of a final plat for the director's approval, the applicant shall submit to the director, three copies of a report describing the method by which the applicant proposes to carry out the minimum improvements required and the time within which such improvements will be completed. The applicant shall submit all design and construction drawings required in conformance with the engineering design standards. This improvement method report shall be signed by the applicant and be accompanied by any applicable proposed performance guarantees. The director shall transmit two copies of the improvement method report with all drawings and other submittals to the public works director. Improvements may be made or guaranteed by either of the following methods, subject to the discretion and approval of the director: A. By actual installation and approval of all improvements in accordance with the preliminar3� plat, city engineering design standards, and approved construction drawings; B. By the formation of a local improvement district consistent with the provisions of applicable requirements of the city and the state and by requiring the imposition of covenants as a condition of final plat approval requiringthat hat purchasers of any lots waive any protest to the formation and implementation of a local improvement district; C. By actually installing the minimum improvements as provided by the local improvement district laws of the state and the city, and in accordance with city standards and specifications and under the supervision of the public works director; 46 By furnishing to the city a plat or subdivision bond or cash deposit in escrow for the full cost of the improvements, or other security satisfactory to the director, in which assurance is given the city that the installation of the minimum improvements will be carried out as provided by plans submitted and approved and in accordance with city engineering design standards, and under the supervision of the public works director. The amount of the performance bond or other security shall be 120 percent of the estimated cost for the city to contract for construction of the improvements as determined by the public works director, and shall be of a duration in accordance with the engineering design standards. If the phased installation of improvements is proposed, the improvement method report shall describe the proposed phasing, the timing for construction, and proposed methods of guaranteeing and assuringthe he city that adequate installation of improvements will occur in conformance with the phasing schedule; or By a combination of these methods. 18.16.100 Public works director's certificate of improvements. No permit for the construction of improvements within an approved subdivision shall be issued by the city until the improvement method report, all construction drawings, proposed perfonnance guarantees, and other submittals in conformance with the engineering design standards have been received and approved by the public works director. All construction of improvements shall be inspected and approved in conformance with the engineering desigYn standards. After completion of all required improvements or the guarantee of the construction of all required improvements, the public works director shall submit a certificate in triplicate to the director stating the required improvements or guarantees are in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, the preliminary plat, including the city's decision approving the plat, and in accordance with city's en ing eerin�z design standards. The director shall transmit one copy of the certification to the subdivider, together with a notice advising the subdivider to prepare a final plat for the proposed subdivision. One copy of the certificate shall be retained by the director. 18.16.110 Preparation of final unit lot plat. The final unit lot plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.16.120 PTMC. 18.16.120 Accompanying documents — Final unit lot plat. A. In cases where any deed covenants or restrictions, including any CC&Rs, will apply to lots or parcels within a subdivision, a typewritten copy of such covenants bearing all necessary signatures shall be submitted alone with the final plat. B. The final plat shall be accompanied by a complete survey of the section or sections in which the plat or replat is located, or as much thereof as may be necessary to properly orient the plat within such section or sections. The plat and section survey shall be submitted with complete field and computation notes, showing the original or re- established corners, with the descriptions of the same, and the actual traverse showing eiTor or closure and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 10,000 feet. C. The final plat shall be accompanied by a current (within 30 days) title company certification of: 1. The legal description of the total parcel sought to be subdivided; 47 2. Those individuals or corporations holding an ownership interest or ani encumbrances affecting the title of said parcel. Such individuals or corporations shall sign and approve the final plat prior to final approval; 3. Any lands to be dedicated shall be confirmed as being owned in fee title by the owner(s) signing the dedication certificate; 4. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property to be subdivided with a description of purpose and referenced by the auditor's file number and/or recording number; and 5. if lands are to be dedicated or conveyed to the city as part of the subdivision, an A.L.T.A. title policy may be required by the public works director. The applicant shall provide the public works director with a computer disk containing a complete set of the final plat maps and as -built drawings on CADDC or other GIS - compatible software as acceptable to the public works director. All documents submitted under this section shall contain the name of the subdivision and the name and address of the subdivider. All maintenance, performance and guarantee bonds or other guarantees as may be required by public works director in accordance with PTMC Titles a2 and .13 and the improvement method report to guarantee the acceptability and/or performance of all public improvements. For all improvements constructed after final plat approval, reproducible as -built drawings and CADD© files shall be submitted within 15 days of completion of construction. 18.22.130 Final plat application. Application for a final unit lot plat shall be prepared and processed in accordance with Sectionl8.16.140 PTMC. 18.22.140 Time limitation on final unit lot Dlat submittal. Time limitations on final unit lot plats shall be in accordance with Section 18.16.150 PTMC 18.22.150 Effect of an approved final unit lot plat— Valid land use. Any lots in a final unit lot plat filed for record shall be a valid land use notwitbstanding any change in zoning laws for a period of seven years from the date of filing. A runt lot subdivision shall be governed by the teens of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances and regulations in effect on the date of preliminary unit lot plat approval for a period of seven years after final unit lot plat approval unless the city council finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety of residents within or outside the unit lot subdivision. 18.22.160 Distribution of copies and filing of final unit lot plat. The director shall distribute the original and copies of the approved plat in accordance with Section 18.16.170 PTMC. 18.22.170 Transfer of ownership following final unit lot plat approval. Whenever any parcel of land lying within the city is divided under the provisions of this chapter, no person, firm, or corporation shall sell or transfer, or offer or advertise for sale or transfer, any such lot, tract or parcel without having first had an approved final plat for such subdivision tiled for record. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that a final plat is fully certified and filed for record with the Jefferson County auditor prior to transferring ownership of any land. 48 18.22.180 Building and occupancy permits — Issuance after final unit lot plat approval. A. No buildingpermit for a structure other than a temporary contractor's office or temporary storage building shall be issued for a lot or parcel within an approved subdivision prior to a determination by the fire chief or designee that adequate fire protection and access for construction needs exists. B. No buildingpermit for a structure other than a temporary contractor's office or temporary storage building shall be issued for a lot or parcel within an approved subdivision until the applicant complies with the improvement method report, all requirements of the public works department's certificate of improvements, and all requirements of the final plat approval. C. No occupancy permit for a structure other than a temporary contractor's office or other approved temporary building shall be issued for a structure on a lot or parcel within an approved subdivision prior to final inspection and approval of all required improvements which will serve such lot or parcel, to the satisfaction of the public works director and city building official. 49 Exhibit EE 20.01.040 Project permit application framework (excerpt). These tables provide guidance to permit applications. In the event of a conflict between the table and a development code, the development code shall apply. Table 1 — Permits/Decisions Type h Type I -A Type Il Type III Type IV Type V Short Tiny house Site-specific Binding site subdivisions, communities, rezones' Permitted plans, cottage unit lot preliminary full consistent with the uses not housing subdivisions subdivisions; Port Townsend less than one requiring developments unit lot Comprehensive acres notice of subdivisions of Plan, including application one acre or Final plats rezones/alternative (e.g., building R 14*erg eater, plat parcel -specific permits, etc.) D 11 and MCUP cottage vacations, zones considered eot4age hattsiiig including short in conjunction Tiny house as dee "'ts ` employ that with the annual involve right -of- comprehensive ADUsubdivisions provided way vacations or plan amendment housing CUP plat alterations process 50 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 1 of 321 25WMadison Street, Suite 3| Port Townsend, WA 98368 1360.379.5095 1 woxv*citVofptus Cit—��"°m"~,`��°�� porto,� U � � DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO: City Council {C: Emma Bo|in,A|CP, Planning and Community Development0rector FROM: Lois Stanford, Chair, Port Townsend Planning Commission DATE: March 9,3033 RE: Tactical Infill Action Development Regulations Amendments. Findings of Fact 1) Proposal: The city of Port Townsend proposes amendments to various sections of the Municipal Code (described inExhibit Aand detailed inExhibit B)tofacilitate construction of"missing middle" housing types. The amendments relate to: o Definitions o Permitted residential uses in residential, mixed use, commercial, marine -related, manufacturing, and open space zoning districts o Accessory dwelling units o Cottage housing o Tiny houses onwheels o Employer-provided housing o Unit lot subdivisions o Off-street parking requirements o Bulk, dimensional and density requirements residential, mixed use, commercial districts o Permit procedures 2) Location: The proposed amendments will apply city-wide 3) Amendments tothe land use/development regulations are subject tV review under the State Environmental Policy Act (6EPA).OnMarch 1,3O23,the SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS)(D Exhibit Q. The SEPA comment period expires on March 16, 2023, No SEPA comments have been received to date. 4) The City must notify the WADepartment ofCommerce ofany proposed amendments bmthe comprehensive plan ordevelopment regulations. The City submitted the proposed amendments toCommerce onFebruary 1O,2O23 and requested expedited review. Dn February 14, 2023, the Department of Commerce received the City's expedited review request per WAC 365-196-630. The City is awaiting further response from Commerce; however, the request has not been denied. 5) Per PTIVICSection 2Ol4.O9OC.Planning Commission Review, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any text amendment to the land use code and make a recommendation to City Council, using the decision criteria set forth in PTMC 2O.04.O8O.|naccordance with 9TK8CSection 2O.O4.OQO(B),notice ofthe public hearing was posted and published onMarch 1,2O23. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 2 of 321 6) Meetings: Staff provided mnoverview ofthe proposed amendments, the Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled meetings of December 15, December 29, January 12, January 26, February 9, and February 23 (Exhibit E). The Planning Commission and City Council conducted ajoint workshop on February 13, 2023 (Exhibit F). 7) The Planning Commission conducted apublic hearing onMarch 9,JO23,io consider the amendments tuvarious Municipal Code sections related totactical infill housing. Commissioners considered written comments and public testimony received at the public hearing, as well as those offered at the previous meetings and work sessions as documented in the packet of meeting minutes (Exhibit E). Upon the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission assessed each item and formed its recommendation based on the evaluation criteria set forth in PTIVIC Section 20.04.080. Findings and Conclusions Planning Commission, byavote of7-U-O recommended approval ofthe revisions tovarious sections of the Municipal Code asdepicted in Exhibit A. This recommendation was based upon the following Criteria for Approval: a) Whether the amendment will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare |nany significant way. Finding: The SEPA Responsible Official has reviewed the proposed amendments and issued a Determination of Non -Significance (Exhibit Q. Conclusion: The Commission concludes that the proposed amendments will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in any significant way. b) Whether the proposed amendment bconsistent with the GK8Aand adopted county -wide planning policies. Finding: The Growth Management Act kSMA0contains 1]overall goals, one ofwhich pertains specifically toHousing: "Encourage the availability of affordable housing to a// economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock... (RCW36.70A.020(a)). This GK8AGoal is reflected in County -wide Planning Policy (CVVPP)#6. Each urban growth area (UGA) shall accommodate its fair share of housing affordable to low- and moderate -income households according to its percentage shore of the county population and by promoting a balanced mix ofdiverse housing types. The GMA also calls for the efficient use of land within urban growth boundaries, encouraging infill development and the construction of varied housing types which generate a more compact development pattern. As shown in more detail in subsection'e' below, the proposed amendments are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Port Townsend Tactical /nf ill Findings and Conclusions — March 2u2a Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 3 of 321 The Commission concludes that the proposed amendments are consistent with both the GK4Aand the CVVPPs. c) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values or resolves inconsistencies imthe city's comprehensive plan. Finding: Public comment through this process underscores the difficulty in finding housing for households of virtually all income levels. This is a concern of statewide significance, reflected in the Legislature adopting amendments to RCW 36.70A to increase residential building capacity (RCVV36.7OA.GUO).The statute encourages cities totake specific actions toincrease residential building capacity through a variety of options, including those actions proposed in these development regulations amendments. The City's Comprehensive Plan housing goals encourage provision of housing which is both affordable and compatible with acompact development pattern: Goal 4: Promote a variety of housing choices to meet the needs of Port Townsend residents and preserve and encourage socio-economic diversity. Goal 7: Provide an adequate supply of housing for residents of all income groups, including sufficient housing affordable to low- and moderate -income groups. Rapidly rising house prices have driven out individuals and families who have long lived and worked in Port Townsend. A higher percentage of residents here live in poverty than in either Jefferson County or the USA' and are significantly burdened by the cost of housing. Diverse, affordable, and stable housing in Port Townsend is an underpinning success factor for our collective well-being and quality of life. These amendments make a wider variety of housing available to all of Port Townsend's households, introducing housing types not now permitted, expanding the zones in which housing may be placed, offering floor area ratio bonuses in mixed- use zones where a percentage of units are dedicated to being permanently affordable, and creating new code sections to offer opportunities for tiny homes on wheels and creative subdivision approaches to facilitate land trust or other collective types of ownership. There are no unresolved inconsistencies in the Comprehensive Plan related to these proposed changes. Conclusion: The Commission concludes that proposed amendments promote a variety of housing choices as directed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The amendments are consistent with widely held community values as they provide an added tool to add to the community's housing inventory. d) Whether the proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance ofland uses within the city. Finding: Proposed Amendments tothe Municipal Code support growth asenvisioned bythe Comprehensive Plan. Nochange inland use isproposed. Conclusion: The Commission concludes that the proposed amendments will maintain the appropriate balance ofland uses within the city. I US Census Bureau ACS and Census,m & Port Townsend Tactical Infill Findings and Conclusions — March zoo3 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 4 of 321 e) Whether the proposal implements the comprehensive plan; or alternatively. f) Since the adoption of the comprehensive plan, there has been a substantial change in circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located which warrants the proposal. Finding: Although housing was recognized as a need in the last Comprehensive Plan update, circumstances have changed substantially in the subsequent years with the simultaneous convergence of three housing -related crisis: the homelessness crisis, the housing affordability crisis and the housing availability crises. Impacts have already been described in subsection 'c' above. The amended zoning, subdivision and administrative procedures recommended here are envisioned as only the first step in a comprehensive process to address the community's housing needs. Conclusion: The Commission concludes that the amendments help implement the Comprehensive Plan goals to provide a variety of housing types affordable to all economic segments of the population. Recommendation The PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the amendments to various sections of the Municipal Code to facilitate provision of "missing middle" housing as identified in Exhibit A attached hereto. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Port Townsend Planning Commission, Lois Stanford, Chair List of Exhibits 3 iy.. Date A. Amendments to various sections of PTMC (in Bill Format) B. Zoning Approach Summary C. SEPA Determination of Non -Significance D. Comment letters E. Planning Commission Minutes (December 15, December 29, January 12, January 26, February 9, and February 26). F. City Council mi%:iates (February 13, 2023) Port Townsend Tactical Infill Findings and Conclusions— March 2023 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 5 of 321 Exhibit A Section 17.08.020 A through D "Conditional (special) use, minor" means a conditional use which: 1. Is to be established and conducted entirely within an existing building, or conducted entirely within an accessory structure not exceeding 120 square feet in building coverage and 10 feet in height; or 2. Child care centers requiring no new construction other than an outdoor play area and parking improvements. 3. Employer -Provided Housing in new or existing structures or tiny houses on wheels. "Dwelling, single-family attached" means a duplex, triplex,,&f fouiplex, or townhouse or rowhouse units as defined by this title. "Employer-provided housing" means housing owned by an employer for the exclusive use of his or her employees and household members. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 6 of 321 Exhibit B Section 17.08.040 E through Q "Guest house"/"detached bedroom" means a detached building used as sleeping quarters with a bathroom but without a kitchen located on the same lot with a principal building and occupied for- the sole use of members of the family, temper-afy guests, of: pefsens peffAanently employed on the pf:e ,, Two guest houses/detached bedrooms is are permitted as an accessory use to a single-family dwelling. "Parcel parent" means those lots, parcels or tracts of land existing at the time of application for development from which all subsequent lots, parcels or tracts are created. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 7 of 321 Exhibit C Section 17.08.060 R through V "Subdivision, Unit Lot" is a subdivision process by which boundary lines and use areas are defined within a larger "parent"' lot to establish individual sellable lots, allowing for the creation of fee simple lots for townhome and cottage housingdevelopments. accordance with the W sions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation, built in ton State Building Code and affixed to a permanent foundation. "Tiny house community" means real property mated ,,,. held ""+ f " feat to others for the placement of tiny houses on wheels utilizing the binding site plan process in RCW 58.17.035. "Tiny house on wheels (THOW)" or "moveable tiny house" means a dwelling no larger than 400 sf, not including lofts, on a wheel chassis to be used as permanent housingprovisions for living, sleeping, egg, cooking, and sanitation built in accordance with ANSI 119.5. "Townhouse or rowhouse" means multiple, single-family dwelling units in a row comprising a single building in which each dwelling unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no dwelling unit is located over another unit, and each dwelling unit is separated from any other dwelling unit by one or more vertical common fire-resistant walls. For purposes of this title, townhouses or rowhouses of five or more residential units are considered multifamily dwellings for the purpose of design review requirements. See also "Duplex," "Triplex," "Fouiplex," "Dwelling, single-family attached, " and "Dwelling, multifamily." "Transient accommodations" see "short-term rental" Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 8 of 321 Exhibit D 17.16.020 Permitted, conditional and prohibited uses — Accessory dwelling units. C. Accessory Dwelling Units — Limitations on Use. One Two accessory dwelling units (ADU) may be established e-* as an accessory use to asingle-family, residence , provided the following conditions are continuously met: A certificate of occupancy pursuant to the currently adopted city construction codes shall be obtained from the building official and posted within the ADU. The code inspection and compliance required to obtain a certificate of occupancy in an existing building shall be restricted to the portion of the building to be occupied by an ADU and shall apply only to new construction rather than existing components, except that any high hazards (i.e., smoke detectors, fire exits, stairways, LP gas appliances and fire separation) shall be corrected. Where additional fire separation is unduly burdensome, the building official may authorize a fire alarm system in lieu of required fire separation. 2. Neither the main nor accessory dwelling units shall be used as a short tenn rental, except as provided for in PTMC 17.57.020(B)(2). ADUs established in an outbuilding shall not exceed 800 square feet in floor area and ADUs established within or attached to the primary residence shall not exceed 1,000 square feet, and under no circumstance shall the total lot coverage of the primary residence along with the ADU exceed the standard allowed in the underlying zoning district. 4.5. ADUs may be established in a residence or outbuilding that is legal, nonconforming with respect to required setbacks if entrances are no closer than five feet to neighboring property lines, and if each side window that is closer than five feet to a side property line and that is also closer than 20 feet to either the front or rear property line is permanently glazed with translucent material; provided, that the director may permit an entrance as close as three feet to a neighboring property line upon a finding that no feasible alternative exists. 5. ADUs may be established as an accessory use to an existing single-family, detached residence that is a legal non -conforming use. 6. ADUs may be configured as a duplex structure when detached from primary residence. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 9 of 321 Exhibit E Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable ISTRICT R -I R -II R -III R -IV APPLICABLE REGULATIONS/NOTES Single-family dwellings P P P P PTMC 17.16.030, Bulk, dimensional and (including duplexes, density requirements. Single-family triplexes, affd dwellings in the R -IV zone are limited to fourplexes, and fourplexes or townhouses or rowhouses. townhouses or duplex structure may be constructed owhouses of a to four along a zero lot line provided the structure units which meet the complies with building code fire ase density separation requirements Other housing requirements of the types proposing units in individual applicable district) ownership will require a unit lot subdivision or binding site plan. Du lex triplex, or P_ P P P PTMC 17.16.030 Bulk dimensional and density requirements apply. Housing types proposing units in individual four lex conversion of detached sin le-famil homes ownership will require a unit lot subdivision or binding site plan. Townhouses or X P P P Ch. 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily Residential owhouses (zero lot Development Standards; and PTMC lines) of five or more 17.16.030, Bulk, dimensional and density nits requirements. Housing types proposing units in individual ownership will require a unit lot subdivision or binding site plan. Cottage housing EP P P X Ch. 17.34 PTMC, Cottage Housing developments Development Design Standards; Ch. 17.46 PTMC, Commercial, Multifamily, Cottage Housing Developments, and Mixed Use Architectural and Site Design Review Processes; Ch. 18.20 PTMC, Binding Site Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 10 of 321 Plans; Ch. 19.06 PTMC, Article III — Standards for Tree Conservation. Transient use of single- X X X X See PTMC 17.08.060, "Short term rentals family residential uses ." (including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes and cottage housing) Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 11 of 321 Exhibit F Table 17.16.030 Residential Zoning Districts — Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements DISTRICT R -I R -II R -III R -IV STET STET STET STET STET STET MINIMUM 20' except: REAR YARD 50' barns and SETBACKS agricultural 10' except: buildings, and 100'= barns and 15' except: 100' if abutting agricultural an R -II, R -III, buildings 10' except: 20' if directly or R -IV zoning 5' for ADUs no setback for abutting an R -I or district provided the rear multifamily R- II district; no 5' for ADUs structures located setback for multifamily property line provided the does not abut a within 200' of an structures located street right of rear property abutting mixed Within of an line does not way and the use zoning m abuttingg mixed abut a street ADU has no district right of way and door or garage use zoning district the ADU has no door facing rear door or garage _property line door facing rear property line MINIMUM SIDE 15' minimum 15' minimum 5' except: 15' except: YARD total with total with 10'= along a 20' if directly SETBACKS minimum of 5- minimum of 5- street r -o -w; 20' abutting an R -I or feet on either feet on either side for garages with R- II district; no side 4-W 1 n',,,iniff.,,m en vehicle access setback for one s� e and 5' facing a street multifamily one sem: an +44e right- of -way and structures located "' rho a no setback for within 200' of an other -10'= abutting a multifamily abutting mixed Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 12 of 321 10' = abutting a street r -o -w; 20' for garages with vehicle access facing a street right-of-way and street r -o -w; 20' for garages with vehicle access facing a street right -of --way and 100'= barns and structures located within 200' of an abutting mixed use zoning district use zoning district 50'= barns and agricultural agricultural buildings buildings and 5' for ADUs with 100' if abutting an R -II, R -III, or no door orag rage door facing side R -IV zoning district property line 5' for ADUs with no door or garage door facing side property line STET 2 -5% -except 40% 35% except 40% 45% 50% MAXIMUM LOT where an ADU where an ADU is is included in COVERAGE included in the the lot lot STET F I I Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 13 of 321 Exhibit G 17.16.030 Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements Exceptions.- _ . . 1. Outbuildings: The rear setbacks provided in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to accessory structures smaller than 120 square feet in buildingcge and 10 feet in height; provided, that all such accessory structures shall be a minimum of five feet from rear lot and/or property lines. 2. ADUs: The maximum density_ provisions in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to accessory dwelling units in the R -I and R -I1 zoning districts. 3. Conversion of single-family: The maximum density_ provisions in Table 17.16.030 shall not apply to conversion of a detached single-family dwelling unit into a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 14 of 321 Exhibit H Table 17.20.020 Commercial Zoning Districts — Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses (Excerpt) DISTRIC C -I C -II C- C- APPLICABLE T II(H) III REGULATIONS/NOTES Rows 1-46 STET RESIDENTIAL USES PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, density and dimensional requirements; and Chapter 17.36 PTMC, Apartment houses X P X P Multifamily Residential Development Standards, and permitted on upper floors only. Boarding houses (six or fewer roomers) and lodging and rooming X P X P Same as above. houses (seven or more roomers) PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, dimensional and density Homeless shelters X C C C requirements. The director may authorize a waiver of the basic permit fee. PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, density and dimensional requirements; and Chapter 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily dwellings X P X P Multifamily Residential Development Standards, and permitted on upper floors only. PTMC 17.20.030, Bulk, dimensional and density Owner/operator/employ P P p p requirements; such uses shall only residences be allowed if clearly subordinate and accessory to a primary 10 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 15 of 321 11 commercial use and permitted on upper floors only. Employer-provided PTMC 17.64 standards for housing X X C X employer-provided housing P TMC 17.20.030, Bulk, Residential treatment X X P X dimensional and density facilities requirements. Tiny House Communities X P X X PTMC 17.58 11 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 16 of 321 Exhibit I Table 17.20.030 Commercial Zoning Districts — Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements (Excerpt) DISTRICT C -I C -II C-II(H) C -III Owner/operator/ Owner/operator Residences employer- mployresidences residences allowed above provided allowed and the ground floor, residences Residences RESIDENTIAL residences above or as part of a allowed above allowed above REQUIREMENTS commercial uses development ground floor the ground floor allowed subject to combining commercial uses the requirements residential with subject to the below commercial uses requirements below Rows# 2-11 STET 12 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 17 of 321 Exhibit J Table 17.22.020 Marine -Related and Manufacturing Districts — Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses DISTRICT M/ M M-II(A) M- M- APPLICABLE C I II(B) III REGULATIONS/NOTES Rows 1-55 STET RESIDENTIAL USES Residential quarters as an accessory use (i.e., guard's quarters in large establishments, PTMC 17.22.030, Bulk, where such quarters p p p p p dimensional and density are customarily requirements. provided for security and/or insurability of the premises) PTMC 17.64 standards for Employer-provided C C C C C employer-provided housing housing Rows 59-88 STET - 13 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 18 of 321 Exhibit K Table 17.24.020 Public, Park, and Open Space Zoning Districts — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses (Excerpt) Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Nota plicable DISTRIC T P/OS P/OS( B) P -I APPLICABLE REGULATIONS/NOTES Rows 1-27 STET Other facilities designated as essential public facilities by the Washington State Office of Financial Management X X C The siting of "essential public facilities" cannot be precluded by development regulations under RCW 36.70A.200. Employer-provided housing X C C PTMC 17.64 standards for "Employer- provided housing" Residential quarters as an P P P accessory use (i.e., guard's quarters in large establishments, where such quarters are customarily provided for security and/or insurability of the premisesl Lines 31-49 STET 14 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 19 of 321 Exhibit L Table 17.31.030 Commercial Zoning District — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable Use Type C-II(S) Specific Use Standards Residential Cottage House X Refer to PTMC 17.31.150, Bulk, dimensional and lot standards by building type, for regulations pertaining to applicable residential building types. Dwelling, Multifamily Apartment House: Small P Apartment House: Large p Townhouse/Rowhouse p Dwelling, Single -Family Attached P Dwelling, Single -Family Detached X Dwelling, Live/Work P Owner/Operator Residences X Accessory Dwelling X Home Occupation X Chapter 17.56 PTMC, Home Occupations Homeless Shelters C Nursing Homes P Tiny House Communities P Chapter 17.58 Rows 16-63 STET is Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 20 of 321 Exhibit M 17.34.010 Purpose and intent. The general purposes of the cottage housing development design standards are as follows: A. A cottage housing development is an alternative type of detached housing providing small residences for households . Cottage housing is provided as part of the city's overall housing strategy which intends to encourage affordability, innovation and variety in housing design and site development while ensuring compatibility with existing neighborhoods, and to promote a variety of housing choices to meet the needs of a population diverse in age, income, household composition and individual needs. B. The cottage housing development design standards contained in this section are intended to create a small community of cottages oriented around open space that is pedestrian - oriented and minimizes the visibility of off-street parking. These design standards are intended to ensure that cottage housing developments include pedestrian amenities and take advantage of existing natural features on the site including topography and vegetation. The cottage housing development design standards are intended to maintain traditional cottage amenities and proportions and ensure that cottage housing developments contribute to the overall community character. Because there may be alternative designs that meet the objectives of the design standards, Chapter 17.46 PTMC provides an alternative design review process to consider other acceptable ways to accomplish the objectives of this section. C. Cottage housing may allow higher residential density than is normally allowed in the underlying zone district. This increased density is possible through the use of smaller than average home sizes, clustered parking, and site design standards. Ele elO Rt F— D. All cottage housing developments are subject to current city stormwater standards and shall incorporate stormwater low impact development techniques whenever possible. 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 21 of 321 Exhibit N 17.34.030 Density, number of cottage housing units and minimum lot area. A. In cottage housing developments the permitted densities shall be as follows: Zoning District R -I Low Density R -II Medium R -III Medium Residential Density Density Single -Family Multifamily Maximum Cottage 1 cottage dwelling 1 cottage dwelling 1 cottage dwelling Density unit per 5,000 sf unit per 1-2,500 sf unit per 12,500 sf Minimum number of cottages subject to zoning base density 24 34 4 requirements Maximum number of cottages per cottage housing g 12 14 development Minimum lot size 1-20,000 sf +05,000 sf 10,000 sf 17 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 22 of 321 Exhibit O 18 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 23 of 321 Exhibit P 17.34.110 Cottage floor area. A. Objective. Structures in cottage housing developments shall be designed to be single story or single story plus a loft. Residences in cottage housing developments are primarily intended for one- and two -person households and their occasional guests. Maintaining the maximum square footage of residences in cottage housing developments is necessary to prevent overbuilding of the site and to not exceed available off-street parking. 1. The maximum ground floor area for an individual principal structure in a cottage housing development shall be as follows: �•�re�sf . . e*ss�:Eer�e�e�� A. Fee r mefe th r cn pefeent of the , H4 -s, +The ground floor area may be up to 800 square feet. be. The net total floor area of each cottage shall not exceed one and one-half times the area of the main level. 19 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 24 of 321 Exhibit Q 17.34.120 Yards — Building setbacks from exterior lot lines. A. Objective. Exterior lot line building setbacks in cottage housing developments are based upon setbacks in the R -II zoning district. These yard setbacks are appropriate based upon the allowed density of cottage housing as well as the small size of the structures. Flexible setbacks are allowed per the discretion of the PCD and public works directors to obtain improved site design and to avoid impacting existing physical features on the site such as trees. 1. Front yard and street side yard on corner lots shall be 10 feet: a. Exception: The PCD director in consultation with the public works director may authorize the setback averaging from the public right-of-way. In such cases the setback average shall be 10 feet and at no point less than five feet where the location of all structures, landscaping and other improvements will not conflict with future improvements in the right-of-way. Fences may not be placed in the right-of-way and are subject to Chapter .1.7.._6.8. PTMC. 2. Rear Yard Building Setback. The minimum rear yard shall be 54-0 feet, titiless an alley, theii the ffiiiiiffluffi setbaek shall be five rf-W-1-71C. 3. Side Yard Building Setback — Interior Lot Lines. The minimum side yard setback shall be five feet for interior lot lines. 20 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 25 of 321 Exhibit R 17.34.140 Common open space. A. Objective. Open space that is commonly owned by all members of a cottage housing development is an important feature of any site design. It is intended that the open space be adequately sized and centrally located 1. Common Open Space. A minimum of 400 square feet per cottage unit of common open space is required. Parking areas, yard setbacks, spaces between buildings of 10 feet or less in width, private open space, and driveways do not qualify as common open space. 2. Proximity to Common Open Space. a. At least 50 percent of the cottage units shall abut a common open space, all of the cottage units shall be within 60 feet walking distance measured from the nearest entrance of the cottage along the shortest safe walking route to the nearest point of the common open space. The common open space shall have cottages abutting at least two sides. b. For the purposes of cottage housing, "common open space" shall be the central space that may be used by all occupants of the cottage complex. 21 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 26 of 321 Exhibit S 17.34.150 Private open space. A. Objective. Each residential unit in a cottage housing development shall be provided an area of private open space. The private open space shall to create a sense of privacy and shall be oriented to take advantage of solar orientation and other natural features to create a small but pleasant private yard area. The private open space may be separated from the common open space with a small hedge, picket fence, or other similar visual separation to create a sense of separate ownership. 1. Each cottage unit shall be provided with a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private open space to f+o the eammen o spaee by „ kedge &F fence not too e a �� inehes in height.. 2. No dimension of the private open space shall be less than eight feet. 22 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 27 of 321 Exhibit T 17.34.180 Off-street parking. A. Objective. Off-street parking space requirements for cottage housing developments shall be less than normally required for detached single-family residences. These reduced standards are based upon the cottages being smaller than average detached single-family homes and on average containing fewer occupants. Off-street parking shall be located and designed to be less visible from frontage streets than the cottages themselves. Off-street parking shall be designed to maintain a pedestrian character for the overall cottage housing development. Clustering parking to the side or rear of a cottage project will most often best accomplish these goals. However, on a site-specific basis, design solutions other than clustering may be found to meet this objective through the alternative design process. Parking areas shall be attractively landscaped to screen parking from adjacent properties and street rights-of-way and shall meet applicable parking lot landscape standards. 2. Off -Street Parking Location. Parking shall be located on the cottage housing development property. Off-street parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of the cottage housing development (see illustrations below). Subject to the site design administrative review approval process, parking may be adjacent to cottage units. Parking lots shall not be located between the cottage housing development and the primary street frontage. a. Off -Street Parking Screening. Off-street parking may be located in or under a noncottage parking structure (such as a single or multi -auto carport or garage), but such structures shall not be attached to individual cottages. Uncovered parking is also permitted; provided, that off-street parking shall be screened from direct street view from one or more street facades by garage doors, or by a fence and landscaping. b. Preferred locations for parking, in descending order of preference, are as follows: 23 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 28 of 321 i. To the rear of cottage Mley parking spaces, ttY.V� �r� units accessed by an alley. SlTeet ii. To the side of the cottage housing units access by a private driveway. "Oging Ion Cottages E7 . . ................. "7 — - ------------------ streef iii. Parking on the side (nonprimary street) screened from the side street by either garage doors, landscaping, and/or fencing. t, es N . . .. ... ..... ... POmory Sueo I.,", N6n,far rnary streofl: 61A WM rwwag With suwNnq 24 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 29 of 321 Exhibit U 17.34.190 Exterior lighting and heating/cooling equipment noise. A. Objective. Cottage housing developments should be designed to minimize light and noise impacts both within the development and to adjacent properties. 1. Where provided, exterior lighting shall be mounted as low as possible, pointed downward, and the light source shall be shielded from direct observation from above, adjacent properties, and public rights-of-way. Lighting "spillover" to adjacent properties shall be avoided. 2. Heating (and cooling, if applicable) equipment for cottage housing developments shall be designed to cause little or no noise impacts within the development and to adjacent properties. , hetising developments. 25 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 30 of 321 Exhibit V 26 IRMO .II 26 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 31 of 321 Exhibit W 17.34.210 Ownership and residential use of cottages. A. All cottage housing developments shall be developed utilizing the procedures of Ch 18.22 Unit Lot Subdivisions or Chapter 18.20 PTMC, Binding Site Plans, except that an association, cooperative or other similar ownership technique may be substituted for the requirement of residential condominiums. Appropriate documentation of formal legal ownership of the development shall be recorded with the Jefferson County auditor's office. 27 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 32 of 321 Exhibit X 17.34.220 Alternative site design. It is possible that an alternative design may fulfill the intent of this chapter while not complying with the provisions herein. Requests for alternative designs shall be processed administratively. Committee review shall be available at the developer's request. pursuant to Chapter- 17.46 PTN4G, > Mtflfifamily, Cottage Notising DeN,elepments, and Mixed Use AFehiteettt-Fal and Site Desigft Review Pfeeesses. 28 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 33 of 321 Exhibit Y 17.46.030 Applicability and permit review process — Standards. Unless otherwise subject to the historic design review process in Chapter 17.30 PTMC, Historic Preservation Code, all projects in the C -I, C -II, C-II(H), C-I/MU, and C-II/MU zones, cottage housing developments, as well as multifamily projects in any zone regardless of their location or form of ownership shall be subject to the design review process contained within this chapter and processed in accordance with the permit review process in Chapter 20.01 PTMC as set forth below: A. Type IA — Administrative Review Pursuant to PTMC 17.46.060. 1. Commercial and Mixed Use Projects. a. New buildings, canopies or other structures that exceed 1,000 square feet and are less than 4,000 square feet in size or no more than two stories above grade; or b. Buildings, canopies, or other structures, the expansions of which either: i. Exceed 1,000 square feet in size and are less than 4,000 square feet; or ii. Comprise a ground floor expansion exceeding 50 percent of an existing building's ground floor square footage; or c. Substantial alterations of existing structures, where the existing structure exceeds 1,000 square feet and is less than 4,000 square feet; or d. Alterations to exterior facades of buildings (including but not limited to new or altered exterior electrical or mechanical systems such as pole -mounted or other light fixtures) excepting that ordinary (i.e., nonemergency) maintenance and repair activities may be granted a waiver of design review by the director. All work, even that qualifying for a waiver from the review process, must be conducted in accordance with applicable code requirements, including architectural design standards of Chapter 17.44 PTMC. 2. Multifamily Projects. a. Including construction of apartments, townhouses, row houses or other forms of multifamily housing containing five to nine units; or b. Alterations to the exterior facades of buildings (including but not limited to new or altered exterior electrical or mechanical systems such as pole -mounted or other light fixtures) excepting that ordinary (i.e., nonemergency) maintenance and repair activities may be granted a waiver of design review by the director. All work, even that qualifying for a waiver from the review process, must be conducted in accordance with applicable code requirements, including architectural design standards of Chapter 17.36 PTMC. 3. Cottage Housing Developments. All fiew cottage housingdevelopments and alterations to the exterior facades of buildings which are visible from adjacent properties or rights-of-way (including but not limited to new or altered exterior electrical or mechanical systems such as pole -mounted or other light fixtures) excepting that ordinary (i.e., nonemergency) maintenance and repair activities may be granted a waiver of design review by the director. All work, even that qualifying for a waiver from the review process, must be conducted in accordance with applicable code requirements, including architectural design standards of Chapter 17.34 PTMC. B. Type II — Administrative Review with an Advisory Committee Pursuant to PTMC 17.46.070. 29 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 34 of 321 1. All projects which include requests for departure pursuant to PTMC 17.46.080. 2. All projects in all applicable districts exceeding the following thresholds are further subject to administrative review with the design review advisory committee: a. Any new building canopy or other structure with a ground floor exceeding 4,000 square feet in size; or b. Any new building with more than two stories above grade, or any expansion creating more than two stories above grade; or c. Any building containing 10 or more dwelling units; or d. Substantial alterations of existing structures, where the existing structure exceeds 5,000 square feet of ground floor area or otherwise exceeds categorical exemption limits of SEPA (Chapter 19.05 PTMC); or e. Any project where the PCDD director determines that the proposed design has generated strong public interest, or is proposed for a sensitive or highly visible site; the director may require that review with the advisory committee is warranted. Uses. C. Standards to Be Applied. Applications for design review shall be subject to the site design and architectural design standards of this title as follows: Commercial and mixed use projects Chapter 17.44 PTMC Subject to a combined single review for Commercial or mixed use projects with five compliance with Chapters 17.36 and 17.44 or more residential units PTMC. No additional fee will be charged above that required for review Multifamily development in any zoning Chapter 17.36 PTMC district Cottage housing development Chapter 17.34 PTMC, Cottage Housing Development Design Standards Note: For development that is subject to historic design review process see Chapter 17.30 PTMC, Historic Preservation Code. 30 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 35 of 321 Exhibit Z Chapter 17.58 Tiny Houses on Wheels and Tiny House on Wheel Communities 17.58.010 Purpose and Intent 17.58.020 Definition Tiny House on Wheels 17.58.030 Design Standards 17.58.040 Accessory Dwelling Units 17.58.050 Tiny House on wheel Communities 17.58.010 Purpose and Intent The general purpose of this section on tiny houses on wheels and tiny house communities is to: A. Permit tiny houses on wheels as accessory dwelling units under certain conditions in all residential districts where detached accessory dwelling units are allowed. B. Permit tiny house communities in the C -II and C -IIS districts, subject to the standards of those districts and those of Section 17.58.030 to ensure development of this type iseg nerally compatible with surrounding uses. C. Permit tiny houses on wheels as employer-provided housing per Chapter 17.64, 17.58.020 Definition Tiny House on Wheels A tiny house on wheels is a structure no larger than 400 square feet, excluding loft area space, intended for separate, independent living quarters, designed as a permanent, ,year-round residence for one household that meets these five conditions: A. Is licensed and registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and is constructed and certified to building and inspection standards in 17.58.030; B. Is towable by a bumper hitch, frame -towing hitch, or fifth -wheel connection, and is not designed to move under its own power; C. Is no larger than allowed for movement on public highways; D. Has at least 150 square feet of first floor interior living space and unit does not exceed 16 feet in height; E. Is a detached self-contained unit which includes basic functional areas that support normal daily routines including cooking ping, and sanitation. 17. 58.030 Design Standards A. Tiny Houses on wheels must be built to meet requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard A119.5. Such standards shall include standards for the installation of heating, electrical systems and fire and life safety. In addition, tiny houses on wheels must meet these standards: 31 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 36 of 321 1. Insulation to a minimum of R-13 in walls and floors and R-19 in ceiling; 2. Residential grade insulated doors and windows, with windows to be as minimum double -Pane and of tempered or laminated safety lazing,g, 3. Full trim surrounds for all exterior windows and doors. 4. Roof Pitch of at least 42:12 5. Roofing materials of 20 -year asphalt composite shingle or better, minimum Class A 6. Electrical system that meets NFPA 70 NEC, section 551 or 552 as applicable; 7. Low Voltage Electrical systems meet the requirements of ANSURVIA Low Voltage Standard, current edition; and 8. Wall framing studs are 24" on center maximum, with a minimum of 2X4 wood or metal studs or equivalent SIP panels; 9. Mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the structure and not located on the roof. B. Certification. Tiny houses on wheels shall be inspected and certified for compliance with the additional requirements in this ordinance and ANSI 119.5 standards as follows: 1. Under RCW 43.22.355 for compliance with ANSI 119.5 standards; And2. By a licensed Washington State design professional, architect or engineer for compliance with Design Standards of 17.58.030 above; and, 2. By a licensed Washington State design professional, architect or engineer for compliance with Design Standards of 17.58.030 above. C. Utilities. Tiny houses on wheels shall be connected to municipal approved water, sewer and electric utilities D. Foundation. Tiny houses on wheels shall incorporate the following foundation elements: 1. The undercarriage (wheels, axles, tongue and hitch) shall be hidden from view with fire retardant skirting surrounding the entire unit. 2. The wheels and leveling or support jacks must sit on a paving surface such as concrete or decomposed granite sufficient to hold the weight of unit on wheels and ja, cks. 32 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 37 of 321 17.58.040 Accessory Dwelling Units Tiny houses on wheels are permitted as accessory dwelling units in R -I, R -II, and R -III districts subject to the Provisions of Section 17.16.020 PTMC and the requirements below: A. Review. Tiny houses on wheels shall be subject to a Type I review. B. Entry. To meet egress requirements, a front porch apj2roved by the City is required. C. Separation. A tiny house on wheels shall be located at a fire separation distance of at least ten (10) feet from any other structures on the premises. D Appearance. To maintain the character of residential areas, a tiny house on wheels shall be to look like a conventional residential structure rather than a recreational vehicle. This shall be done by incorporating design features and materials typically used for houses, such as typical siding or roofing materials, pitched roofs, residential windows. 17.58.050 Tiny House on wheel Communities Applications for tiny house on wheel communities shall be processed in concert with a binding site plan and meet the following requirements: A. Intensity. There shall be a minimum of four tiny houses and maximum of 12 tiny houses tiny house community, B. Location. Tiny_ house communities shall be setback a minimum of 50 -feet from an arterial frontage. C. Centralized common area. The common open space area shall include usable public spaces such as lawn, gardens, patios, plazas or scenic viewing area, with all houses having access to it. 1. Two hundred square feet of usable common open space is required per unit. 2. Fifty percent of units shall have their main entry on the common open space. 3. Setbacks shall not be counted towards the usable common open space calculation. 4. The usable common open space shall be located centrally to the tiny house community_ 5. Community buildings or clubhouses may be counted towards the common open space calculation. 6. Tiny houses shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides. 7. Common open space shall be located outside of stormwater/detention ponds, wetlands, streams, lakes, and critical area buffers, and cannot be located on slopes greater than ten percent. 33 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 38 of 321 D. Porches. All houses shall have both front and rear torches. as follows: 1. Porches for primary entries shall be oriented towards common open space or street and designed to provide a sense of privacy between units. These porches shall be a minimum of 60 square feet and a minimum of eight feet deep on the common open space side of the building. 2. Porches for secondary entries shall have a minimum five -by -five-foot porch. E. Standards. Tiny house communities shall comply with applicable bulk, dimensional, and density requirements for the district(s) in which they are located in addition to the standards below: A. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 1,250 square feet. In no case shall the project exceed the base density of the underlying_ zone. B. The maximum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 3,000 square feet. C. The maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 40 percent. D. Perimeter setbacks shall be no less than 10 feet along all exterior property lines. E. Tiny house and porches shall be set back no less than five feet from the usable common open space. F. No structure or portion thereof shall be closer than five feet to any neighboring structure. G. Maintenance of open space and utilities. Before approval is granted, the applicant shall submit covenants, deeds and homeowners association bylaws or other documents guaranteeing maintenance and common fee ownership of public open space, community facilities, private roads and drives, and all other commonly owned and operated property. These documents shall be reviewed and accompanied by a certificate from an attorney that they comply with the requirements of this chapter prior to approval. Such documents and conveyances shall be accomplished and be recorded, as applicable, with the county auditor as a condition precedent to therg anting of occupancy or the filing of any plat of the property or division thereof, except that the conveyance of land to a homeowners association may be recorded simultaneously with the filing of a final plat. H. Tiny houses on wheels (THOW) in tiny house communities must comply with the following: 1. THOWs shall be placed in a designated area in the approved site plan of the pocket neighborhood. 2.At least 50 percent of the units shall abut a common open space, all of the units shall be within 60 feet walking distance measured from the nearest entrance of the unit along the shortest safe walking route to the nearest point of the common open space. 1. All THOWs shall meet the tie down and skirting requirements of the applicable building codes. The Building Official may require additional standards to ensure the porches hide any hitches. J. Applications for tiny house communities shall be processed according to Type III review. 34 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 39 of 321 Exhibit AA Chapter 17.64 Employer -Provided Housing Sections 17.64.010 Purpose 17.64.020 Applicability 17.64.030 Criteria 17.64.040 Review Process 17.64.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to permit safe, healthy, and temporaryquarterin of f employ e institutional, marine -related, or manufacturing operations for up to one year, accommodating seasonal worker demand and providing employees an opportunity to reside in Port Townsend while seeking permanent housing. 17.64.020 Applicability This chapter applies to the C-II(H), M-II(A), M-II(B), M -III, P/OS(B), and P/I districts, permitting employer-provided housing, 17.64.030 Criteria Employer-provided housing shall be permitted under the following circumstances: A. Employer-provided housing shall comply with applicable bulk, dimensional and density requirements of the zoning district. B. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Table 17.78.020 C. Housing units may be upper -story multi -family or quarters. Units may also be tiny houses on wheels, subject to the design standards of Chapter 17.58.020. 17.64.040 Review process Applications for employer-provided housing shall be subject to a Type II review process. 35 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 40 of 321 Exhibit BB Table 17.72.080 Vehicular and Bicycle Parking Standards (Excerpt) RESIDENTIAL USES Use Minimum Maximum Required Bicycle Required Permissible Spaces (minimum of Parking Spaces Parking two spaces if not listed) Spaces None No ,,ddit;,.n Accessory dwelling v� e�ii red fef None None the firsADT-4-.—A seeeunits „a n DU Adult family homes 2 None None rteetta e i,,.mes See PT ar 17.3 4.1 Neiie Nene Home occupations See PTMC 17.56.060 See PTMC See PTMC 17.56.060 17.56.060 Multifamily dwellings and mixed-use dwellings in the C -III zoned portions of the 1 space per unit None None Uptown National Landmark Historic District Multifamily dwellings 2 spaces, plus 1 space (including apartment I -15 -spaces per None per each 5 vehicle houses and townhouses dwelling unit parking stalls or row houses) Multifamily dwellings restricted to use for 2 spaces, plus 1 space seniors (i.e., 65 and 1 space per dwelling 2 spaces per per each 10 vehicle unit dwelling unit older) and disabled parking stalls persons Residential treatment 1 space per each staff 2 spaces, plus 1 space facilities including member plus 1 space None per each 10 vehicle 36 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 41 of 321 group homes for the for each 5 residents parking stalls disabled Detached -9single- family dwellings (including manufactured and modular homes a4id 1 space per unit 1,200 gross sf in size or less dtH3!ovv� tr l ���" 2 spaces per dwelling None None cottage unit over 1,200 gross sf houses meeting the in size. base density requirements of the applicable district) Duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes meeting base density 1 space per dwelling None None unit requirements of the applicable district 37 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 42 of 321 Exhibit CC Section 17.72.170 Parking Facilities — Landscaping B. Applicability. This section applies to all surface, off-street parking lots in the city of Port Townsend, excluding those that are accessory to single-family dwellings or multi -family dwellings of four or fewer units. For multi -family dwellings of four or fewer units adjoining public rights of way, provisions of PTMC 17.72.170(D)(1) and 17.72.170(D)2(a)(ii) shall apply. 38 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 43 of 321 Exhibit DD Chapter 18.22 Unit Lot Subdivisions Sections 18.22.010 Purpose 18.22.015 Scope 18.22.020 Application 18.22.030 Preliminary unit lot plat — Preparation 18.22.040 Preliminary unit lot plat — Contents 18.22.050 Approval criteria 18.22.060 Unit lot plat review process 18.22.070 Preliminary approval 18.22.080 Modifications to an approved preliminary unit lot plat 18.22.090 Improvement method report 18.22.100 Public works director's certificate of improvements 18.22.110 Preparation of final unit lot plat 18.22.120 Accompanying documents — Final unit lot plat 18.22.130 Final plat application 18.22.140 Time limitation on final unit lot plat submittal 18.22.150 Effect of an approved final unit lot plat — Valid land use. 18.22.160 Distribution of copies and filing of final unit lot plat 18.22.170 Transfer of ownership following final unit lot plat approval 18.22.180 Building and occupancv permits — Issuance after final unit lot plat approval 18.22.010 Puruose. This chapter is established to provide an alternative to the traditional method of land division for creating sellable lots for townhouse and cottage housing developments. The unit lot subdivision (ULS)process provides opportunities for fee -simple ownership of land. Unit lot subdivisions allow development on individual unit lots to avoid complying with tXpical dimensional standards if the parent lot conforms to all such development standards. 18.22.015 Scope A. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the unit lot subdivision of land for townhouse, cottage housingor house community developments in zones where such uses are allowed. 39 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 44 of 321 B. As allowed by this chapter, development on individual unit lots within the unit lot subdivision need not conform to the minimum lot area or dimensional standards of Title 17 —Zoning Code, provided that overall development of the parent parcel meets the development and design standards of the underlying and the requirements of this section. There shall be no minimum required lot area for individual lots within a unit lot subdivision, provided that the area of the unit lot shall be large enough to contain the dwelling unit and any accessory structures, decks, fences, garages, driveways, private yard areas, parking, landscaping or other improvements that are accessory to the dwelling unit; provided further, so long as conforming to the approved site development plan, such accessory improvements may encroach upon or be located in an adjoining unit lot or common area pursuant to an appropriate easement. C. Overall development of the parent lot shall meet the development and design standards of the underling land use district. D. Access easements, joint use and maintenance agreements, and covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) identifying the rights and responsibilities of property owners and/or the homeowners' association must be executed for use and maintenance of common garage, parking and vehicle access areas; underground utilities; stormwater treatment and/or detention facilities; common open space; exterior building facades and roofs; and other similar features, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. E. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use the parking is formalized by an easement recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. 18.22.020 Application. To be considered complete, the application for a unit lot subdivision shall include the following A. The application for approval of a unit lot subdivision shall be submitted on forms to be provided by the department along with the appropriate fees; B. A completed land use permit application form, including all materials required pursuant to PTMC 20.01.100, and including any application submittal requirements under Chapter 19.05 PTMC, Critical Areas; C. The area and dimensions of each proposed lot or parcel; D. Five paper copies of a preliminary unit lot plat meeting the standards and requirements of PTMC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050; E. The applicant shall submit a stormwater drainage plan in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 13.32 PTMC, including any soil test information as may be deemed necessary by the public works director; and F. The applicant shall state the estimated quantities of any fill to be exported from the site and imported to the site. 18.22.030 Preliminary unit lot plat — Preparation. The preliminary unit lot plat shall be prepared in accordance with the following requirements: A. The preliminary unit lot plat shall be prepared by a Washington State licensed engineer or land surveyorgistered or licensed by the state of Washington. The preparer shall certify on the plat that it is a true and correct representation of the lands actually surveyed. The preparation of the plat shall comply with the Survey Recording Act, Chapter 58.09 5.....(x.9 RCW and Chapter 332 130 WAC as now adopted or hereafter amended. Upon surveying 40 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 45 of 321 the Property, the surveyor shall Place temporary stakes on the Property to enable the city to locate and appraise features of the unit lot plat in the field. The datum to be used for all surveying and mapping shall be as follows: The projection name is the state plane; the projection spheroid is QRS 1980; the coordinate system is the Washington State Plane North Zone; and the horizontal datum is NAD 83. B. All geographic information portray the preliminary unit lot plat shall be accurate, legible and drawn to a horizontal scale of 50 feet or fewer to the inch, except that the location sketch and typical street cross-sections may be drawn to any other appropriate scale. C. A preliminary unit lot plat shall be 18 inches by 24 inches in size, allowing one -half-inch borders, and if more than one sheet is needed, each sheet shall be numbered consecutively and an index sheet showing the entire property and orienting the other sheets, at any appropriate scale, shall be provided. In addition to other map submittals, the applicant shall submit one copy of each sheet reduced to 8-1/2 inches by 11-1/2 inches in size. If more than one sheet is required, an index sheet showing the entire subdivision with street and highway names and block numbers (if any) shall be provided. Each sheet, including the index sheet, shall be of the above specified size. D. The area of each proposed lot or parcel depicted on the preliminary unit lot plat map shall accurately show the location and dimension of each proposed lot or parcel. 18.22.040 Preliminary unit lot plat — Contents. A. A preliminary unit lot plat shall be submitted on one or more sheets and shall provide the following information. All specifications for public improvements shall conform with the engineering design standards: 1. The name of the proposed unit lot subdivision together with the words "Preliminary Unit Lot Plat"; 2. The name and address of the annlican 3. The name, address, stamp and signature of the professional engineer or professional land surveyor who prepared the preliminary unit lot plat; 4. Numeric scale (50 feet or fewer to the inch), graphic scale, true north point, and date of preparation; 5. Identification of all land, trees, and tree canopy intended to be cleared; the trees or tree canopy intended to be preserved per PTMC 19.06.120, Tree conservation standards; and the location of the proposed access to the site for clearing andrg ading during site development and construction; and 6. A form for the endorsement of the director of PCDD, as follows: APPROVED BY CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND Planning and Community Development Date Department Director 41 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 46 of 321 B. The Preliminary unit lot Plat shall contain a vicinity sketch sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the Proposed subdivision with respect to surroundingproperty, streets, and other major manmade and natural features. C. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, the preliminary unit lot plat shall contain the following existing geographic features, drawn lightly in relation to proposed geographic features: I. The boundaries of the property to be subdivided, and the boundaries of any adjacent property under the same ownership as the land to be subdivided, to be indicated by bold lines; 2. The names of all adjoining�property owners, or names of adjoining developers; 3. All existing_ property lines lying within the proposed unit lot subdivision, including lot lines for lots of record which are to be vacated, and all existingproperty lines for any property lying within 200 feet of the subject property which is under the same ownership as the property to be subdivided (as described in PTMC 18.12.030(Q) shall be shown in broken lines; 4. The location, right-of-way widths, pavement widths and names of all existing or platted streets, whether public or private, and other public ways within 200 feet of the property to be subdivided; 5. The location, widths and purposes of any existing easements lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 6. The location, size and invert elevations of sanitary sewer lines and stormwater management facilities lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision or those which will be connected to as part of the proposed unit lot subdivision; 7. The location and size of existing water system facilities including all fire hydrants lying within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision or those which will be connected to as part of the proposed unit lot subdivision; S. The location, size and description of any other underground and overhead facilities lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision, 9. The location of any environmentally sensitive areas as described in Chapter 19.05 PTMC, including all floodplains, lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 10. The location, size and description of all significant trees as defined in PTMC 18.04.060 lying within existing public rights-of-way to be improved within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 11. The location of existing sections and municipal corporation boundary lines lying within or adjacent to the proposed unit lot subdivision; 12. The location of any well existing, within the proposed unit lot subdivision; 13. Existing contour lines at intervals of five feet for average slopes exceeding five percent, or at intervals of two feet for average slopes not exceedingfive ive percent. Existing contour lines shall be labeled at intervals not to exceed 20 feet. If applicable, indicate slopes equal to or greater than 15 to 25 percent, equal to or greater than 26 to 39 percent, and equal to or greater than 40 percent, by shading or color; 14. The location of any existing structures lig within the proposed unit lot subdivision. Existing structures to be removed shall be indicated by broken lines, and existing structures not to be removed shall be indicated by solid lines. 42 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 47 of 321 D. The breliminary unit lot alat shall show the following arobosed geograbhic features: 1. The boundaries in bold solid lines of all Proposed lots, the area and dimensions of each Proposed lot, and the proposed identi , ing number or letter to be assigned to each lot and/or block; 2. The right-of-way location and width, the proposed name of each street, alley, or other Dublic wav to be created and the estimated tentative grades of such streets. Where roadways may exceed the maximum allowable grade or alignment, the public works director may require sufficient data, including centerline profiles and cross-sections if necessary, to determine the feasibility of said roadway; 3. The location, width and purpose of each easement to be created; 4. The boundaries, dimensions and area of public and common park and open space areas; 5. Identification of all areas proposed to be dedicated for public use, together with the purpose and any condition of dedication; 6. Proposed final contour lines at intervals of five feet for average slopes exceeding percent, or at intervals of two feet for average slopes not exceeding five percent. Final contours shall be indicated by solid lines. Contour lines shall be labeled in intervals not to exceed 20 feet; 7. The buildingenvelopes, nvelopes, as defined in PTMC 18.04.060, shall be indicated for each l 8. Proposed monumentation; 9. Proposed location and description of all water system improvements, including all proposed fire hydrants; 10. Proposed location and description of all sewer system improvements, including profiles, and, if needed, all pump stations and their connections to the existing system; tem; 11. Proposed location and description of all stormwater management system improvements; 12. Proposed street cross-sections, showings proposed bicycle and pedestrian pathways and sidewalks (if applicable 13. Proposed type and location of street lighting (if applicable); 14. Proposed type and location of landscaping (if applicable 15. Proposed location and typical cross-section of trails (if applicable. 16. Proposed location and description of transit stops and shelters (if apl2licable)-1 17. Proposed restrictions or conditions on development (if aplicable). E. Upon review of an application, the director and/or public works director may require additional pertinent information as needed to satisfy any regulatory requirements. 18.22.050 Approval criteria. In addition to the review criteria provided in Chapter 20.01 PTMC, the following criteria are the minimum measures by which each proposed unit lot subdivision will be considered: A. Unit lot subdivisions shall be given areliminary abbroval. including areliminary abbroval subject to conditions, upon finding by the city that all the following have been satisfied: 1. The proposed unit lot subdivision conforms to all applicable city, state and federal zoning, land use, environmental and health regulations and plans, including, but not limited to, the following: 43 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 48 of 321 a. Port Townsend comprehensive plan; b. Port Townsend zonin code, c. Engineering design standards; d. Critical Areas Ordinance (Chapter 19.05 PTMC 2. Utilities and other public services necessary to serve the needs of the proposed unit lot subdivision shall be made available, including open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, potable water, transit facilities, sanitary sewers, parks, playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other improvements that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from 3. Conservation of existing trees, and/or the planting of new trees, shall be provided consistent with Chapter .1..9,,,,(a PTMC, Article III, Standards for Tree Conservation; 4. The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed unit lot subdivision, together with any_practical means of mitigating adverse impacts, have been considered such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment, in accordance with Chapter 19.04 PTMC and Chapter 4„ ,,21,C RCW; 5. Approvingproposed unit lot subdivision will serve the public use and interest and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and general welfare. B. Notwithstanding approval criteria set forth in subsection A, in accordance with RCW .5. 8 17. 120, as now adopted and hereafter amended, a proposed unit lot subdivision may be denied because of flood, inundation or swamp conditions. Where any portion of the proposed unit lot subdivision lies within both a flood control zone, as specified by Chapter 19.05 PTMC and Chapter 86.16 RCW, and either the one percent flood hazard area or the regulatory floodway, the city shall not approve the preliminary unit lot plat unless it imposes a condition requiringthe he applicant to comply with Chapter 19,.05„ PTMC and any written recommendations of the Washington Department of Ecology. In such cases, no development permit associated with the proposed unit lot subdivision shall be issued by the city until flood control problems have been resolved. 18.22.060 Unit lot plat review process. A. An application for a unit lot subdivision smaller than five acres in area shall be processed accordingto o the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in Chapter 20.01 PTMC, Land Development Administrative Procedures. An application for a unit lot subdivision of five acres or greater shall be processed according to the Type III procedures. B. The director shall solicit comments from the public works director, fire chief or designee, local utility_ providers, police chief, building official, school district, ad'al cent jurisdictions, if the proposal is within one mile of another city or jurisdiction, Washington State Department of Transportation, if the proposal is adjacent to a state highway, and any other state, local or federal officials as may be necessary. C. Based on comments from city departments and applicable agencies and other information, the city shall review the application subject to the criteria of PTMC _,16.060. A proposed full subdivision shall only be approved when consistent with all the provisions of PTMC 'JK WOW. D. An applicant fora full subdivision may request that certain requirements established or referenced by this chapter be modified. Such requests shall be processed according to the 44 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 49 of 321 procedures for variances in Chapter 20,.01, PTMC, and shall satisfy the criteria of Chapter 17.86 PTMC, Variances. 18.22.070 Preliminary approval. A. The Director or Hearing Examiner, as appropriate, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the preliminary unit lot subdivision within the applicable time requirements. This preliminary decision shall be in writing and shall set forth findings of fact supporting the decision. B. Preliminary approval or approval with conditions shall authorize the applicant to proceed with preparation of the final unit lot subdivision. 18.22.080 Modifications to an approved preliminary unit lot plat. Minor modifications to a previously approved preliminary plat, not involving the location or relocation of a lot, tract or parcel lot line and not involving the location or relocation of a street, ma, be requested by the applicant and approved by the director subject to the provisions for Type I decisions in Chapter 20,0„ PTMC. Before approving such amendment, the director shall make written findings and conclusions that the followingexist: xist: 1. The modification will not be inconsistent or cause the subdivision to be inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and decision of the city approving the subdivision; 2. The modification will not cause the subdivision to violate any applicable city policy or regulation; 3. A subdivision may be modified onlv if the intent of its original conditions is not altered. A. Modifications which exceed the criteria above shall be processed as a new preliminary plat application. 18.22.090 Improvement method report. Following preliminary unit lot plat approval and approval of all plans and prior to submission of a final plat for the director's approval, the applicant shall submit to the director, three copies of a report describing the method by which the applicant proposes to carry out the minimum improvements required and the time within which such improvements will be completed. The applicant shall submit all design and construction drawings required in conformance with the en ing eering design standards. This improvement method report shall be signed by the applicant and be accompanied by any applicable proposed performance guarantees. The director shall transmit two copies of the improvement method report with all drawings and other submittals to the public works director. Improvements may be made or guaranteed by either of the following methods, subject to the discretion and approval of the director: A. By actual installation and approval of all improvements in accordance with the preliminary plat, city engineering design standards, and approved construction drawings; B. By the formation of a local improvement district consistent with the provisions of applicable requirements of the city and the state and by requiring the imposition of covenants as a condition of final plat approval requiringthat hat purchasers of any lots waive any protest to the formation and implementation of a local improvement district, C. By actually installing the minimum improvements as provided by the local improvement district laws of the state and the city and in accordance with citv standards and specifications and under the supervision of the public works director; 45 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 50 of 321 D. By furnishing to the city a plat or subdivision bond or cash deposit in escrow for the full cost of the improvements, or other security satisfactory to the director, in which assurance is given the city that the installation of the minimum improvements will be carried out as provided by plans submitted and approved and in accordance with city engineering design standards, and under the supervision of the public works director. The amount of the performance bond or other security shall be 120 percent of the estimated cost for the city to contract for construction of the improvements as determined by the public works director, and shall be of a duration in accordance with the engineering design standards. If the phased installation of improvements is proposed, the improvement method report shall describe the proposed phasing, the timing for construction, and proposed methods of guaranteeing and assuringthe he city that adequate installation of improvements will occur in conformance with the phasing schedule; or E. By a combination of these methods. 18.16.100 Public works director's certificate of improvements. No permit for the construction of improvements within an approved subdivision shall be issued by the city until the improvement method report, all construction drawings, proposed performance guarantees and other submittals in conformance with the engineering design standards have been received and approved by the public works director. All construction of improvements shall be inspected and approved in conformance with the engineering dgsg_n standards. After completion of all required improvements or the guarantee of the construction of all required improvements, the public works director shall submit a certificate in triplicate to the director stating the required improvements or guarantees are in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, the preliminary plat, including_ the decision approving the plat, and in accordance with cit. engineering design standards. The director shall transmit one cop of f the certification to the subdivider, together with a notice advising the subdivider to prepare a final plat for the proposed subdivision. One copy of the certificate shall be retained by the director. 18.16.110 Preparation of final unit lot plat. The final unit lot plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.16.120 PTMC. 18.16.120 Accompanying documents — Final unit lot plat. A. In cases where any deed covenants or restrictions, including any CC&Rs, will apply to lots or parcels within a subdivision, a typewritten copy of such covenants bearing all necessary signatures shall be submitted along with the final plat. B. The final plat shall be accompanied by a complete survey of the section or sections in which the plat or replat is located, or as much thereof as may be necessary to properly orient the plat within such section or sections. The plat and section survey shall be submitted with complete field and computation notes, showingthe he original or re- established corners, with the descriptions of the same, and the actual traverse showing error or closure and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 10.000 feet. C. The final plat shall be accompanied by a current (within 30 days) title company certification of: 1. The legal description of the total parcel sought to be subdivided; 46 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 51 of 321 2. Those individuals or corporations holding an ownership interest or an, other encumbrances affecting the title of said parcel. Such individuals or corporations shall sign and approve the final plat prior to final approval; 3. Any lands to be dedicated shall be confirmed as being owned in fee title by the owners signing the dedication certificate; 4. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property to be subdivided with a description of purpose and referenced by the auditor's file number and/or recording number; and 5. If lands are to be dedicated or conveyed to the city as part of the subdivision, an A.L.T.A. title policy may be required by the public works director. D. The applicant shall provide the public works director with a computer disk containing a complete set of the final plat maps and as -built drawings on CADDC or other GIS - compatible software as acceptable to the public works director. E. All documents submitted under this section shall contain the name of the subdivision and the name and address of the subdivider. F. All maintenance, performance and guarantee bonds or other guarantees as may be required by the public works director in accordance with PTMC Titles .12 and .13, and the improvement method report to ,guarantee the acceptability and/or performance of all public improvements. For all improvements constructed after final plat approval, reproducible as -built drawings and CADDC files shall be submitted within 15 days of completion of construction. 18.22.130 Final plat application. Application for a final unit lot plat shall be prepared and processed in accordance with Section 18.16.140 PTMC. 18.22.140 Time limitation on final unit lot plat submittal. Time limitations on final unit lot plats shall be in accordance with Section 18.16.150 PTMC 18.22.150 Effect of an approved final unit lot plat — Valid land use. Anv lots in a final unit lot plat filed for record shall be a valid land use notwithstanding anv change in zoning laws for a period of seven years from the date of filing. A unit lot subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances and regulations in effect on the date of preliminary unit lot plat approval for a period of seven years after final unit lot plat approval unless the city council finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety of residents within or outside the unit lot subdivision. 18.22.160 Distribution of copies and filing of final unit lot plat. The director shall distribute the original and copies of the approved plat in accordance with Section 18.16.170 PTMC. 18.22.170 Transfer of ownership following final unit lot plat approval. Whenever any parcel of land lying within the city is divided under the provisions of this chapter, no person, firm, or corporation shall sell or transfer, or offer or advertise for sale or transfer, anX such lot, tract or parcel without having first had an approved final plat for such subdivision filed for record. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that a final plat is fully certified and filed for record with the Jefferson County auditor prior to transferring ownership of any land. 47 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 52 of 321 18.22.180 Building and occupancy permits — Issuance after final unit lot plat approval. A. No building_ permit for a structure other than a temporary contractor's office or temporary storage building shall be issued for a lot or parcel within an approved subdivision prior to a determination by the fire chief or designee that adequate fire protection and access for construction needs exists. B. No building permit for a structure other than a temporary contractor's office or temporary storage building shall be issued for a lot or parcel within an approved subdivision until the applicant complies with the improvement method report, all requirements of the public works department's certificate of improvements, and all requirements of the final plat approval. C. No occupancy permit for a structure other than a temporary contractor's office or other approved temporary building shall be issued for a structure on a tot or parcel within an approved subdivision prior to final inspection and approval of all required improvements which will serve such lot or parcel, to the satisfaction of the public works director and city building official. 48 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 53 of 321 Exhibit EE 20.01.040 Project permit application framework (excerpt). These tables provide guidance to permit applications. In the event of a conflict between the table and a development code, the development code shall apply. Table 1— Permits/Decisions Type h Type I -A Type II Type III Type IV Type V Short Tiny house Site-specific Binding site subdivisions, communities, rezones Permitted plans c, c, ottage unit lot preliminary full consistent with the uses not requiring notice of housing developments subdivisions subdivisions; Port Townsend unit lot Comprehensive subdivisions of Plan, including less than one acres application (e.g., building permits, etc.) Tiny house as one acre or Final plats rezones/alternative rg eater, plat parcel -specific vacations, zones considered including short in conjunction subdivisions that with the annual involve right -of- comprehensive D T eettage R lhi*er CUPo housili employer ADU provided way vacations or plan amendment housing CUP plat alterations process 49 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 54 of 321 xlhiilbit B [ ort Townsend hnfild Zoining Approach The City has identified several specific zoning actions, meeting at least one of the four guiding objectives to: • Empower local residents to add to the housing supply, • Streamline the permitting processes to make it easy to do the "right" thing, • Facilitate inclusion of multiple types of housing to suit the needs of a variety of households, and • Generally increase the supply of housing overall to satisfy pent-up demand and accommodate a wider variety of income levels. The table beginning on page 2 identifies each action the City prioritized and which objectives it satisfies. The "work to be done" column outlines next steps and supporting Comprehensive Plan goals. Finally, the "Amendment pack" column identifies the packets which follow this memo. Packets include analysis and amendments in legislative format. The strikethrough/underline display makes it easier to see the extent to which existing code is proposed to change. Several action items reference multiple packets. This reflects the multiple strategies needed to implement one action. Conversely, a packet may be tied to more than one action item, reflecting the overlap. Code writing is an art — layering multiple sections to shape a desired outcome. Some of the changes will be relatively minor, resulting in the insertion or deletion of words, phrases, or sentences. Others, however, may suggest either major reworking of the existing code or the creation of entirely new sections. All of them will work in concert to increase the supply of missing middle housing in town, navigating within the existing code to achieve those types of changes suggested by RCW 36.70A.600. The amendment packets include changes to: • Permit more accessory dwelling units (Packet A) • Streamline review of cottage housing (Packet B) • Permit "tiny homes" in a variety of circumstances (Packet C) • Provide for innovative ways for development flexibility to achieve comprehensive plan densities, including "unit lot" subdivisions (Packet D) • Further reduce mandatory off-street parking requirements (Packet E) • Permit temporary residential occupancy in traditionally non-residential areas (Packet F), and • Clarify condominium, cooperative, or other collective ownership forms (Packet G) • Shift residential intensity calculations in mixed use zones to FAR from units per acre (Packet H) • Tackle various other minor provisions consistent with the infill project (Packet 1). Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 55 of 321 Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 ao c �o a E T v > rf0 +'T d CL Q Q L r C 4) 3 oc. £ c a f0 a +. ami Action item Work to be done w H LL c a Review the definitions for various housing types to 1. Single-family attached ensure applicability and consistency with objectives to facilitate "missing middle" types. (17.08 Definitions) Amendingdefinitions to clarify Y (RCW Nexus: 36.70a.600(1)(d)) (Comp Plan Policy: Y Y Y D,I housing types Housing Element Goal 4, Policy 2.2, 2.7,Policy 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.2.3) Study the various permitted use tables and ensure there's more flexibility in providing varied housing 2. Permitted housing uses types in most residential zones and, where appropriate, Modifying permitted use tables to in commercial or mixed zones, consistent with comp A, B, C, make more housing types available plan density policy. (17.16.020 Residential Zoning Y Y Y D,H in residential, commercial, and Districts — Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses) mixed-use zones (RCW Nexus: 36.70a.600(1)(d), (v)) (Comp Plan Policy: Housing Element Goal 4, Policy 2.2,2.7, Policy 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.2.3) Review lot size and plat requirements to make sure they permit intensities consistent with comprehensive 3. Lot size minimums plan density ranges, potentially through condominium Reevaluating minimum lot size provisions. (17.16.030 Residential Zoning Districts — y Y Y B,D,I requirements considering maximum Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements, density requirements 17.32.030 PUD lot area, and Title 18. Plat) (RCW Nexus: 36.70a.600(1)(d), (m), (v)) (Comp Plan Housing Policy 2.2, 2.7, 4.2, 4.2.2, 4.5) 4. Accessory dwelling units Revisit ADU and parking provisions to modify ADU area limits, encourage "carriage house" (above garage) style Permitting more than one ADU on a units, explicitly permit multiple units on a single lot, and single-family lot while achieving ensure parking requirements are appropriate for Y Y Y Y A,C,E consistency with the conditions (RCW nexus: 36.70a.600(n), (q)) (Comp Plan: comprehensive plan Housing Element Policy 4.1.3, 4.2.3) Update standards for cottage housing and parking to 11. Cottage housing simplify permitting and increase opportunity to develop Simplifying design standards and this type, potentially through "unit lot" subdivisions, B D condominiums, or other avenues ((17.34 Cottage permitting processes Housing Development Design Standards, administrative procedures, residential zones, use tables by zone) Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 56 of 321 Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 oo 6 E T u C Q' +-' GJ •fy6 T Q- a GJ > y � GJ OJ O ECL +' y Action item Work to be done ,y Ln u ,i c £ 14. Temporary housing Facilitating employer-provided Reviewing use tables by zone, special use standards, housing for temporary employee and administrative procedures, putting in place new occupancy, potentially on guidance for housing in traditionally non-residential Y Y Y C,F areas (RCW Nexus: 36.70a.600(v), Comp Plan Housing commercial or industrially -zoned Policy: 2.2, 4.2, 4.2.3, 6, 6.1) property 17. Setbacks Permitting additional flexibility in setbacks to make Redesignating frontage setbacks in properties more easily developed, while also retaining the R -III and evaluating front, side, "daylight plane" requirements and not necessarily Y Y y A,D,I and rear setback requirements in encouraging larger single-family homes (RCW Nexus: other residential zones 36.70a.600 (u)) Comp Plan Housing Element 4.2, 4.2.3) Reviewing definitions for various housing types and 19. Duplex, triplex, fourplex updating permitted use tables to allow opportunity for Clarifying permitability by zoning varied housing types and conversion of existing single district and ensuring achievable family homes (RCW Nexus: 36.70a.600(1)(d), (v)) (Comp Y Y Y A,D,I design standards Plan Policy: Housing Element Goal 4, Policy 2.2,2.7, Policy 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.2.3) 24. Application requirements Reviewing application requirements in administrative Confirming materials required for procedures and subdivision codes to ensure the City applications are consistent with the requires only what is necessary to consider permit Y Y Y B,D,F,I scope (RCW Nexus: 36.70a.600(1)(i), (v)) (Comp Plan degree of review and breadth of Policy: Housing Element Goal 4, Policy 2.2,2.7, Policy permit 4.1, 4.2.3) 25. Tiny Home/manufactured Reviewing development type options, best practices to home park communities target potential changes to permitted use tables, design Permitting these development guidelines, and special regulations to permit tiny homes Y Y y C types under certain circumstances (Comp Plan Policy: Housing Element Goal 4, Policy and with design standards 2.2,2.7, Policy 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.2) 5. Mixed use FAR Consider options to expand residential unit Changing residential intensity construction by converting to height and bulk formulas standard from units per acre to FAR, rather than just residential where permitted by the H permitting construction of more but comprehensive plan (as in mixed use subarea plan smaller units in mixed-use Table 17.31.080). structures 10. Land trust facilitation Reviewing subdivision/zoning codes and removing Auditing zoning to ensure no potential roadblocks to land trust instruments (RCW explicit or implicit limitations on Nexus: 36.70a.600(1)(e), (u)) (Comp Plan: Housing Y Y Y B,C,D,I land trust ownership in residential Element 8.1) zones Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 Action item Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 57 of 321 Work to be done 18. Bonding requirements Requiring adequate infrastructure Reviewing subdivision bond requirements to ensure improvement effectiveness, surety, and flexibility Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 on M �. 3 �C' T Y V C p 0. Ef6 W C Q v C E Y T f6 > *' LL T CL CL N N V 5 Q m E a Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 58 of 321 Packet A Accessary dwelling units Port Townsend's existing zoning permits accessory dwelling units, and many property owners have taken advantage of these provisions to construct them. Many have added to the number of rental units in town, but others remain available for other uses, such as for guest houses, studios, or other activities. These proposed amendments to the code are intended to increase the number of ADUs by allowing property owners in single-family zones to construct more than what the code now permits. This is achieved by: • Potentially permitting two ADUs per lot (17.16.020) • Exempting ADUs from density limits, except in R -III zones • Permitting ADUs as accessory uses for non -conforming single-family, detached development (17.16.020) • Allows additional exterior entrances oriented beyond side and rear lot lines (17.16.020) • Revisiting parking standards to ensure appropriateness with two ADUs • Revisiting setback standards Packet B —Cottage housing Cottage housing is a conditionally permitted use in the R-1 district and a permitted use in the R -II and R - III districts, consisting of a grouping of individual small detached housing units with a common open area, common parking, and common service facilities. The type already has a few developed examples in Port Townsend. The intent of these changes is to make it easier to develop cottage housing projects, ensuring their design is generally compatible with their surroundings and their densities conform to the comprehensive plan's policy. The revisions make cottage housing easier to develop by: • Reducing the minimum lot size in the R-1 zone to 10,000 sf and adjusting intensity (17.34.030) • Eliminating cottage housing separation requirements (17.34.200) • Reviewing the permitted use chart to clarify how cottage housing is permitted (17.16.020) • Making review a Type IA administrative decision by the PCD Director rather than a Type III, Hearing Examiner decision (17.16.020, 17.34.010, 17.46.030 and 20.01.040) Packet C — Tiny Houses The Planning Commission prioritized proposing new standards to make tiny houses on wheels more easily permitted in Port Townsend, allowing them as ADUs and within tiny house communities. The existing code has relatively little in place now to permit or regulate tiny houses, so these revisions propose a new zoning chapter to address them. Among other things, the new chapter: • Permits tiny houses on wheels by right as an ADU, subject to Type I review and conformance to minimum design considerations • Permits tiny houses to be occupied in tiny house communities and retain their wheels for future movement to another site Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 59 of 321 Packet D — Maximum comprehensive (plan densities and unit lot subdivisions The comprehensive plan assigns density ranges to each land use category, and each zoning district mirrors the comprehensive plan land use map. This direct correspondence between comprehensive plan land use designation and zoning district leads to the assignment of minimum lot size requirements in zoning. The minimum lot size requirements, however, may not always permit development in residential zones to attain the maximum permitted density noted in the comprehensive plan. Nearby Port Angeles adopted a unit lot subdivision ordinance, allowing for the creation of smaller -than - normal residential parcels within the scope of a larger development project. This creates a subdivision type similar to binding site plans, except it is designed specifically for residential purposes. This approach can create postage -stamp lots surrounded by common area, bound together by a set of operating conditions and development requirements to ensure continued access, drainage management, property maintenance, and other elements normally regulated in subdivisions. It is similar to the binding site plan process, but it is intended specifically to apply to housing types. The proposed revisions here make it easier to attain maximum permitted residential densities in the various residential districts. They do this by: • Treating townhouses or rowhouses of up to four units as single-family attached dwellings. Five or more single-family attached units are subject to multifamily design standards. • Facilitating conversion of larger detached single-family homes into two, three, or four units. • Eliminating minimum lot size requirements in favor of overall density, proposing a new chapter on unit lot subdivisions to create small parcels for townhomes and cottage housing development while ensuring continued management of critical design elements • Clarifying the diversity of housing types permitted in each zoning district • Allowing increased design flexibility without requiring planned unit development (PUD) approval for townhouses or unit lot subdivisions Packet E Parking Port Townsend has already reduced its minimum off-street parking requirements. This set of revisions proposes to reduce them even further. The revisions are intended to: • Relax minimum off-street parking requirements for duplex, triplex, and fourplex structures, particularly where streets are fully improved with curb and gutter. • Preserve elimination of parking space for first ADU. • Relax minimum off-street parking for multi -family housing types in R -IV and mixed-use districts. • Revise parking design standards to reduce improvement costs, enhance land utilization efficiency, facilitate active transportation, and ensure adequate stormwater management. Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 60 of 321 Packet F — Employer..Provided Housing Employers in Port Townsend have complained about the lack of affordable housing for their employees, noting they have difficulty attracting and then retaining staff at all levels because of the area's housing shortage. This revision to code allows employers to provide housing within their properties, permitting housing for employee occupancy on lands which may not now permit residential uses. The State of Washington already has provisions for "farmworker housing," acknowledging the need for less expensive, temporary housing intended to serve employees in what might be remote locations. This initiative would be similar, allowing for housing for public -serving institutions and industrial or manufacturing employees and incorporating design and operational standards to ensure health and safety. The changes propose: • Amending the permitted land use table to allow residential uses under certain conditions in commercial, public, park and open space, marine -related, and manufacturing zones, as appropriate • Establishing a conditional use permit review process to ensure such housing is safe and generally compatible with recreational, commercial, manufacturing, and industrial activities, as appropriate Packet G Collective ownership Land trusts, condominiums, cooperatives, and other collective ownership types are not now discussed in Port Townsend's development regulations. This is a shortcoming only in that their omission adds to the confusion of what a land trust or condominium is, frequently leading to the belief they are development types rather than ownership types. Almost any residential development type can be owned as a condominium, cooperative, or land trust, and amendments to the zoning ordinance will ensure these types of ownership can be applied to a variety of housing types. For example, a community land trust can develop housing of a detached or attached type, sell a divided interest in the housing unit and then retain an undivided interest in the common area. The land trust model also frequently retains interest in keeping units affordable, entering into contracts with buyers to ensure permanent affordability. While the ownership model is relatively complex, the housing type to which it applies is often indistinguishable from similar types nearby. Proposed amendments add definitions to the zoning ordinance and propose surgical changes to the permitted use tables to ensure the code accepts collective ownership types easily. The proposals here: • Include definitions as appropriate to permit forms of collective or cooperative ownership of residential projects, such as cohousing, cooperatives, land trusts, and others. • Clarify attached residential housing types (duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) can be permitted in commercial districts in conjunction with commercial uses Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 61 of 321 Packet H — Hoor area ratio (FAR) Port Townsend has mixed-use zoning already in place, and, in some areas, residential uses are permitted in commercial zones. These proposed revisions will focus intensity regulation away from units per acre and, instead, focus on floor area ratio. By concentrating on building bulk rather on the number of units included within that bulk, the code will provide more flexibility for mixed-use developers to vary the types and sizes of individual residential units. If demand moves toward smaller, more affordable units, projects can include them without necessarily running into density limitations — as long as they remain within maximum permitted FAR. In addition, FAR bonuses can be used to reward developers who guarantee a share of their units will be rented at below-market rates. This can contribute to variety in the type of unit included in a single project and provide flexibility to project designers. The revisions to the zoning include: Consistent use of FAR rather than units per acre in all mixed-use and commercial districts permitting residential uses Bonus FAR increases to projects promising perpetual affordable rents for 20% of its units • Eliminating density limitation based on units Packet I Miscehneous revisions This process has revealed several instances where the code's review processes, application requirements, definitions, or land use tables can benefit from a good scrubbing. This can be particularly helpful in clarifying inconsistencies, codifying administrative interpretations, or adjusting thresholds to make the construction of missing middle housing easier. Some of the changes proposed here include: • Streamlining application requirements to ensure materials required for various permits are only what is needed for permit review and action. • Adjusting application "types" to quicken reviews and approvals • Relaxing residential setback requirements, particularly for front yards in the R -III district and in other residential districts related to accessory structures. • Increase maximum lot coverage thresholds to permit construction of additional dwelling units in R -I and R -II districts. Port Townsend Tactical Infill Zoning Approach — March 2023 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 62 of 321 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Proposal Description: Tactical Infill Housing Amendments— The City proposes amendments to the Port Townsend Municipal Code Titles 17 Zoning, 18 Land Division and 20 Administration of Land Development Regulations to encourage affordable, dense, and quality infill residential development consistent with Washington State Growth Management Act RCW36.70A.600 — Increasing residential building capacity. This is a non -project action to amend the city's development regulations. File References: LUP 23-014 Location/Legal Description: If adopted, amendments will apply city-wide. Proponent: City of Port Townsend Planning and Community Development Department (PCD) 250 Madison Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Lead Agency: City of Port Townsend, PCD Determination of Non- Significance: The City of Port Townsend, as SEPA lead agency, has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW43.21.030 (2)(c). The requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158. The city will not require any additional mitigation measures under SEPA. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This DNS is issued under and WAC 197-11-340(2); the Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issuance. SEPA Public Comment Deadline: Written comments concerning the environmental analysis and SEPA determination must be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department no later than 4:00 p.m., March 16, 2023. Please address comments to the SEPA Responsible Official. Open Record Public Hearing: An open record public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission for a recommendation to City Council. The date for the Planning Commission Hearing has been scheduled for March 9, 2023, beginning at or about 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers of Port Townsend's City Hall, located at 540 Water Street. Separate public notice of the subsequent City Council hearing will be provided in accordance with municipal code. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 63 of 321 Responsible Official: Emma Bolin, AICP Director, Planning & Community Development 250 Madison Street, Suite 3 Port Townsend, WA 98368 ebrrlmee ctt off? Signature:_ Date: March 1, 2023 TO: All Permit and Review Authorities ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD The environmental review consisted of analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record. DOCUMENTS/REFERENCES: Exhibit A: Environmental Checklist, dated February 27, 2023 Attachment A: Summary of Draft Amendments Exhibit B: Zoning Approach: Draft Amendments in Bill Format Draft amendments and related documents will be available for review on or before March 1, 2023 at: hllps://cilfpt.us/plannin -community. devcloptnea l/pagc��csidcntiai bualdang .1 acit If you prefer to view documents at City Hall, please contact the City Clerk 4Mdri tes-a)Cityofpt.us RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL'S AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Environmental Checklist (Ex. A) adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed amendments. Subsequent project actions (e.g. construction/repair projects) may require further project -level under SEPA, Critical Areas (PTMC 19.05), or Shorelines Master Program. No probable significant adverse impact on the environment have been identified from adoption of the proposed Tactical Infill Housing amendments, therefore issuance of a Determination of Non -significance is warranted. 2 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 64 of 321 From: Heidi Greenwood To: Emma Bolin; Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Comment for Planning Commission meeting on 12/15 Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:53:53 AM From: Kathy Hartmann <kathyhartmann57@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:28 AM To: PublicComment@cityofpt.us Subject: Comment for Planning Commission meeting on 12/15 Planning Commission, It is my hope that our city will create a housing plan that includes permanent affordable housing for those working in our community who earn under 150% of the area median income. These are the people who keep our hospital staffed, schools open, port running, and emergency services operating. How can we be a community without these people? We need them and they deserve to live here. Passing city codes solely focused on Market rate housing would not help provide the middle range housing that we are missing.We would have more housing that continues to be out of the range of our workforce. I would like to see the city consider incentives for developers to include permanent affordable workforce housing within their projects. This might allow a builder to create a fourplex if one of the units is permanently affordable. This approach mixes lower and higher priced housing creating a healthy diverse community and builders can continue to earn a profit. If we continue to permit development with no attached requirements to include workforce housing, such as Trail Crest, we will continue to lose our sense of community. My hope is that we can join together. Helping each other we can come out of this housing crisis as the strong community that I know we are. Kathy Hartmann 2965 Jackman St. Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 65 of 321 From: Emma Bolin To: Lonnie Mickle Cc: Judy Surber Subject: FW: Planning Commission Comment 12.15.22 Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:41:40 AM Attachments: imaae001.ona A comment for the packet tonight. Lonnie, I will also try to get the powerpoint to you as well at some point today. Thanks, Emma Bolin, AICP I Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend I wyLE...cit. aafpLLu_s I abr lir;7,,( r tv F �t.us 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 From: Kellen Lynch <kellen.lynch @outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:34 AM To: PTPC@cityofpt.us; publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: Planning Commission Comment 12.15.22 Greetings all, am writing today to simply illuminate the findings of regional cities that have pursued adopting `missing middle' type housing without protections for affordability. You are likely already aware, but even so, here we go! A compilation of case studies assembled by MRSC from the Cities of Wenatchee, Bellingham, Kirkland, Olympia and Spokane show that the development of 'missing middle' housing will likely not become affordable to most of the residents that already live in Port Townsend or would work come to work at our local businesses. I am not against development in this city, and I do not have a winning example to point to at city -scale that we should emulate. I just hope we can incorporate this reality from our regional proxies. Page 10: "Likely not affordable to those earning <80% AMI" — MRSC Overview Page 105: "Infill Toolkit housing has generally not equated affordable housing." - Bellingham's "What have we learned" Page 123: "This is not affordable housing, and new units come with high price tags." - Kirkland's Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 66 of 321 "takeaways" Thank you for your efforts, Kellen Lynch �nrrv:.var..pystodgo„ori I Port Townsend, WA Kellen Lynch ........ .........::nt........ajQ:E stud o„org I Port Townsend, WA L-- Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 67 of 321 From: Heidi Greenwood To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Affordable Housing Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 1:42:34 PM From: Lori <froggybottoms20@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 12:41 PM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: Affordable Housing Good Evening. There is something wrong when a professional woman, working full time in Port Townsend, who has lived here for over 30 years, and is now in her 70s -- cannot afford to buy her first home here. Another woman, now in her 40s, who was born and raised here, also has an advanced degree and works full time in town. But she too, is unable to buy a home and may be forced to move elsewhere. My friend's situations are not unique. Nor is this issue unique to Port Townsend. But Port Townsend can be proactive. The city can commit to increasing and protecting housing for our local workforce, especially those who make over the threshhold to qualify for low-income housing and yet not enough to purchase market rate housing. The city can also ensure that any code changes address housing options for those making under 150% of the area median income. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Lori Bernstein Port Townsend, WA Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 68 of 321 From: Heidi Greenwood To: Lonnie Mickle; Emma Bolin Subject: FW: Affordable Housing Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:20:11 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Susan Biskeborn <sebiskebomggmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:07 AM To: PublicComment@cityofpt.us Cc: Kathy And Glenn Hartmann <kathyhartmann57@gmail.com> Subject: Affordable Housing Dear Pt. Townsend City Planners: It's high time for this city and its citizens to create affordable housing for hard-working humans, rather than wasting time on various accommodations for deer and lodging for raccoons. I'm sure that the business owners and taxpayers of Pt. Townsend agree that affordable housing for human beings who work here in our hospital and our shops and restaurants should be one of this city's top priorities. Merry Christmas! Susan Biskeborn 328 T Street Sent from my iPhone Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 69 of 321 From: Heidi Greenwood To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Comment for Dec 15th Special Session Planning Commission Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 3:25:15 PM From: Anri Orihara <anrifreitag@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 12:37 PM To: PublicComment@cityofpt.us Subject: Comment for Dec 15th Special Session Planning Commission Please just let us build homes for people in need and let us drop them where we need to. Small towns deserve small rules! Do something helpful for the community instead of getting in the way and extorting people. It's sickening. Anri, Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 70 of 321 From: Kelsey Caudebec To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: Fw: Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 3:59:21 PM Hello, please disregard if not relevant - but I got the automatic "out of office" reply when I sent in my public comment, so just making sure it's getting recorded for tonight's meeting. Kelsey Caudebec Network Weaver Housing Solutions Network she/her From: Kelsey Caudebec Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 3:57 PM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us <publiccomment@cityofpt.us> Subject: Firstly, I am glad for these community conversations around housing and how to address our local housing crisis. And I want to express my gratitude that, even though we may sometimes disagree on the "how's," we have city leaders who are committed to addressing this crisis. We all love Port Townsend and we all want more available and affordable housing for our workforce, and I'm happy to at least have the same goal in mind, even if there are sometimes disagreements on what the solutions are for our particular community. 1 1,000% support upzoning if there are stipulations in place that make a percentage of units permanently affordable for the workforce. But I firmly believe that upzoning without these protections will not lead to more affordable housing. Some may think that our problem will be solved if we simply increase the supply of housing. I wish that were true. However, barring the Big One, there will never, ever be a shortage of people with wealth who want to move to Port Townsend. There will never be a shortage of wealthy retirees, second -home buyers, and remote workers who want to buy a house in our charming seaport. There will never be an end to the line. Meanwhile, we have 125 open positions at our local hospital - not because people don't want those jobs, but because there are simply not enough places for potential workers to live - even those making up to 150% or even more of the area median income. This applies to both buying and renting. Alleviating our housing crisis will inherently requiring building more. But it will require a lot more than that. And I implore fellow Port Townsend citizens to accept that this might get uncomfortable. We might have to give up some things. We might have to use up a little bit of green space. We might have to give up a view of the sunset we have from our window. We Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 71 of 321 might have to deal with some noisy construction. We might have to put in the effort to educate ourselves on what could work. But you know what we might get in return? A hospital where we don't have to worry about understaffing when someone we love needs to go to the ER. Knowing our emergency responders are fully staffed when a partner or parent hits black ice on 101. Fully staffed restaurants, fully staffed stores, homes for maritime workers and the farmers who grow our food. Just the other night there was a fire at the mill and as reported by the Leader, Chief Black expressed that "once again we were spread too thin," reminiscent of comments by he and others we interviewed in our early 2022 report "Serving our Community Through Tough Times: Stories from East Jefferson County Employers" in which everyone interviewed indicated lack of workforce housing as one of their major barriers. Change can be difficult. But the status quo is absolutely not working, and the ramifications of that will be even more difficult. So we need to choose our difficult. I ask that fellow community members be willing to have open minds, hearts, and eyes about what it might take to provide the housing that we critically need for those working and living in Port Townsend. I also ask that you show up to support when viable solutions are on the table. I grew up here. I hope I can stay here. Thank you to all who are participating in and supporting this conversation. Kelsey Caudebec Housing Solutions Network Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 72 of 321 From: Heidi Greenwood To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Public Comment for Open Mic Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 4:12:41 PM Attachments: imaae001.Dna From: Liz Revord <Liz@jcfgives.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 4:05 PM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: Public Comment for Open Mic Dear City Council + Planning Commission Members, Elected Officials, and City Staff; I don't know whether to pull at your heart strings, drive more local data, or how to better articulate the concerns of many in this community or the importance for the need for affordable housing that expands to meet the needs of the sector of the workforce that makes up to 150% of the area median income (around $110,850 for a local working household). Today, we we're invited to gather into a room and have a conversation to help address those concerns, to tell our stories from the hearts and mouths of housing advocates with over 20 year's experience, a critical -service business owners, a hospital director (who drives in from Poulsbo every day), realtors who have given up on selling second homes, and representatives from other housing organizations that will also be impacted by code changes if done incorrectly. A staff member had his two children in the room, two young girls under the ages of three, because that's what it looks like to be the workforce. The conversation was healthy, robust, inclusive, and painted the picture loud and clear: we need more affordable housing for our workforce. The HOW is the question on the table at this time. How do we do so equitably? How do we so inclusively? How do we do so that meets our community's needs? How do we do so to quickly and effectively solve our growing housing crisis? But, at the end of the meeting the consultant's response was, "We build more housing" and the room reverberated in an astounding, "MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING". Please help us understand your trickle down economics approach to housing as a viable solution to our community. We continue to hear the championing motto, "if Port Townsend can't find the solution, than no one can!" and while I hear that and respect that, I fear that painting a broad brush Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 73 of 321 stroke of more market -rate housing leaves all of the concerns of many affordable housing advocates and workforce households cries for solutions falling on deaf ears. I am reminded of an old Iroquois Seventh Generation Principle, "that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future." I encourage you to see that protecting housing falls into this principle. So when you ask me about missing middle housing, I ask you about the systems that will work for the people who need it. • I ask for long term, ideally permanent affordability; not something lost at the first point of sale. • I ask for a community who understands that vital services can't exist without the people to execute them; and not rely on them to commute in or work five jobs just to live. • I ask for mixed affordability so that our community can grow and flourish with diversity, equity, and compassion; not laying down more invisible train tracks that separate the haves from the have nots. • I ask for dense, walkable communities close to services and places for youth, things for the next generation; because those things can exist, and should exist, in harmony. • I ask for protections for those who want to live and work in this community; the service workers, the nurses, the teachers, the non-profit staff, the city and county staff, the change -makers of this community. • I ask that we prioritize building systems that will not fail them. I ask for a strategy to include them in the future of Port Townsend. I ask that we work together to find solutions to our growing housing crisis. And I ask for that now. In Community, Liz Revord Liz Vgevoord Housing Solutions Network Network Director EM Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 74 of 321 Comment for December 15 special session planning commission. We all know that housing in Port Townsend and Jefferson county is hard to find. Finding affordable housing is even harder. Some progress is being made and that is commendable. Substantially more needs to be done. We need to change where we build, what we build, how it is built and what we permit to be housing in our city in order to be more inclusive, supportive, and affordable. One of the ways that needs to be considered is to change the zoning to allow movable tiny homes on wheels (THOW) to be used as accessory dwelling units, ADU's. These small, 400 square -foot, homes provide the safety and security that living in a tent or in your car cannot. They are affordable, built to ANSI 119.5 (RV) standards, utilize existing infrastructure and eliminate the need to purchase land, which is one of the largest cost factors in building conventional housing. The second step that needs to be considered is expanding the opportunity for extended stay in tiny home parks. Currently the only place for a THOW to stay for longer than 180 days is the Seabreeze RV park. Opportunities for cooperatively owned and managed RV Parks need to be created. Employers needing housing for their employees could sponsor such a park, residents could cooperatively own and manage parks. Much as Quimper Mercantile has done, our community could decide to build an d create a rental cooperative. Each of these proposals requires us to think past the old ways of doing things and create new and inclusive opportunities. I encourage you to be bold. Do not be confined in the old boxes of private ownership of a single-family homes we no longer have the luxury to think this way. Sincerely, Peter Bonyun Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 75 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodrigues To: Emma Bolin Cc: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Be Careful What You Wish For Date: Thursday, December 22, 2022 9:27:21 AM Hi Emma, Do you think this should be included in the Council packet or in the next Planning Commission packet? Alyssa Rodrigues) City Clerk City of Port Townsend I www.cityofpt.us I arodrigues@cityofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 -----Original Message ----- From: Tim Hodge <trhodge2650@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 9:12 AM To: publiccomment@),cityofpt.us Subject: Be Careful What You Wish For Dear John Mauro and City Council Members, My husband and I lived in Long Beach, CA for 51 years. We have now been in Port Townsend for 17 years. As you may or may not know, Long Beach was a big territory for the Crips and the Bloods gangs. Our Police Department organized a special Gang Force Unit just to deal with them and the other 20-30 smaller gangs that kept popping up. During our time in Long Beach, we witnessed the decline of single family homes near the downtown area. Since the City needed more places for lower income people to live, the City Council changed the zoning laws. A very nice quite area that had many 1900-1940's Craftsmen style homes were put at risk. When one house went up `for sale' it was immediately torn down and the developer built a 6-8 unit apartment building with 6-8 carports on that site. Well, the neighbors were not happy when the new tenants were looking down upon their backyard. So they too, sold, and another 6-8 apartment sprung up. And so on and on. Well, the affordable housing was great, but now working class, lower income families could not allow their young children to play in the apartment yard or walk on the front sidewalk unless very well supervised. This was due to the teenage youngsters who were trying to recruit them into their gang activity while playing their rap music and selling drugs to the customers who drove by in their cars. Yes, the affordable rent also attracted gang members and they then could expand their territory. The street parking was also very affected. The street was very narrow to start with. With parking allowed on both sides, 4 cars were a tight fit. If you worked late, you may have had to park 2 blocks away and walk down the sidewalk through the mayhem of what took place on the sidewalks. This happened in the late 1980's. Now jump to the 1990's on the other side of town. Belmont Shore's Main Street is a street very similar to our Water Street with restaurants and shopping. Very popular and very busy all the time. You are 3-4 blocks from the Pacific Ocean and a small bay for swimming. The street is bordered by small older homes that are close enough that you could pass your neighbor the `Grey Poupon' from your open windows. Some houses are stucco, Craftsman or clapboard, all very well maintained and most had a front yard driveway for at least a one car garage. Some streets may have had an alley with a garage entrance. Street parking here is also a nightmare. With parking allowed on both sides, 4 cars was also the limit width for these streets. Someone asked at the City if they could turn their garage into an extra bedroom. The City changed the zoning to allow this. So now any one who had a garage could change it to a spare bedroom or whatever. Some tore out their driveways and landscaped. Fast forward about 10 years. Now the City wants these renovated rooms to be turned back into a garage. Why? Not enough street parking! So if your house was put up `for sale', you must first put your garage back! Not sure how well that went over with these homeowners. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 76 of 321 These are just 2 points of interest for you to think about and it seems that these 2 zoning laws are what you are wanting to do in Port Townsend. So be careful what you wish for! Tim and Janice Hodge Sent from my Wad Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 77 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodrigues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Comment for Planning Commission meeting on 12/15 Date: Monday, December 19, 2022 8:40:07 AM Alyssa Rodrigues City Clerk City of Port TownsendLus CI;L . Cif ...... y. 2rQdr;%cuesCaLiLt:.i..As 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 From: Kathy Hartmann <kathyhartmann57@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:28 AM To: PublicComment@cityofpt.us Subject: Comment for Planning Commission meeting on 12/15 Planning Commission, It is my hope that our city will create a housing plan that includes permanent affordable housing for those working in our community who earn under 150% of the area median income. These are the people who keep our hospital staffed, schools open, port running, and emergency services operating. How can we be a community without these people? We need them and they deserve to live here. Passing city codes solely focused on Market rate housing would not help provide the middle range housing that we are missing.We would have more housing that continues to be out of the range of our workforce. I would like to see the city consider incentives for developers to include permanent affordable workforce housing within their projects. This might allow a builder to create a fourplex if one of the units is permanently affordable. This approach mixes lower and higher priced housing creating a healthy diverse community and builders can continue to earn a profit. If we continue to permit development with no attached requirements to include workforce housing, such as Trail Crest, we will continue to lose our sense of community. My hope is that we can join together. Helping each other we can come out of this housing crisis as the strong community that I know we are. Kathy Hartmann 2965 Jackman St. Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 78 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodrigues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Increasing Residential Capacity Date: Monday, December 19, 2022 5:44:53 AM Alyssa Rodrigues) City Clerk City of Port Townsend I www.cityofpt.us I arodrigues@cityofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 -----Original Message ----- From: Mark Blatter <markblatter@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 3:23 PM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: Increasing Residential Capacity Suggestions for the Planning Commission public discussion tonight - ways to increase residential capacity. Incentives for affordable housing must be addressed. The City declared an emergency over lack of affordable housing and should do more to promote development. 1. Require some minimum number of affordable housing units if PUD approval is sought for development. The PUD ordinance is already set up to require public benefits in return for development standards waivers. 2. Create a voluntary density bonus incentive or fee in lieu for all housing developments greater than 10 units. 3. Require permanent housing affordability via deed restriction or other means for the workforce housing to be developed at Evans Vista. 4. Develop a program, perhaps in partnership with a nonprofit organization, to monitor compliance with affordability deed restrictions. 5. Permit 2 -unit condominium development on single lots so that ADUs can be sold to new owner residents. Sent from my iPhone Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 79 of 321 From: Emma Bolin To: Lonnie Mickle; Bill Grimes Subject: FW: Invitation, Sign Up Requested: City"s Infill Housing Updates - Stakeholder Interviews Date: Monday, December 19, 2022 10:28:47 AM EM I am sending this to you rather than simply asking Lonnie to add it to the Open Mic Public Comment packet because Eric was scheduled to attend the lender stakeholder meeting. Thanks, Emma Bolin, AICP Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend www.cityofpt.us I ebolinr cit:yofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 From: Eric Peterson <theotherericpeterson@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 10:36 AM To: Emma Bolin <ebolin@cityofpt.us> Subject: Re: Invitation, Sign Up Requested: City's Infill Housing Updates - Stakeholder Interviews Comments: My lens is housing systems. The pattern language of a thriving small town is Walkable urban core transitioning abruptly to agrarian spaces. Almost all our wealth is concentrated in the hands of just a few families, but almost all our cities footprint is occupied by 2 or 3 bedroom single family houses that look like we have generally equal means. Either we need to close the wealth gap so almost everyone has the same amount of money for housing, or change the housing to honestly reflect the real distribution of wealth. If the housing were to reflect the real buying power of the people who live here, we would have an urban core full of mixed use midrise buildings with businesses at ground level and old, paid for and affordable apartments above, with a ring of opulent family mansions, and then immediately transition to open spaces, forest, parks, land preserves, farms, outdoor recreation. There would be almost no suburban construction. A whole system for robust housing covers a progression of stepping stones from a state of emergency to a robust housing infrastructure. This starts with accommodation for mobile - RV - van life - car living people who will find work faster Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 80 of 321 than they will find housing. As long this stage of housing security is embraced as a necessary temporary step they will rapidly progress to permanent indoor housing. This is a place for civic leadership. They need code accommodation for affordable dignified places to van live near urban center third place services -coffee shops, laundry mats, gyms, for several months while they build the relationships that will expose them to the next housing option. The codes need to allow people to camp in their cars. The land use needs space for people to camp in their cars. Not forever, but long enough to match the time it realistically takes to find a permanent place to live here. It can be done gracefully. Home share is the next very powerful stepping stone for robust housing. Home share is powerful because it's instantly deployable and scalable and doesn't require any construction, public funding, charity or active management. It responds to the needs of both home seekers and people with stable housing in -hand but on the fringe of affordability. The codes need to omit language limiting the number of unrelated people living in single family residences and avoid licensing requirements for owner occupied rentals. Again, the power of this tool is the speed that it can adjust to changes in housing demand. Fast and informal is imperative. Just get out of the way and let it work. Owner occupant constructed housing. Much of the pervasive housing insecurity comes from not being able to afford to pay someone else's labor to build a home. The permitting process currently is built around keeping professional developers in check. We need a separate parallel pathway for homeowners to build and expand their own homes. It needs to feature deferred fees, a more instructional permit review and onsite inspection processes with longer scheduled inspection appointments, a code language system that is written to look like an instructional tool instead of a regulatory document (heavily illustrated, furnished with more typical examples), compliance pathways that invite materials and methods that are biased toward voluntary labor, long term construction permits that can stay open for 10+ years without extra fees, and allow occupancy during construction. This is the biggest bluewater opportunity right now. Mixed use commercial, also called Live -work spaces, 5 on 2, midrise, the roman system, This is the long term infrastructural solution to robust housing that is flexible and relevant for centuries. These are the future historic buildings of Port Townsend. We should be building 1 of these in Port Townsend every10 years. Not 80 of them in 5 years like south lake union is doing, and not all of them in the 1890s and then nothing ever again, like we have done in Port Townsend. These are market rate buildings that never need public funds, they spend 20 years as super premium properties until the investors earn their return, and then become affordable unsubsidized housing for the next 200 years after they are paid for. The key to making these work is to build them steadily so that the main building infrastructure of the downtown core ages and grows seamlessly. We're overdue for the next one. Eric On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 at 08:33, Emma Bolin <ebolin(@cit)lofpt.us> wrote: Hi Eric, Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 81 of 321 Unfortunately, there isn't a public call in option. You can have someone put you on speakerphone with a smart phone. Feel free to mail in comments to us! Thanks, Emma Bolin, AICP Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend I www.cittofpt.us I ebolin(a-)cityofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 From: Eric Peterson <theotherericpeterson(@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 10:01 PM To: Emma Bolin <ebolin(@cityofpt.us> Subject: Re: Invitation, Sign Up Requested: City's Infill Housing Updates - Stakeholder Interviews Is there a call in opportunity. Too much to share to miss this, but in Leavenworth that week. Eric On Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 9:58 PM Eric Peterson <theotherericpeterson(@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Emma, 16th gam works for me. On Mon, Dec 5, 2022, 10:28 AM Emma Bolin <ebolinPcityofpt.us> wrote: Good morning, It looks like the majority of the group has time available on the 16th from 9-10am. I am sending you all a calendar invitation from Microsoft Bookings. I look forward to meeting you then! I did not hear from everyone (and have added Eric Peterson based on Jane's suggestion), so if this time doesn't work for you, we can find another way to connect. It's possible to have a few more folks in the interview at the same time; therefore, if there's someone else who should be in the interview to discuss housing finance, please share the invitation. Thank you kindly, Emma Bolin, AICP Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend www.cityofr)t.us I ebolin(a-)cityofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 82 of 321 From: Deborah Stinson <debstin(cDlive.com> Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 9:46 AM To: Earll M Murman <murmanCbDmit.edu>; Emma Bolin <ebolin(@cityofpt.us> Cc: terence.fleischerPfsbwa.com; Kees Kolff <kkolff(@olympus.net>; Jane Lohry Armstrong <seepuget (c)gmai1.com> Subject: RE: Invitation, Sign Up Requested: City's Infill Housing Updates - Stakeholder Interviews Hello Emma, Thank you for convening this conversation and for your invitation to participate. I am available for any of the proposed time, with a preference for 4-5pm or 9-10am on Dec 16. Best regards, Deborah From: Earll M Murman Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 8:56 AM To: Emma Bolin Cc: terence.fleischer(@fsbwa.com; Kees Kolff; Deborah Stinson; Jane Lohry Armstrong Subject: Re: Invitation, Sign Up Requested: City's Infill Housing Updates - Stakeholder Interviews Hi Emma Thank you for the invitation. For my available times: First choices: Dec 15 from 2-3 and Dec 16 from 4-5 Third choice: Dec 16 from 9-10. I don't know if you have other names on your invitation list for local lenders, but the group might be better balanced if there were several more commercial lenders participating. The total lending resources for commercial lenders is much larger than for LION type lenders. HSN maintains a list of local commercial lenders on its ADU webpage https://docs.g000 le.com/spreadsheets/d/lKfn7NGu DLVQrPn2pCyEOft7BrbSWkXOY I mOHZotidO0/edit#gid=1192277905 Dominic Svornich of New American Funding and Lisa Marie Warren of Sound Community Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 83 of 321 Bank are two people that have been engaged in this topic, along with Terence. Cheers Earll On Dec 2, 2022, at 4:47 PM, Emma Bolin <ebolin(@cityofpt.us> wrote: Good evening! The City of Port Townsend is considering short-term strategic actions to amend its zoning, to build residential capacity and lead to a more equitable housing outcome. We are kicking off the process with a series of initial conversations to reveal what topics this update should cover and which issues we should address. We're hoping to talk with a cross-section of the community to better understand what Port Townsend's residents, landowners, agencies, and business people are thinking. These conversations will help us to consider various perspectives and identify and understand how best to move forward with our planning process. We invite you to spend about 45 minutes talking with us about the City's future and then join us in the rest of the process to make sure we stay on track. We're eager to hear what you have to say! Bill Grimes of SCJ Alliance (our consultant) will be in town to meet with 12 groups to hold interviews at the Cotton Building located at 607 Water Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 ■ Who: Local lenders are thought to represent a distinctive group that would be important to hear from as one group interview. ■ Sign up: Please let me know your first, second, and third choice for an interview. The available times are: Dec 15: 2-3pm Dec 16: 8-9am, 9-10am, 2-3pm or 4-5pm. *The interviews must be scheduled a minimum of 72 hours in advance. We ask that you promptly respond with your preference up as we only have 12 slots available and there are myriad of other groups that may want the time. If you would like to be involved but none of the time slots work, please let us know and we will find another way to talk. Additionally, the City will be hosting a special Planning Commission meeting, Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 84 of 321 Open Mic night at 6:00pm in City Hall Council Chambers. These interviews are a first step to frame future discussions. The process that follows will bring out more ideas and perspectives, and an increasingly nuanced take on the community's vision and growth -related policies. After the interviews, there will be additional opportunities to engage in the process - please see the table below. Date Public Engagement Opportunity Dec 1 -11th Submissions for the Library's Gingerbread House Contest will be accepted. Housing for All category is new this year, and includes middle housing types. Dec 15, 2022 6pm Special Planning Commission Meeting: Open Mic Night, City Hall Council Chambers January 12, 2023 Planning Commission Regular Meeting: presentation of outreach results and list of amendment options February 13, 2023 Joint Planning Commission/City Council Community Forum on draft amendments Check back for updates on other engagement opportunities, or simply ways to learn more! Visit our project website to learn more: https://cit�ofpt.us/development- services/page/residential-building-capacitu We hope to see you there, too! Thanks in advance! Emma Bolin, AICP Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend \nr\nnnr.ciLyofQL.u:; I ebo1in(@cityofDt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 CITYOFPT NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Public documents and records are available to the public as required under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity may be Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 85 of 321 disclosable to third party requesters under the Public Records Act. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 86 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodriaues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Public comment -- Planning Commission meeting Jan 12 Date: Thursday, January 12, 2023 8:24:36 AM Alyssa Rodrigues City Clerk City of Port Townsend www.cityofnt.us I arodriEues(@ciLyofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 From: Kathryn Maly <kathrynmaly@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 5:36 PM To: Alyssa Rodrigues <arodrigues@cityofpt.us>; PublicComment@cityofpt.us Subject: Public comment -- Planning Commission meeting Jan 12 Dear Planning Commissioners, Council Members and Staff, In the memo for tonight's meeting, I greatly appreciate that Planning and Community Development Director, Emma Bolin, underscored that the intent of this initial code amendment work is to ...facilitate housing availability for those households earning between 80% and 150% of the area's median income. This targets housing affordable to those households — either to rent or to buy — who earn between $46,154 to $86,539 per year (based on 2020 income data). Source memo: Tactical Infill Housing — Zoning Text Amendments https://cityofpt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=2183&meta_id=210750 There are currently 109 unfilled positions at Jefferson Healthcare and 33 of those positions are for nurses. We desperately need housing that is affordable for people who work in our local economy -- like nurses, teachers, folks in the marine trades, artists, grocery clerks, utility workers, and non-profit and government employees. As you know, the median home sales price of $600,000 is more than double what local working families can afford. We cannot sustain a hospital, schools, public utilities, and emergency, government, and social services without housing that is affordable for the people who provide these Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 87 of 321 services Amending the code to increase density without policies and programs that protect affordability will only pour gasoline on the fire of displacement local workers and families are already experiencing. Thank you for keeping affordability for our local workforce paramount as you evaluate options and make recommendations. Kathryn Maly Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 88 of 321 From: Lonnie Mickle To: Emma Bolin Subject: FW: Public comment for the Dec 15, 2022 Open Mic Special Planning Commission Meeting Date: Monday, December 19, 2022 8:04:00 AM Attachments: imaae001.ona Another late submission, but I think she spoke at the meeting. Lonnie B Mickle I Deputy City Clerk, Legal Assistance City of Port Townsend I ,W...w. W .C.il„.r, f. t rImi, kl, „ i,tyof�t us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 344-4605 1 F:(360) 390-5645 Follow us on Focebook: m ip Ln.C/L.II �a. From: Heidi Greenwood <HGreenwood@cityofpt.us> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 6:13 AM To: Lonnie Mickle <Imickle@cityofpt.us> Subject: Fw: Public comment for the Dec 15, 2022 Open Mic Special Planning Commission Meeting From: J a i s ri Li nga p pa <Jaj n.p:t..(._. - rn a ig,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I. co m> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 5:29 PM To:,pi:ab.l.ccc�.rn.rn.ent.�.cj;tpt.us<,pu.k.lj.ccr�mmen:t.(�c.tyo:.pt.us> Subject: Public comment for the Dec 15, 2022 Open Mic Special Planning Commission Meeting Mr. Grimes, thank you for coming to our community and for listening to the many diverse voices you have heard today. My understanding is that you are being tasked with helping to write Missing Middle Housing code changes, which is a fast-track form of legislation that will increase density in Port Townsend and therefore attract developers to build more housing. I would ask you as you do this to please keep in mind the rule of first do no harm. We have a real-time example of how well-meaning code changes can be disastrous, and it is in Langley, on Whidbey Island right across the bay. Langley passed Missing Middle Housing legislation a year and a half ago. They reduced rules and regulations to allow a lot more density. And what did they get in return? Developers in Langley say there has been an immediate sky -rocketing of land prices since land now has a lot more development potential. A developer well known to our area reports a doubling of land prices in Langley as a result of Missing Middle legislation. If Port Townsend does the same thing as Langley — incentivize the building of market -rate housing by allowing more density — we will see the exact same thing here, namely a drastic increase in the already high prices of land in Port Townsend as land speculators buy up properties. What will be the consequences of that? One consequence will be that organizations like Habitat for Humanity and Olympic Housing Trust will be much less likely to buy new land. So the number of new projects they undertake could drop considerably. In addition, which pieces of land will be purchased first by speculators? They will target the properties that currently contain more modest, affordable homes, meaning we could actually lose affordable properties since those will be the low hanging fruit from a developer's point of view. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 89 of 321 Keep in mind that much of the demand in Port Townsend right now is from retirees who are cashing out on homes that have earned enormous equity, wealthy climate migrants, remote workers with substantial means, and people who are buying second and third homes in our area. These people can pay for housing entirely in cash, which allows them to outcompete local workforce households who are dependent on loans and can't afford current real estate prices anyway. Thus, this group alone is outcompeting people even with good salaries who are in our local workforce. But, there is yet another form of demand that could be incentivized by the increase in development potential that could result from upcoming code changes. Port Townsend has already attracted an investment company that operates across the country and appeals to buyers who are looking to make money off investment properties. That is the type of demand that could become much more prevalent if Missing Middle Housing legislation increases the speculative potential of buildable land. I know some city leaders who say: just give the plan to build more market -rate housing a chance. But this is a genie that no-one can put back in the bottle. Look at Langley — there is no reasonable way to bring their land prices back down. And lest you think that market -rate rental units are the answer — we are seeing the same problem of rental units, from ADUs on up, being unaffordable to those working in the local economy. So we need affordability requirements on the rental front as well. Mr. Grimes, our city leaders have a difficult task ahead of them — they hold the responsibility to not make an already bad situation much worse, and ideally to make it better. They will not be able to say they had no idea how bad it could get — all they needed to do was look at all the communities around us including Langley, Seattle, Kitsap — to see what building more market -rate housing has done to home sale prices and housing insecurity. Let us not be lemmings who follow a path to a disastrous outcome just because it is the path being laid ahead of us. So what is the answer then? Port Townsend is going to have to set a model for doing something different — for requiring that permanently affordable housing for the local workforce at a variety of incomes is baked into the cake from the start - that market -rate developments will include a certain percentage of affordable housing. There are many ways to do this — density bonuses and deed restrictions are two tried and true examples used all over the state and country. Mr. Grimes, we hope that you will help the city see that there are ways that they can be leaders on this front. We have entrusted them with an important responsibility — many were elected on affordable housing platforms. We hope you will help our leaders stay true to what our community actually needs. Jaisri Lingappa Port Townsend resident Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 90 of 321 From: Emma Bolin To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Zoning code suggestions Date: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 11:30:01 AM Please add this to the comments for the 1/12 PC meeting. Thanks! Emma Bolin, AICP Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend wwwc!;t, of Lus I eLal,ir�,,(7c t, ofy �t_us 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 From: Richard Berg <Richard@terrapin-arch.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 5:39 PM To: Emma Bolin <ebolin@cityofpt.us>; Judy Surber <jsurber@cityofpt.us> Subject: Zoning code suggestions Hi Emma and Judy, Here are a couple of suggestions that didn't come to mind for me during the meeting: 1) (This was suggested by Rick Sepler years ago, but never went anywhere at that time): For accessory buildings—sheds and such but including ADUs—and in the back half of the lot only (this would need some careful definition obviously, but include the rear lot line and back half of side lot lines) allow accessory buildings to be built within the side and back setbacks, as long as the buildings are built with fire protected walls and eaves as specified by the building code. This would eliminate unused and trashy 5' spaces between shed or ADU back walls and property lines, and allow more of the back yard space to be usable on the other side of the building. The back wall of a shed could serve as part of a fence line. Buildings such as an ADU would still need to comply with daylight plane rules, so the building could still not shade the neighbor's yard any more than what's currently allowed. 2) Go back to 5' setbacks on both sides of non -corner lots. Or, alternately, at least do this: side setbacks must total 15' overall, with a minimum of 5'. So a house on a non -corner lot could be located with 7' on one side and 8' on the other, instead of one 5' setback and one 10' setback as currently required. Just allows more flexibility. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 91 of 321 3) PLEASE: Go through the lengthy list of requirements for both the Preliminary Long Plat application and the Preliminary PUD application, and do everything you can to simplify the requirements and eliminate anything that isn't completely necessary at this preliminary stage of approval. Come up with a clear picture of what the word "Preliminary" means in the context of these applications. It can be difficult to meet all of the requirements (especially with regard to engineering) without doing design work that is beyond what "Preliminary" means to me, and the point of this stage of application is just to find out if the idea will be approved. If you have questions about any of these ideas, please let me know. Thanks, Richard Richard Berg Terrapin Architecture PC 727 Taylor Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-8090 t�.rra.pinarchitecture.com Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 92 of 321 From: Emma Bolin To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: Fwd: comment on 12-15 Planning Commission meeting Date: Monday, December 19, 2022 8:24:34 AM Another one for PC correspondence. Get Outlook for iOS From: Steven Yanoff <syanof@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2022 9:32:56 PM To: PTPC@cityofpt.us <PTPC@cityofpt.us> Cc: Emma Bolin <ebolin@cityofpt.us>; John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us>; CityCouncil <citycouncil@cityofpt.us>; David Faber <DFaber@cityofpt.us> Subject: comment on 12-15 Planning Commission meeting Dear Planning Commission, I watched the December 15 planning commission meeting via the video link at the city's web site. My family, including our 6th grade daughter, live in Uptown. The lack of affordable housing in Port Townsend is a great concern. The cost of local housing is simply beyond the means of many. Besides the impact of pricing out long term residents, working families and a local job pool, envisioning a future generation here in Port Townsend for our daughter and her peers is increasingly difficult. I applaud the Planning Commission and city for prioritizing affordable housing. Zoning changes, including infill zoning which was proposed at the 12/15 planning commission meeting, must be a core part of the solution. It seems the idea is to fast pace zoning infill changes. That seems right given the urgency of the problem. Since the city and Mr. Grimes did not propose specifics, I gathered that the infill zoning proposal will form over the intervening time with input from experts, stakeholders and the public. I strongly agree with the open mic commenters at the 12/15 meeting. They were compelling. Essentially, structural measures must be found and built into Port Townsend's affordable housing strategies. These range from infill zoning to parking reform, decreasing residential lot size, allowing multi -unit development, developing mixed income housing, allowing tiny houses as ADU's, and so on, with the goal of securing affordability into the future. Leaving current and trajectory housing costs to the real estate/speculative/developer market just will not work. I was glad to hear Habitat for Humanity suggest some specific ideas. With infill zoning and other strategies, I urge the Planning Commission to guide the city to find and build proactive structural measures into efforts to secure affordable housing not just for now but into the future. Thank you, Steven Yanoff Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 93 of 321 From: Heidi Greenwood To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Tiny house regulations and changes to current policy Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 4:28:53 PM From: Trudi Kubik <tkubik52@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 4:28 PM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: Tiny house regulations and changes to current policy Thank you for giving time to this important issue. We have been interested in tiny home living for years due to the cost, mobility and dedication to the saying "live simply so that others may simply live". These past several years have made traditional home owning unaffordable for most people and rentals are practically non-existent. There are many areas in Port Townsend and elsewhere in Jefferson County which could be turned into "trailer parks" for very nice but affordable tiny houses on wheels. --the type of home featured on YouTube channels such as "Living Big in a Tiny House". But tiny houses have an additional and very important benefit. In the past few weeks, several attacks to cities' infrastructures have occurred, leaving residents without any power. Thankfully, they have been restored, but the fad doesn't seem to be diminishing. Changes to the weather, possible attacks from enemies foreign and domestic beg for a way to create redundancy in our utilities. Tiny houses are extremely resilient because they are modern but very small structures with high energy efficiency. You can actually live off grid very comfortably in a tiny house. The city could easily support tiny house initiatives that would create redundancy and resiliency by: 1. Making alternatives to typical sewage plans 2. Allowing mini infrastructures (such as combination solar/wind) in tiny house communities as well as existing neighborhoods that can be impacted by interruptions to the grid. 3. Introducing the concept of home desalination machines which are available and are compact and inexpensive. Thank you again, Trudi and Brooks Kubik 1405 Garfield St (502)345-1931 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 94 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodriaues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Public comment -- Planning Commission meeting Jan 12 Date: Thursday, January 12, 2023 8:24:36 AM Alyssa Rodrigues City Clerk City of Port Townsend www.cityofnt.us I arodriEues(@ciLyofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 From: Kathryn Maly <kathrynmaly@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 5:36 PM To: Alyssa Rodrigues <arodrigues@cityofpt.us>; PublicComment@cityofpt.us Subject: Public comment -- Planning Commission meeting Jan 12 Dear Planning Commissioners, Council Members and Staff, In the memo for tonight's meeting, I greatly appreciate that Planning and Community Development Director, Emma Bolin, underscored that the intent of this initial code amendment work is to ...facilitate housing availability for those households earning between 80% and 150% of the area's median income. This targets housing affordable to those households — either to rent or to buy — who earn between $46,154 to $86,539 per year (based on 2020 income data). Source memo: Tactical Infill Housing — Zoning Text Amendments https://cityofpt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=2183&meta_id=210750 There are currently 109 unfilled positions at Jefferson Healthcare and 33 of those positions are for nurses. We desperately need housing that is affordable for people who work in our local economy -- like nurses, teachers, folks in the marine trades, artists, grocery clerks, utility workers, and non-profit and government employees. As you know, the median home sales price of $600,000 is more than double what local working families can afford. We cannot sustain a hospital, schools, public utilities, and emergency, government, and social services without housing that is affordable for the people who provide these Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 95 of 321 services Amending the code to increase density without policies and programs that protect affordability will only pour gasoline on the fire of displacement local workers and families are already experiencing. Thank you for keeping affordability for our local workforce paramount as you evaluate options and make recommendations. Kathryn Maly Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 96 of 321 From: Michdle Sandoval �rtichek(6)� A14c,,,rw`lesh Subject: 909 Keairney Str,eet Date:, Jan 12, 2023 at 4:44:33 PIM -1o: Micheille Sandoval Brief history of 909/939 Kearney Street Built in 1957 Del's Grocery /Gas station ArcadeNideo Store Provisions Candace's Bakery (not open to public) Recovery Caf6 Prior to the designation of C-1 it was zoned RIII ( per City development dept.) Misidentified on the city's mixed used zoning districts Chapter 17.18 As one of 3 locations in the city. It is the sole C -I designation. We believe that this C-1 zoning is obsolete: In fact, the permitted residential use is only for owner -operator of the commercial use. No other residential use is permitted in this zone. We would like the tactical infill process should change this in the immediate future, if possible, without going through a year long comp plan process. Judy Surber, Planning Director, confirmed that the residential use of the building is in fact a grandfathered non -conforming use as it has not been vacant for 365 days (it was only vacated on the 22nd of December).The property has been continually used as a residence and ADU since 2008, when the parcel was sold separately from the adjacent property; 939 Kearney. Street (APN qAq _Q22) now known as Recovery Caf6. While we understand that the ADU may have never been formally permitted, the most recent owner lived in the main house and his mother lived in the ADU. We understand that permits may need to be applied for to assure the ADU can be used legally. WINDERMERE REAL. ESTATE PORI' TOWNSEND ,_sg1_ndc)v *)rQLc-T&gM Q , E 1. � 1, �1 5::9� OFTICE Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 97 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodriaues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Attention: Planning Commission Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 9:13:05 AM Alyssa Rodriguesi City Clerk City of Port Townsend I www.cityofpt.us I arodrigues(@cityofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 From: peter west <peter-west@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 9:06 AM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: Attention: Planning Commission This comment is for the planning commission. I'm following up on the recent excellent letter from Kelsey Caudebec to the commission. I wanted to share that I too was disappointed when I heard commissioners at the December meeting explain that the most we could ever hope for was "good". I was kind of shocked by that. I found myself thinking "shouldn't we be aspiring to great? To extraordinary? To game changing?" I would appreciate hearing from the commissioners at some convenient moment why they think we have to set our aspirational bar so low. From all of the research I've done it seems to me that there are ground -breaking exceptional projects happening all over the country — amazing projects brought to life by people with imagination, vision and energy, many of them in places with less resources than we have. I'm even more puzzled when I look at the 7th and Hendricks project. What do the commissioners thing that project is? I think it is truly impressive — great, in fact. I'm so impressed that a collection of local people and others, working together, were able to pull of something that, to me, is truly remarkable and outstanding. Why aren't the commissioners inspiring us to do more things like that? think there are other projects happening here that also go way beyond good. The new habitat townhouse project on Landes is not "good" — it's great! It will certainly feel like that to the folks who get to live there I'm sure. It's a brave attempt by the excellent folks at habitat EJC to change the game. And what about the Port Townsend Preservation Alliance project that is still trying to break free of the development phase? Isn't that an extraordinary project? I think so. I think it is way beyond good. want to live there one day. Or, the project on the boards right now from the Olympic Housing Trust —that's another imaginative project that will go beyond good. These are all great and inspirational projects. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 98 of 321 So, I would encourage all of the commissioners to see part of their role to be inspiring all of us to aspire to do truly great things. Great things are happening. We need many more. Being told that "good" is all we can hope for is kind of deflating and depressing. So, please commissioners, inspire and challenge us to go for great, not just good. Peter West Jefferson Street Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 99 of 321 Port Townsend Planning Commission Members, Please consider the five information clusters/links below to inform your decision-making process during deliberation for upzoning and parking requirement code changes. 0 Many Planning Commissioners and City Council members contend that upzoning and reducing parking requirements will increase housing supply and improve housing affordability. Yet a 2019 peer reviewed causal research study by Yonah Freemark, Phd, found the exact opposite to be true following zoning and parking reforms in 2013 & 2015. The study encompassed 6% of Chicago's land area (13+ sq. miles) in neighborhood -like areas near transit. (Port Townsend's land area is 6+ sq. miles) Causal Research Study's Results: The short-term impacts of zoning and parking reforms are higher property prices (land and residential condominiums), and an absence of new housing construction. Freemark extrapolates from the results that rents would increase. He suggests that communities seeking to boost affordable housing through increasing housing supply should consider the "...varying, and potentially contradictory, impacts of upzoning..." that thwart improving affordability in the regional housing market and he suggests that the potential adverse local consequences from upzoning "...necessitate a nuanced and varied approach to planning." (Freemark, 2019, p. 26) Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction DOttl�as,/(. onahfreemarkacom w content a loads 201.9 01.. 6=reemaUk U zoniin Choca o. df Highlights of Yonah Freemark's credentials and education: • Phd Urban Studies, MIT; MA City Planning and Transportation, MIT; BA, Architecture, Yale. • Present Employment: Urban Institute, Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center, Washington, DC ® Several commissioners have suggested removing off-street parking requirements to allow parking of homeowner vehicles etc. on the grass bordering the streets. Yet a 2016 article in StrongTowns.org entitled "Narrow Streets Do More With Less" by Daniel Herriges illustrates ideal narrow streets in photographic scrolls. A single photo, out of numerous photos, show only a couple vehicles parked along the street. Ih�t.l25.' /nr v.stiron tpv�rrns..q!g�jc. uirin .I a /6 i girlr rnr :streets clo-more-wit.h.:::Il.ess ..... .. "Narrow streets confer aesthetic benefits too, not just safety benefits..." (D. Herrige) Herrige describes a canopy of trees overhanging the entire street in FI's older neighborhoods as a godsend. The overriding objective of PT's Comprehensive Plan is to "...maintain and enhance Port Townsend's special character and small town atmosphere." (City of PT Comprehensive Plan, Introduction, Chapter 2) ® If density increases, vehicular and pedestrian travel increases along with pedestrian fatalities and injuries. Washington State Department of Transportation reports that traffic fatalities involving pedestrians, including individuals in wheelchairs and those using small rideable devices (e.g. skateboards and scooters), have increased by 62.5% from 2010-2019. If combined with injuries, the numbers would dramatically increase. (Pedestrian Laws & Safety, WSDOT) Intt ss:. wsdot.wa. ov t�raveV bic chin-wallkin waIlkin-irollliin wa.slhin ton edestriandaw.s..safet .........//............................................................./.............................f..............................g.......................... ........g..............................g............................g.....................................g................/...i................................................................................................ x Green spaces lining PT's shared streets provide pedestrians a safe space to move to when vehicles approach. The greenery promotes mindful connecting to nature, a well -researched method to bolster a sense of well- being. Vehicles parked alongside the streets prohibits these safety and mental health benefits. aIt was suggested that public transit should become a preferred method of motor transportation in Port Townsend. Yet the U.S. Census shows that only one-half of one percent of workers in NON -METRO areas use public transit. (2019 Census, p. 5, figure 5) Intt s: www..census. ov conteint dairrr� Ceinsus Iliibrar ubliicatioins 2.021. acs acs �d3.. df 12....................................................................g...................................................................................................�..........................Y p..........................................................................1................................................12.......... Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 100 of 321 2 ® During the Oct. 27, 2022 Planning Commission parking code deliberations, the Housing Solutions Network Director, Liz Reford, informed the commission via submitted comment that ADUs, smaller units and multifamily units do not guarantee housing affordability, therefore creating protections to ensure affordability is warranted. Additionally, correlating the removal of parking requirements with affordability is miss -educating the public. Upzoning and removing off-street parking requirements in PT will affect the entire development trajectory and character of this small tourist town with no guarantees of improvements in the supply of affordable housing. The entire community's desires should be explored. Please avoid making decisions simply to meet a deadline: Wise decisions require due diligence. Changing the codes because, "Other cities are doing it, so we should too" is simply a stated desire to conform to another city's newest fashion. Yet, Port Townsend is unique; its "fashion" is incomparable and is why so many employees and retirees move to this Victorian Seaport and arts community to live and work. Thank you for your time and consideration, Meg Lodes Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 101 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodriaues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Attention: Planning Commission Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 9:13:05 AM Alyssa Rodriguesi City Clerk City of Port Townsend I www.cityofpt.us I arodrigues(@cityofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 From: peter west <peter-west@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 9:06 AM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: Attention: Planning Commission This comment is for the planning commission. I'm following up on the recent excellent letter from Kelsey Caudebec to the commission. I wanted to share that I too was disappointed when I heard commissioners at the December meeting explain that the most we could ever hope for was "good". I was kind of shocked by that. I found myself thinking "shouldn't we be aspiring to great? To extraordinary? To game changing?" I would appreciate hearing from the commissioners at some convenient moment why they think we have to set our aspirational bar so low. From all of the research I've done it seems to me that there are ground -breaking exceptional projects happening all over the country — amazing projects brought to life by people with imagination, vision and energy, many of them in places with less resources than we have. I'm even more puzzled when I look at the 7th and Hendricks project. What do the commissioners thing that project is? I think it is truly impressive — great, in fact. I'm so impressed that a collection of local people and others, working together, were able to pull of something that, to me, is truly remarkable and outstanding. Why aren't the commissioners inspiring us to do more things like that? think there are other projects happening here that also go way beyond good. The new habitat townhouse project on Landes is not "good" — it's great! It will certainly feel like that to the folks who get to live there I'm sure. It's a brave attempt by the excellent folks at habitat EJC to change the game. And what about the Port Townsend Preservation Alliance project that is still trying to break free of the development phase? Isn't that an extraordinary project? I think so. I think it is way beyond good. want to live there one day. Or, the project on the boards right now from the Olympic Housing Trust —that's another imaginative project that will go beyond good. These are all great and inspirational projects. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 102 of 321 So, I would encourage all of the commissioners to see part of their role to be inspiring all of us to aspire to do truly great things. Great things are happening. We need many more. Being told that "good" is all we can hope for is kind of deflating and depressing. So, please commissioners, inspire and challenge us to go for great, not just good. Peter West Jefferson Street Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 103 of 321 From: Emma Bolin Cc: Judy Surber; Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Concerns Re Memo Directives Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 3:52:14 PM Sharing 2 of 2 emails from Commissioner Sontag. From: vikis <vikis@ecopraxis.org> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 3:00 PM To: Emma Bolin <ebolin@cityofpt.us> Subject: RE: Concerns Re Memo Directives You may. Suggestion: On your memo on Infill Zoning Approach -- how about adding a paragraph after your into paragraph to the effect that --- "In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that these actions be considered in relation to the goal of eliminating exclusionary zoning, including changing the base density of RI and RII zones. This goal addresses equity, climate and other impacts of current exclusionary zoning ..." THis would go a long way to addressing my concerns. ---- On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:42:57 -0800 Emma Bolin <ebolin(&c:ityofpt.us> wrote --- Hi Viki, Would you like me to share your email with your fellow Commissioners? I am at liberty to do that so they're advised of your concerns/discussion topics. Thanks, Emma Bolin, AICP I Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend I www.eik;4otptus I ebolinLq)citvofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 The Inspection and Permitting Portal is now open 24 hours a day, seven days a week! Although land use permits still require hard copy submittals, we are now accepting 37 different Building and right-of-way permits including Preapplication Meetings, Customer Assistance Meetings (CAMs) and Technical Conferences (TECs) electronically via our Permitting Portal. Our portal can be accessed via the following address: inspection and Permitting Portal ( Cihv of Port 'Fownsend Washington 61yof'21-4 In-person business hours are 9 am to I pm, M -Th, until further notice. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 104 of 321 From: vikis <vikiskecopraxis.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 10:11 AM To: Emma Bolin <eboling.citft.us> Subject: RE: Concerns Re Memo Directives Thanks, Emma. I am prohibited from emailing the other commissioners except one-on-one but perhaps you were saying to bring it up Thursday night. I will. Yes, I am aware of HB 1110 and reading the background materials in the article. I've also attended both Sightline's and Futurewise's organizing events around the bill. I believe it would be a good time for PT to engage with the content of the bill regardless of outcome. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by upzoning ... may not be something we can tackle with code. What is upzoning about if not code? Incidentally, I'm not convinced of the argument that upzoning necessarily results in displacement in the aggregate (i.e. that there is a definite causal link between upzoning and displacement). As part of Seattle's EIS for their inclusionary zoning policy they performed a study of impacts of upzoning (which I alluded to in the public hearing). https://www.seattle.aov/Documents/Departments/HALA/Policy/MHA_EIS/Com piled MHA DEIS 2017.pddf It shows lower displacement in upzoned areas than in those that were not. This article sums up the results of the study: https://nextcity.ora/urbanist-news/how-should-seattle-factor-equity-into- unzone-decision in appreciation, Viki ---- On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 16:54:31 -0800 Emma Bolin <ebolingd)cityofnt.us> wrote --- Hi Viki, Thanks for your insight and research on this. I will share your comments with Bill Grime ahead of time, but I would welcome you to share the same with your fellow Commissioners. One of the challenges with this project is formulating our path forward for which items we will focus our attention on now. Upzoning or performing other actions that may result in displacement may not be something we can tackle with code. As an aside, I am curious to see what happens in the legislative session. Are you aware of HB 1110? Ihttps„//www„tlheuirlbainiist„oirg/2023 0:1./04/rniis,sliing middle housing ireforim returns for 2023 lleQsllatiive sessiioin/. I'm Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 105 of 321 watching this closely as it will guide our work relating to upzoning and to add anti -displacement measures to our Housing element. Anyways, great summary by The Urbanist! Thank you kindly, Emma Bolin, AICP I Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend I www„ciityofpt..us I ebollin aciityofpt..us 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 From: vikis <viikiisCd)ecopiraxiis„oirg> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 3:25 PM To: Emma Bolin <elbolliin(&ciityo[pt..us>; Judy Surber <¢psurlberQciityofpt us> Subject: Concerns Re Memo Directives Dear Emma and Judy, Thank you for your considerable work alongside the consultant in synthesizing the public input to the Increasing Residential Building Capacity process. No small task! In preparing for this Thursday's meeting, I want to give you a heads up that I have concerns that minimizing displacement is not mentioned as either an issue or a policy directive in the Orientation Interview Summary and Zoning Action Array. Yet, I heard a considerable amount of concern on this issue in public comment. I also made comments on the importance of evaluating zoning change impacts on displacement. In this regard, I refer you to RCW 36.70A.600 paragraph 9, which states, "In implementing chapter 348, Laws of 2019, [i.e. this act] cities are encouraged to prioritize the creation of affordable, inclusive neighborhoods and to consider the risk of residential displacement, particularly in neighborhoods with communities at high risk of displacement.” More generally, I think the memo fails to have an adequate equity frame. For example, using the term shelter poverty instead of housing inequality obscures the equity consideration. I am especially concerned if the intent of our work is narrowed to actions that would facilitate housing for middle income (80-150% AMI) households. My own overarching principal for considering what actions to take are those which prioritize housing as a basic need without respect to income (as opposed to an opportunity for profit). Finally, I think there is a fair amount of confusion around what is and what is not allowed with regard to inclusionary zoning policy under Washington State law. As I read RCW 36.70A.540(c), state law prohibits mandatory inclusionary zoning. I think it would save everyone a whole lot of trouble if that were made clear. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 106 of 321 I am free afternoons for the next few days, if either of you would like to discuss my concerns beforehand. 360 531 4676 Thanks again for all the work on developing a coherent process to get us through this. with warm regards, Viki CITYOFPT NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Public documents and records are available to the public as required under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity may be disclosable to third party requesters under the Public Records Act. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 107 of 321 From: Emma Bolin Cc: Lonnie Mickle; Judy Surber Subject: FW: Homework for 1/23 Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 3:51:38 PM Planning Commissioners, Please see the following email that Commissioner Sontag has authorized to share with you to aid tonight's discussion. I will be sharing 2 emails. This is 1 of 2. Thank you kindly, Emma Bolin, AICP Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend www.cityofrA.us I ebolin(a-)cityofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 The Inspection and Permitting Portal is now open 24 hours a day, seven days a week! Although land use permits still require hard copy submittals, we are now accepting 37 different Building and right-of-way permits including Preapplication Meetings, Customer Assistance Meetings (CAMs) and Technical Conferences (TECs) electronically via our Permitting Portal. Our portal can be accessed via the following address: Inspection and PermittingPortal lI City of Port i ownsend Washineton cityrofpt.u.s} In-person business hours are 9 am to 1 pm, M -Th, until further notice. From: vikis <vikis(@ecopraxis.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:09 PM To: Emma Bolin <ebolin(@cityofpt.us> Subject: RE: Homework for 1/23 Emma, Thanks, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Let's talk Thursday afternoon as I have something scheduled tomorrow morning. I'm open all afternoon. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 108 of 321 Yes, the code and comp plan allow duplexes etc but they do not do so on each parcel as called out in RCW 36.70A.600. Consider that from an equity standpoint, you could have a duplex with the same footprint and FAR as a single family home but the duplex is not allowed. I brought up these arguments before I even joined the Planning Commission so I have been patiently waiting for some time as have others. I think we need to have a pretty solid reason why the time is not now when people are begging the city to do something. with warm regards, Viki ---- On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 18:49:53 -0800 Emma Bolin <ebolinCa cityofnt.us> wrote --- Hi Viki, I appreciate your email and your consideration of the homework. I will chat with our team to see how we can get your email to the PC members as part of the packet so that less time could be spent presenting your well thought ideas. This also helps me formulate a presentation to benefit the group on barriers to density in the Comp Plan. As you note, there are some powerful policy statements supporting middle housing; however, there's another one in the housing element that directs consideration of middle housing typologies so long as it's consistent with base density See below: Housing Policy 4.1: Encourage the integration of a mix of housing types, densities, and costs suitable for a population diverse in age, income, household composition, and individual needs. 4.1.1: Allow attached single-family dwelling units (i.e., duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) in all single-family residential zones. a. Ensure new construction does not exceed the base density requirements of the zone. b. Consider amending the development regulations to allow conversion of existing larger homes to exceed the base density requirements. Land Use Policy 1.3: Ensure that all land use decisions and approvals made by the City Council and its appointed commissions, boards, or committees are consistent with the Land Use Element and the Land Use Map). Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 109 of 321 It's important that whatever we do, we ensure that our Comp Plan and development codes are not in conflict. I've seen it done incorrectly and it causes a lot of confusion. Residential building capacity, if it's going to be leveraged, would need to change BOTH development code and Comp Plan (should such a code amendment cause conflict). There may be reasons relating to timing, politics, and not fully understanding the impact/unintended consequences to refrain from doing an upzone in such a quick manner. Tactical Infill is part of my proposed Roadmap to Housing; therefore, as part of our discussions with your fellow PC members and Council it is helpful to consider how we could do this and when (as part of an annual Comp Plan update in September or maybe in 2025 update? Should we wait until we have the Buildable Lands Inventory?) I suppose we didn't call out RCW 36.70a.600. Lc because our Comp Plan and zoning code already do this, but require some clean up to remove both code and Comp Plan barriers. For example, the Dundee Hill project had to present as multifamily because the code only allows zero lot line for duplexes and not triplexes. There's no reason from the code or Comp Plan why this should be a barrier. We can clean up use tables and definitions in the zoning code now and then, as part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment process, explore removing density barriers. Let's schedule a phone call. I'm available Wednesday 10-11am or Thursday afternoon. Thanks, Emma Bolin, AICP I Director of Planning and Community Development City of Port Townsend I wwwxid.:of t.us I ebol in(4).61,. M1Cus 250 Madison St. Suite 1, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 385-3000 1 D: (360) 390-4048 1 F: (360) 302-2201 The Inspection and Permitting Portal is now open 24 hours a day, seven days a week! Although land use permits still require hard copy submittals, we are now accepting 37 different Building and right-of-way permits including Preapplication Meetings, Customer Assistance Meetings (CAMs) and Technical Conferences (TECs) electronically via our Permitting Portal. Our portal can be accessed via the following address: Inspection and Permitting Portal I Citmv of Port 'Townsend Washington (cit�fpt.us) In-person business hours are 9 ane to I pm, M- Th, until further notice. From: vikis <vikisgecopraxis.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:03 AM To: Lonnie Mickle <lmickleacityofpt.us>; Emma Bolin <ebolin e.cit ofpt.us>; Judy Surber <jsurber core citLfnt.us> Subject: Homework for 1/23 Dear Emma and Judy, Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 110 of 321 Thank you for this opportunity for the Planning Commission to refine our priorities. It's important to be able to discuss which actions to take in the context of our overall intent (at least for me!), so I appreciate the staff recommendations on where to focus. Removal of barriers sounds just about right to me. To this end, my guiding question for the immediate work is: What are the barriers to the supply of missing middle and affordable housing? For definitional sake, by missing middle I am referring to housing types whereas affordable refers to housing price relative to income up to 150% AMI. (I recognize that affordable housing is more narrowly defined in state and federal housing law and programs.) However, I think the challenge for many of us commissioners in prioritizing which barriers to tackle is understanding what those barriers are and their relative import. I have found the attached research report, Zoning by 1000 Cuts, 2022, very helpful in this regard. It is a comprehensive analysis of the impact of zoning requirements on the socio-economic distribution of housing (ie, by race and income). It is unique in its comprehensiveness and evidentiary standards. One important take -away from this article - for me - is how a systemic review of the code is key to making a difference to the end goal of housing for all. The work we (staff, Planning Commission, consultant) are doing now could greatly enhance such an effort but only if we understand how any changes we make relate to each other. In this regard, I am concerned that the list of actions does not include the action on which I thought we had agreed to add at our last meeting, namely, RCW 36.70A.600 (1)(c). "Authorizing at least one duplex, triplex, ... on each parcel in one or more zoning districts that permit single-family residents." A clarification on why this was not included on the revised list of actions is paramount in my mind. We are asked to, "Consider that even with GMA safe harbor provisions from appeal, zoning amendments must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." (See staff memo.) The question for me is: how is Action (1) (c) not consistent with the Comp Plan? (Also, as the Comp Plan is the articulation of GMA requirements, I don't really understand the RCW's purpose if not to allow changes to the Comp Plan.) In answering this question, I refer you, in particular, to Policy 9.9 and 9.11 in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which state respectively, "Encourage higher density residential development in areas where the existing development patterns or terrain are conducive to walking, bicycling, and frequent transit service" and "Establish Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 111 of 321 maximum densities for residential districts and minimum densities for the highest density multi -family district. Establish -a variety of densities for residential areas to accommodate a variety of lifestyles and income levels." and Policy 1.3 in the Housing Element, which states, "Rezone areas near public facilities and services, commercial services, arterials, and jobs for higher density residential use." There are a number of other policies that also direct a consideration of density, including Policies 1.4, 9.11 9.5, 9.10,9.12 and 9.13 in the Land Use Element and Policies 1.1, 1.21 2.11 2.21 4.1.1.b, 4.5, 5.3 6.1, 7.1, and 7.2 in the Housing Element. As I then interpret these policies, NOT considering action (1)(c) is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. (Also, I would not that I couldn't find anything in the Comp Plan that says the Land Use Map residential designations are not up for re -consideration, that is, they are not per -determined by Com Plan policies.) Am I missing something here? Sorry for the pushback here but without resolving this, I am afraid I can't be an "emissary" for our recommendations to the Council. I want to round up my support for the work by saying that I appreciate the difficulty of balancing taking action in an expeditious way (we are in the middle of an affordability crisis, all said and done) and taking the time to understand what actions might be meaningful. I worry that without a solid understanding of the problems inherent in exclusionary zoning we might cause more harm than good, (I am a great proponent of systemic analysis), but also, I worry we might be wasting time with inconsequential actions. This is why I recommend we get a review by the city lawyer of what is and what is not allowed or might be allowed under state law (particularly HB 1110 and companion SBand what is mandatory, current and pending, including RCW 36.70A.070 and RCW 36.70A.540. In the longer term, I am interested in community ownership and control of housing as the solution to housing market distortions. For that purpose, I also suggest that as a commission we need to develop a better understanding of what infill vs missing middle vs rezoning and up zoning vs exclusionary zoning and inclusionary zoning is; (for a good review of inclusionary zoning, I recommend Inclusionary Housing in the United States: Dynamics of Local Policy and Outcomes in Diverse Markets, 2021 in the journal Housing Studies.) We also could benefit from an enhanced understanding what are the drivers of housing affordability, of which zoning is only one, and their interactions. (I recommend Drivers of Housing Un(affordabiity) in the Advanced Economies, 2022.) Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 112 of 321 Additional notes are on the attached homework sheet. Finally, I would note that the directive to return the attached worksheet by close of business Monday was deep in the materials received just yesterday morning, I wonder if other commissioners besides myself missed your deadline? I did not see the deadline until after it had passed! Again, thanks for your work and great effort, Viki CITYOFPT NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Public documents and records are available to the public as required under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity may be disclosable to third party requesters under the Public Records Act. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 113 of 321 HSN Public Comment Submission for Planning Commission Meeting on January 26, 2023 HSN calls on the City of Port Townsend to ensure that any code changes that facilitate increased density will, above all, produce affordable housing now and in the future. HSN believes it is critical for our community to develop and execute a local strategy that addresses the full continuum of housing needs for affordable housing units, leading up to and including working households earning between 80-150% AMI ($59,120 and $110,850). This strategy should be informed by a robust public process that includes participation from residents whose voices have been historically marginalized. And the public should be provided the information it needs to contribute in a meaningful way to these important decisions. Before the city passes code changes, we ask for documentation that the City has done the research necessary to clearly demonstrate that any legislation enacted would not significantly increase the average value or purchase price of local property or risk endangering future efforts to foster affordability. HSN defines this sector of affordable workforce housing as housing attainable by working households in the city earning between 80-150% AMI ($59,120 and $110,850). We ask the City to document its research to show how each change will impact the supply of affordable housing as defined above. We urge the City to use this process as a jumping off point to develop a comprehensive housing strategy for our community and the Commission shouldn't feel rushed to move draft amendments to the Council. HSN is pleased to provide the following recommendations regarding the process you are now engaged in - and for what we hope will be a City -led effort in the near future to develop a comprehensive affordable housing strategy. To achieve this, HSN believes the City of Port Townsend should consider the following recommendations and concerns: 1. Allow for the increase in housing developments of 5 or more units of housing and include a requirement for construction of one or more workforce units for every 5 units built. It appears to be economically feasible for for-profit builders/developers to construct 5-9 units with a requirement that 1 unit is affordable for the workforce; or construct 10-19 units with a requirement that 2 units are affordable for the workforce (and still maintain a reasonable profit). The city should focus on upzoning only where it is feasible to require workforce units as part of the upzone. The city should not upzone residential zones where it is not feasible to require that for-profit builders construct a workforce unit. Any code changes related to developments of 4 units or fewer should be considered after April 1 st as those zones will require a more complex plan that will take time to put together and should not be rushed. Allow housing units to be built in R3, R4, MC, and C (as separate or attached units), include a minimum density requirement of 5 units per minimum lot size for that zone, and require that 20% of those units are affordable for at least 50 years. The workforce affordability requirement could attract for-profit developers if additional incentives are provided. These could include the elimination of impact fees for workforce units, reduced permitting timelines and fees, reduced infrastructure costs for developments that include workforce units, and assistance with engineering. (As an example, the city could provide no or low-cost street, sewer, and water plans only for developments that include affordable units). Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 114 of 321 a. Identify parcels in R2 that could be shifted into R3/R4 if they could meet the plan described above. Identify more R3/R4 parcels; especially those with proximity to other similar zones, transportation, schools, existing infrastructure, and planned infrastructure improvements. b. Establish a mechanism to ensure that the units go to local workforce members and are maintained as permanently affordable. Programs like land and housing trusts and deed restrictions should be allowed. In other communities, affordability models include contracting with nonprofits, employer -owned housing, or city -enforced mandates or incentives. Do not upzone R1 and R2 until the City adopts a comprehensive affordable housing strategy. We have received anecdotal feedback from other communities that changes to their single family zones sparked land speculation and large price increases. If these unintended consequences occur in Port Townsend it will have a dramatic, negative impact on our community's efforts to build affordable housing. Therefore HSN urges the City to evaluate the experiences of other jurisdictions and report its findings back to the community prior to making any changes to the R1 or R2 zones. Additionally, HSN believes any changes to R1 and R2 zoning should be made in the context of a comprehensive affordable housing strategy for the community. 4. Evaluate the risk of rental displacement in any density changes. The City should assess how its zoning changes may further displace renters in either the short- and/or long-term and how the City would propose to mitigate that issue, including as part of a comprehensive affordable housing strategy. Many in our workforce are renters, so we must ensure that changes in city zoning do not exacerbate displacement. 5. Enact zoning changes that allow for tiny homes, mobile homes, and alternative affordable housing developments within the city. The adopted changes should include a statement supportive of zoning changes that include tiny homes, mobile homes and alternative style affordable developments within the City. We encourage more ADU's, including parcels that have duplexes. Rushed decision-making on such complex issues is inherently risky. The city should ensure that it understands the dimensions of the affordable housing shortage, both in terms of existing housing stock and unmet demand for housing. The city should take the time to do the critical research (Housing Action Plan, Community Needs Assessment, and Land Inventory) and outreach (community and employer surveys) to guarantee that it is pursuing the best possible suite of solutions for Port Townsend. In order to reach community consensus and support for changes to be enacted prior to April 1, 2023 and for those that will follow as part of the City Comprehensive Plan update for 2025, what research and surveys has the City conducted to identify what housing is missing at what home or rental price points? If that research and survey has not and cannot be completed for the changes to be considered for April 1, then changes should either be deferred or implemented in a more restrictive approach to allow for course correction after April 1. In short, HSN supports increasing density in the context of a comprehensive affordable housing strategy for our community. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 115 of 321 From: Liz Revord To: publiccomment(cOdtyofot.us Cc: Lonnie Mickle Subject: Public Comment for 1.26.26 Planning Commission Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 3:54:34 PM Attachments: image001.ona HSN Public Comment for 1.26.23 Plannina Commission.odf Please see the attached document submitted on behalf of Housing Solutions Network in preparation for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. We look forward to hearing from the Commissioners tonight as they further hone in on tactical infill priorities for the City. Lonnie, If there in an issue with attaching a PDF via public comment, please let me know. See you all shortly! In Community, Liz i iz IP,ur She/her Housing Solutions Network Network Director "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that created them. Albert Einstein Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 116 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodriaues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Comment for Planning Commission. 2.1.23 Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 10:36:32 AM Attachments: imaae001.ona MRSC. Missina Middle Housina PlanninaCommission 111022.odf Alyssa Rodrigues) City Clerk City of Port Townsend www.,. i,; yr;f. r 1 ,�,md..[ uesC�cI of� 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 From: Kellen Lynch <keIlen. lynch@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 9:49 AM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: Comment for Planning Commission. 2.1.23 Planning Commission, I am concerned that the pursual of 'missing middle' zoning changes without affordability protections of any kind will push the growth of unaffordable market rate housing in Port Townsend. I have attached a compilation of case studies assembled by Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) which covers the experiences of regional cities that have pursued infill housing without protections for affordability. These studies include the Cities of Wenatchee, Bellingham, Kirkland, Olympia and Spokane show that the develooment of 'missing middle' housing will likelv not become affordable to most of the residents that already live in Port Townsend or would come to work at our local businesses. To pursue code changes that have not demonstrated any improvement to affordable housing is inadequate. What protections can the new code offer to the locals like myself who grew up in PT but cannot afford to live here? MRSC highlights: Page 10: "Likely not affordable to those earning <80% AMI" — MRSC Overview Page 105: "Infill Toolkit housing has generally not equated affordable housing." - Bellingham's "What have we learned" Page 123: "This is not affordable housing, and new units come with high price tags." - Kirkland's "takeaways" Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 117 of 321 Thank you again for your efforts, Kellen Lynch nrvv�r:laystaadlo„ori 1 206-384-2135 Port Townsend, WA NEW STORY STUDIO Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 118 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodriaues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Housing Solutions Network Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 8:25:35 AM Alyssa Rodrigues) City Clerk City of Port Townsend I www.cityofpt.us I arodrigues@cityofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 -----Original Message ----- From: Nan Evans <nanswaltz@earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 2:26 PM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: Housing Solutions Network Even though it is after the Planning Commission meeting deadline, I want to tell you that I strongly support the Housing Solutions Network's position and proposals. Nan Evans Sent from my iPad Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 119 of 321 From: Emma Bolin To: Lonnie Mickle; Judy Surber Subject: FW: PC Assessment Document for Thursday"s meeting Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 9:42:20 AM Attachments: PC Assessment 092415 housina hiahliaht.odf Hi Lonnie, I want to make sure that the other Planning Commissioners are across this for the 2/9 meeting. Was the new draft memo was included in the draft agenda that was sent on Friday to the Commissioners? I couldn't tell which version that Rick is commenting on since I changed it a lot since the draft on the 1/26 agenda. Thanks, Emma From: R Jahnke <rjahnke@att.net> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 8:24 AM To: Emma Bolin <ebolin@cityofpt.us> Subject: PC Assessment Document for Thursday's meeting Hello Emma, I just read your draft of the Planning Commission's memo to City Council. I think it is excellent and I doubt I will have substantive comments about it on Thursday. One small comment now is to the first sentence in the section on "Equity, anti -displacement, inclusion (p.4). It currently reads that the Planning Commission ... should not result in displacement, consider current and speculative effects on the housing market, and prioritize housing as a basic need which could be read as the Planning Commission should NOT be doing the second and third items listed. I would just edit this slightly to make the meaning more clear. I also want to make you aware (in case you hadn't already seen it) of an Assessment that the Planning Commission drafted prior to the last periodic update of the Comp Plan (attached). I don't think that this is on the City's web site. Note that the Appendix was written by Eric Toews who was a consultant through Cascadia Community Planning Services. Knowing how busy you are, the attached version has many of the references to housing highlighted. The statements made 7 years ago are mostly still relevant and support your current strategy. As reflected in the community survey results (p. 33), the top concerns and needed improvements at the time were family wage jobs, housing affordability and losing young families. The Planning Commission noted that the lack of affordable housing was being characterized as a community crisis and concluded directly that "The objectives of the 1996 Plan regarding housing affordability have not been achieved" (pps. 33-34). Thus, I believe the efforts you describe in your draft memo to Council not only reflect the current Planning Commission's thoughts but are supported by the previous Planning Commission and the community members who responded to this earlier survey. As the only remaining Commissioner from that period, I suspect that the current Commission is unaware of this document. Note, however, that Councilwoman MickHager was the Chair of the Planning Commission at the time. Cheers, Rick Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 120 of 321 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 121 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodrigues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: 1-26 HSN Public Comment on Affordable Housing Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 8:24:34 AM Alyssa Rodriguesi City Clerk City of Port Townsend I www.cityofot.us I arodrigues(rracityofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 From: Steven Yanoff <syanof@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 9:16 PM To: PTPC@cityofpt.us Cc: CityCouncil <citycouncil@cityofpt.us>; David Faber <DFaber@cityofpt.us>; John Mauro <J M a u ro @ c i tyofpt. u s> Subject: 1-26 HSN Public Comment on Affordable Housing Dear Planning Commissioners, City Councilors, Mayor Faber and Manager Mauro, I strongly support the HSN Public Comment submitted to the Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 2023. In short, please ensure that code changes to advance affordable housing, including but not limited to changes for increased density, will truly advance affordable housing, including rentals, now and into the future, and not simply allow market forces to further raise property values, increase speculation, and exclude working families. The HSN Public Comment as submitted that I refer to is https://cityofpt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php? view id=4&event id=2184&meta id=211564. Thank you, Steven Yanoff Port Townsend, WA Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 122 of 321 From: Suzanne Jones To: ciJvclerk(@cityofpt.us Subject: Public Comment related to the Jan 26th Planning Commission meeting Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 9:05:29 AM Hi Elisa, Thanks for all your help. Here is my comment. Suzanne During the rezoning process, I (a senior citizen), and another local citizen (who is taking care of both parents) would like you to consider making it easier to build more eco -villages in the area. We have one eco -village and some cottage villages, but we think we need more of this type of community - small cottage or cluster housing villages that will ensure that families with senior citizens can live close to one another and support one another (intergenerational villages). Young people who want to interact intergenerationally would also be welcome. These villages could be supported by things like compassionate communication skills, creative activities for the members, and could include a community building where small support businesses could operate, members from the community could meet, and people from outside the community could hold meetings. Suzanne Jones 3300 San Juan Avenue Port Townsend, WA Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 123 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodrigues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: February 23 2023 Planning commission public comment Date: Thursday, February 23, 2023 4:32:20 PM Alyssa Rodrigues City Clerk City of Port Townsend wvJwcity„u;fplus, a,rc,d,ri,�ues(a0cit ofd of us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 From: Jane Lohry Armstrong <seepuget@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 2:S8 PM To: publiccomment@cityofpt.us Subject: February 23 2023 Planning commission public comment If the City could clarify what the meetings will be on "Safe Harbor” Tactical Infill Zoning Code Amendments, between now and April 1. And then explain what actions/work and outcomes are anticipated or permitted at each of these. Also, for the Code Amendments, how and when might effective dates be? These are the dates showing on the City Calendar, or that have been mentioned in other meetings and agendas: February 23rd (tonight) Planning Commission No council or planning commission meetings are planned for the week of February 27th March 6 City Council Meeting... Is any action, discussion or review planned for this meeting on Infill Zoning? March 9 Planning Commission. What are the Infill Zoning agenda work items and outcomes anticipated for this meeting? March 13 City Council. What are the Infill agenda items and outcomes anticipated for this meeting? March 20th City Council Tactical InFill Housing Code Amendments First Reading. What does that mean? items? Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 124 of 321 Will they be able to be modified, added or deleted as individual Will they be voted up or down or tabled individually? Will it be voted up or down as a whole (modified or original) to take to a final reading on the 27th? March 23rd Planning Commission. Placeholder for Infill or other business March 27th City Council (not yet appearing on the City Calendar) Second Reading. Will this be an up/down vote only on the entire Tactical Infill Housing Code Amendment package or can modifications, deletions, etc be entered on individual items? If not, what actions could come from this meeting? I recognize that all of these are subject to change, but it would be helpful to understand what the timeline most looks like from here on. Thank you for the clarifications. Jane Armstrong 2815 Holcomb Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 125 of 321 To: Mayor Faber, City Council, Planning Commission, City Planning staff and Thomas Architecture Studios (TAS). My name is Kim Herman, and I am currently providing services to the Housing Solutions Network (HSN) regarding the need for affordable workforce housing for persons earning between 80% and 150% of area median income (AMI) in Port Townsend. I have worked in affordable housing since 1969, most recently as the Executive Director of the WA State Housing Finance Commission for 35 years, prior to my retirement at the end of 2019. I attended two previous planning commission meetings and thejoint city council/planning commission meeting on February 131h, and along with HSN members, I met with Emma Bolin from the city staff to discuss the need for affordable workforce housing. My purpose today is to comment on the proposed work of Thomas Architecture Studios on the Evans Vista project. I am excited that the development of the Evans Vista property is beginning because it offers a real opportunity for the development of 50 units of permanently affordable housing for Port Townsend residents earning less than 80% of area median income (AMI), and the development of 100 units of permanently affordable workforce housing for residents earning between 80% and 120% of AMI. From what I have learned about Port Townsend, these numbers are the minimum number of affordable housing units that should be included in the development plans to meet current demand. I would also suggest that the upper income guideline for affordable workforce housing should be moved to 150% of AMI, as requested by HSN in earlier comments. The printed presentation indicates that TAS will be meeting with community members, housing developers and nonprofit organizations in March to discuss the development of Evans Vista. I urge TAS to contact and have serious conversations with the nonprofit affordable housing developers/owners listed in their presentation, and to add the Olympic Housing Trust to their list. I believe several of these organizations can play a key role in creating and operating the affordable housing called for in the development of Evans Vista. I consider the Peninsula Housing Authority as a prime candidate for the development and ownership of the 50 units of affordable housing serving residents under 80% of AMI. While the Authority owns and manages affordable housing in several communities on the peninsula, they do not own affordable housing in Port Townsend but do provide Section 8 Rental Vouchers to qualified residents. However, one or more of the other nonprofit organizations, such as OlyCap, which is currently developing a 43 unit multifamily project, may also be interested. For the 100 units of affordable workforce housing, I would suggest that TAS and the city seriously consider at least 50 units of permanently affordable rental housing with 2,3 or 4 bedrooms, and 50 units of permanently affordable ownership housing consisting of single family homes, condominiums, and townhouses, as appropriate for the development plan. It is important that working with a land or housing trust, or another nonprofit organization, this housing be permanently affordable, not just affordable at the time of first purchase by a qualified family. Without permanent affordability, which can be accomplished in several ways, these units may not remain affordable in the future. Since coming to Port Townsend to work with HSN, I have personally met a waitress who is moving out of the city with her husband, a mail carrier, because they cannot afford the recent rent increase for their current rental unit; I have been told about a realtor who lives in his car because he cannot afford housing in the city; and I have heard and read about many vacant positions at the hospital and with other Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 126 of 321 employers because they cannot attract workers to Port Townsend because of the lack of affordable workforce housing in either rental or homeownership. Just yesterday, in an article in the Daily News, Northwest Maritime Center Director, Jake Beattie said "...he's heard concerns from employees about the lack of affordable housing locally, and the center has been looking into potential solutions such as employer -related housing." "I worry about the housing getting out of control and getting absolutely unaffordable for maritime workers." All these situations speak to the need for the development of affordable housing for Port Townsend residents at Evans Vista. If I can be of help to TAS or the city in this endeavor, I would be happy to do what I can, Kim Herman Cell: 425-985-7195 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 127 of 321 From: Alyssa Rodrigues To: Lonnie Mickle Subject: FW: Error message re: attempts for written public comment 2/13 Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:15:29 PM Attachments: icon.i)na PC comment Alyssa Rodrigues) City Clerk City of Port Townsend I www.cityofpt.us I arod rig:ues(d) dtyofpt.us 250 Madison St. Suite 2, Port Townsend, WA 98368 P:(360) 379-5083 1 F:(360) 390-5645 From: Kathryn Maly <kathrynmaly@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:34 AM To: Alyssa Rodrigues <arodrigues@cityofpt.us> Subject: Error message re: attempts for written public comment 2/13 Hi Alyssa, I attempted to send the following public comment in advance of the Feb 13 council meeting re: housing. When I checked the public record to see that my comment was recorded, and it was not, I tracked back in my email to see a thread of error messages that looked like the one below, showing several attempts to get the email through, to no avail. It seems like other comments were received and recorded that afternoon. I was traveling, so I am wondering if your public comment system somehow blocks ISP addresses that look non -local or that the system believes are spam. I cannot think of any other reason for my email to receive this error message on multiple attempts. The error message: The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more at htt so .//support.google.com/mail/answer/7720 [mail.cityofpt.us. 65.117.82.218: timed out] [mail,cityofpt.us. 64.184.145.7: timed out] I will likely revise this message with more current information and submit a comment at a future date, but I would love to understand what may have happened. Thank you. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 128 of 321 Kathryn Maly Forwarded message From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon(@googlemail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 1:58 PM Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Delay) To: <kathrynmalyj(@gmail.com> Error Icon I( Delivery incomplete ylheiire was a ueonpoirairy isrolblcn-u u- ielliveiriing your rnessage w PublicCommentOcityofili Gur aflll wiH u.eby Ifoii 46 rnoro irou..uurs, your°II be n(Allified if he rbelhvery ralHs Il. roruu�wirron�dy. LEARN MORE The response was: The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more at htt]2s://subport.google.com/mail/answer/7720 [mail.cityof]2t.us. 65.117.82.218: timed out] [mail.cityofj2t.us. 64.184.145.7: timed out] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kathryn Maly <kathrynmaly(@gmail.com> To: PublicCommentC@cityofpt.us Cc: i Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 12:23:46 -0800 Subject: Public comment -- Feb 13 Planning Commission / City Council meeting Dear Planning Commissioners, Council Members and Staff, Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 129 of 321 I greatly appreciate the emphasis on affordability and anti -displacement strategies in the 43 -page memo for tonight's meeting. I also appreciated that in the memo for the Jan 12 Planning Commission meeting, Planning and Community Development Director, Emma Bolin, underscored that the intent of this initial code amendment work is to ...facilitate housing availability for those households earning between 80% and 150% of the area's median income. This targets housing affordable to those households — either to rent or to buy — who earn between $46,154 to $86,539 per year (based on 2020 income data). Source memo: Tactical Infill Housing — Zoning Text Amendments https://cityofpt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php? view id=4&event id=2183&meta id=210750 We all agree that we desperately need housing that is affordable for people who work in our local economy -- like nurses, teachers, folks in the marine trades, artists, grocery clerks, utility workers, and non-profit and government employees. To give one data point, as of today, Feb 13, there are 100 unfilled positions posted at Jefferson Healthcare and 37 of those positions are for nurses. As we emerge from the pandemic, it is both alarming and heartbreaking that our housing crisis is preventing us from attracting and retaining medical and emergency staff. As you know, our local median home sales price of over $600,000 is more than double what local working families can afford. We cannot sustain a hospital, schools, public utilities, and emergency, government, and social services without housing that is affordable for the people who provide these services. Amending the code now or in the future to increase density without policies and programs that protect affordability will only pour gasoline on the fire of displacement that local workers and families are already experiencing. Thank you for keeping affordability for our local workforce paramount as you evaluate options and make recommendations. II°�", ��l:llrvr�uµumu IIII I R3 5 0 Lh 5 4) c "P 0 ulMMX0 , 0 0 , 00'' 4-0 c 0 0 40- A Po E 0 0 0, t) o op to 0 C 0 E c of 0 0�pp�o E E 0, , v 4- 0 o 0 c15 t o M "0 4-0 A 0 rye 0 M 0 ,u Ad 0 Iatigt Er OI ZI xF, 4.1 M o CL m S 0 30: he 0. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 131 of 321 From: Kellen Lynch To: publiccomment(acityofot.us Subject: Comment for Planning Commission. 2.1.23 Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 9:50:24 AM Attachments: imaae001.ona MRSC. Missina Middle Housina PlanninaCommission 111022.odf Planning Commission, I am concerned that the pursual of 'missing middle' zoning changes without affordability protections of any kind will push the growth of unaffordable market rate housing in Port Townsend. I have attached a compilation of case studies assembled by Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) which covers the experiences of regional cities that have pursued infill housing without protections for affordability. These studies include the Cities of Wenatchee, Bellingham, Kirkland, Olympia and Spokane show that the development of'missinR middle' housin:Li will likelv not become affordable to most of the residents that already live in Port Townsend or would come to work at our local businesses. To pursue code changes that have not demonstrated any improvement to affordable housing is inadequate. What protections can the new code offer to the locals like myself who grew up in PT but cannot afford to live here? MRSC highlights: Page 10: "Likely not affordable to those earning <80% AMI" — MRSC Overview Page 105: "Infill Toolkit housing has generally not equated affordable housing." - Bellingham's "What have we learned" Page 123: "This is not affordable housing, and new units come with high price tags." - Kirkland's "takeaways" Thank you again for your efforts, Kellen Lynch ......_yvw.n y!✓. t.Q�y,st��d�o„ori 1206-384-2135 Port Townsend, WA NEW STORY STUDIO r -I 0 mi ��IIII� L W wl L .3 mi ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell Ell ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell Ell ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell Ell ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell Ell ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell Ell ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell Ell ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell Ell ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell Ell ��IIII� L W wl L .3 Ell O Q 0 a El P. zi CL z z EEC 0 u AC 03 v F. Al 4 V Ui J Q) 4-a � � 0 4-0 � N _ 04 C) N / N =3 o 3 04 N = p N \ _ k k �0 > $ M Ln 4-1\ / k u % E > \ R E E =2 2 <f 2 % m / / u \ CJ k / / \ § } � ) 2 \ 0L 4-1 2 u/ \\ E t e < \ 7 \ 0 § � \ \ \ \0 > / � N _ 04 C) N / N =3 o 3 04 N = p N U V CA fa O u 75 O cn •O bfJ " U .S' to 4� O 4-1 O � V � � u U u U U '14 0 cn cd U 4-4 U � O � ^ U 'v U 4-4 cd O .� O 4-j O 7� N � N O O O � O U -W bb i r i m i I V N 'i aw O 3 O � m 0 M � oc u a� aro r- 2 aw m � Q .� m a-+ V V O '- O - o — aw M � a- CC i V c�a CA ca 4-' c Cn O � ' d^ N ' 4 O cn U 7:� 7 75 N N 0 7 ��41 4-4 � � O VD N J C/' N O C/D U 4-J O • v C 4-1 �0 U Q U O O Q) 41 p ..� O •U cn r -I cn o ago � U sU-a cn 0 0 0 U a) 4J H v L x a aj v O OJ -0 o C U m ro +1 Ln � c c a, O 0 E } C o roU C L aJ-6 a' > O v U +' x v a, U v o -0 E O U 5 C L a x u aJ �n3 � QJ v -a +J Lu o 1 v ai E Q U ._ O Q O O -0 9 i i Q +, Q Q) -0 +� O n O _0 ro c in C4-1 E ai Lo E a > L O Q ❑ E L Ln O 0 =_ N Ln ns � U O v � a) N C N O N O U C C a!O E '+1 m Q O > N O ❑ E N C ++ a1 � L a E La) CQ E O -0 U m v U +' x v a, U v o -0 E O U 5 C L a x u aJ �n3 � QJ v -a +J Lu o 1 v ai E Q U ._ O Q O O -0 9 i i Q +, Q Q) -0 +� O n O _0 ro c in C4-1 E ai Lo E a > L O Q ❑ E L Ln O 0 =_ N Ln ns � U O v � a) N C N O N N M a ct ap cd U ct 0 4-1 0 0 r--4 pcn LU z Q Y O n LL O U z O Q J d O d D U) z W U U) Z) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 00 Q0 � o 0 N 62 0 0 00 L O 4-P .N C c O Q Q 4- 0 4A U ca O to a N O Z _ � N ca O 4 C N 0 i W N Q -0 O Q E N QN E O qA f6 Q =5QO •N N C: •— +-+ cn cn .— O 4J C6 O O-0 Q E N N Z3 -0N x %` O •v C]A `� aj O � }, C: aA o C: Q O ul v C: f6 w O c o L LL a -J W • N = � N O•— .� � �= b.0 •7 4- O O �: -0 U ON O=— O O C: CO O O O 4A N � N U _0O Ln , �� v) N =; —�Ln =3 -5,- > x- E N - N Q O N `~— O bA >� in _0 O D a O c6 c6 O +S-+ U _0 W • N = � N O•— .� � �= b.0 •7 4- O O �: -0 U oi O O=— O O �� 00 �•�� \� O OqA N � >' U _0O N E:4, �� >`� =; O =3 -5,- > x- N - N Q O N X in Ln O D a E "W ate+ N • N = � N O•— .� � �= b.0 CT fO 4- O i Q �: -0 U oi O O=— U bA Co �� 00 �•�� O OqA 0 O E � U N E:4, roC:=3— N cn b-0 MO 1 M a) 0) cu a - L X W Q1 O - N O � Ca a--+ 4-1 Ln c a-J O � U •� .N OJ .� O Q) > N E N O O v O _ _ •Ln c ca cn 4 E •� O s Q a-1 •E .E s oO Ln 4-J(Ij Ln• C N V Q) ® Q ate--+ 0 ,> •� s cn .CSA cn Nv O+� E •� > ai N u W U v � b-0 cn c .� C6 U O V) + t1A _� Q Lr) 'tn i C6 :3 — (ID Q O N Ln E Q 4A Q Q �0 ma) O M N s _ o o W +-J 3 > .� r •� ocli o o bn Ln ' ,� o C: N CSA 4-jU c6 U 'p > O O N LL c L- u U CL I As z�`.J . i © u, a.i u _ L7 4-J w � •� W . +7 W V c O CU — O 5� L `� /E� LL T�� •v W h� �dAJ Ln toN N O C:O }+ bo ca N > rr i •N T� M Ln 20 a --J 0 bn O +J cu D CU s C� +' M O CU v N O v O a) O `•- � CC� O LL 0 f6 G U W a-�, (0) L., 0 • 00 • z 0= co 0 > r- Zwo = "D 70• (n CL� r (D w C: 4) CD 9 r- rr t J E a) '4 E > o w u < c L E 0 0 0 0 • • z co 0 r- 0 c: - 70• N.0 0 (D W C: 4) co Co . a- 4 E a) a) E ww o C1A dJ ' cn s � CSA `~ 4-J � N i 4-J ate -J U .� (3j to L O O O U s Q 2 b-0 ' O +' qA L Ln O Lnm N_ s O :3E - cn O - -0 O C LL -5+�+ p O O Ln CO (IJ s > OJ a N to O +, v O X N -0 06 O F (IJ i E GJ o U Q rq 00 M rn ® U O O +-+ U cn -j b/ . /�1 y , (3)V to C6 M i Ln N a--+ V L -N 0 00 00 ai .— O M •� N 4-J 00 N 1 o •o dJ O (1) Q bu0 U _0 QL Q O 0 O aJ -0 > U O � Q bo > N C:O (10 V O -0 r -I O cin N V N •� N O a--' — v ; N .V CL _ C6 i • cn E O Q N > > E Lo w X O ii c6 r -I ba o w Z Public su— • � bA N O +J 4 }, � N � • a) toon � _ � � Q � Mo Q un c: s^ •X OD !E � •X O N .- _ N N O }' O N O >, Qj • _ a) t •� 0 +, •� 0 ca Qj = � L cB �.. L to N N Ln f6 O knN a) =3• •� Q 0 a� a) a� 0 0 a� i D U 4J � N 0 N U 4— > - a--+ a--+ � v � o u U U U -0 f6 }, f6 C: 4- 0 [6 0 u a -J Ln C: a--+ a_+ o C: 4J }, E XQ 00 U N > ate1 i N a--+ O E E .E U U 00 cC U f6 4-J N N i c6 a -J O L E E .E .E N U N i N O X _v O Q 76 i N Q) X -0 4- 1 V/ �v/ � �/� /1 N 0 X N � Q 0 O sk, � N ai N c N U -0 ca O :t E v s s -0 O Ln +- o tn U }' v C:>, � o—o fa bn C >. O O U W C C6 •N N cr +' O N .� Qj N s N �Qj L O N O s co +-' -5-- O uUU 0 O 4-J�0 bn N N fa a--+ O O �� � s 4-J E 4-j 0 Ln 0 u a) E ul Ul QJ E 2. .- Ln o 0 Ln E 0 CD rl�4 0 -1-j E E x m Ul 0 rq Ln CL Ln :3 0 4-j o > 0 4-j _0 Qj 7Eb V) E Ln 0 a) 0) cu a - L X W U) c =a LL 0 0 0 U c c 0 d 2 A �1 I I I I �l I I I I I I I �1 �J I I I I I I I I �1 I I I I Ln ./ • 00 -1„ C 0 W V) u Ln E _0 0 u < ("-4 o r! 0 0) 4-J r14 C'%4 Cij 0 4-J (N tA m LO Ell C) E LO Ell C) dA -0 c6 .N > >' s L f6 O N �— -2 L },•�•� vis v �o O o rA 75 O Q O N v cn N •C: > N M r%4@) aA o +- to -a iJ .- •N N 0 0 N •N " L o o ® o $ N N O> ® �O ss s -ocLso . . . . O N 4-, N -0 o u l�A O � p0� �1 , N N L .- (� O o = t1A O O Q cn a--' v\ O. N •c .N E -0 O a) O >_� s o�L §uo0� �>' ��� CL � C — E c =3 cjf Ln �'NC: Ivo Doo 0 u O t c:L L O� ca -00.— m N N p �A +N -0 Ep Q +O-+ L O � OD CU .j.� Q •C N •N a s X� to••� u N • o V) ®-0 O . . . Q (/') O O 0 O aj — O un O VN a > ate--+ --+Ln • — a -j > O N O U W p 4-jQ '� 4-j Q N N V > x = O Q ca a--+ > a � O --f O O cc O CL bA .V) Q) aA ate-+ O ra D Q O ro O ro v I i� buO N ro > =3•n O O U Q O O N Ln •— 4-J N N U Q >CL . � cn v O O CL Ov QE X 0 w O �v� u •— N c�a O o E O O U I I O O cc O CL bA .V) Q) aA ate-+ O ra D Q O ro O ro v I i� a) 0) cu a - L X W a) 0) cu a - L X W 4-j z 4-J . ........ -0 ................. 0 i-j Z3 ra U 0L � 0) :3 Ln c WX A a) E ui ra 0 L- u 00 C. E E 0 0 u. cu= ............ (U 0 .......... Ul .......... C, 0 ........... E U.... C3 4— 0 Q) OD (U Qj 4-01 >. ""(,A . "I ch Qj C) ru Lu ruc E E QJ i5 cu u. (U ............. ............ Ci t5 E! U 3: O v E a, 0 o o v QJ 7- O E N v O O • a ; Qj Qj U v = = v U N 4ftj a cz o o � a Q) p a QJ a � � •ca � m O a <' •� s H N U Ca Q tJ� i tM 0 - CL Q = � V ,r Q Ilt V) 1 N01'' buoT C6U L— ai a) a -J cn O NN N °1 O V Q O a -J U fL6 i N a -J a) fa Z3 D . L- a- buO U -0t a_+ Q1 c6 0 +-+ vvi }' M 41 O0 chi i N Q- '> O O N qA L 0 D N a--+ a) C6 L O — a) a) L 04-1 '� a) DC O t]A '� v • L- '� _0 ruo �cn �,o � n 4- a) v Z co Q Z cn a) +-j fB +-' qA E , 0 V LL 4-J C: aj QJ E x QJ 0 E o -a o 0 o co E V) LL Ln 4-j o V) co Ln ai 0 D o 0 0 w tx >. 4--J 0 0 iz E u u nnnnn0� uunwry�ttNwtlMu axil„omaa.Y �owuW od�o�mJ� wAun�"' LI. q,'rwrxrreN, olivam, `rho„nW wumu7olou uo mimlu„„, ppyyurn�uupp UlnonimPo wuvuhllluu „I GJ O L C •O L T O � V � O � •i m r_ CL U ++ W 01 i c � = O O ca `V V C O LL�, LLO T m 75 N c ' r- 0 • • N N O N m ra olm 4� nV Qj Qj u Q01 Qj 4�j Qj Q) Qj QJ 13 Q.;', -z3 Cesu S — QJ , I — Qj m.W(3 QU Ca Q5 11-4 U) 0 Q CZ Q) 4-o 13 �13 W E Qj rr Lun Qj V) E CL E Q ST Qj I'N Ou :3 W I- aj crm 0 L. 4, -T3 13Qj '>% Qj ILI-EE Z sz: 0 Qj G C3 Qj Ul c: A c: go aj LU C3 W Qj Jt4 Q) CL 0 0 0, Ei Ei c; 13 05 CA uc U A L8& x x fA Wz C: ca 11 IJ .. . . . ...... CNI 0 N N O N M\ W TI V 1 O N Ln 4-j .E L «l1/ 16 co 4-j U m a--+ O O Ln 4-j .E ^L ^^W T O MEN W ai 4.1 f6 M a, 3 to co a1 Q. H t+ E w 0- t! c D c a) 3 0 Q Nv N O ti 13 j O a o ci a o C3) � U '.E iE 0 �o 0 N M Ln 00 O 00 00 O ri [Ln o r N N LDN N 0 6 0 o 00 m m m t.D ri N l0 Cy N N DC7 ri Ln 0 0 0 0 Lri ri ri ri ® Cl) LO N O N j= U w o o 0 a Lfi 00 Q Nv N O ti 13 j O a o ci a o C3) � U '.E iE 0 �o 0 N M Ln 00 O 00 O ri N 0 0 6 0 o ri; n m m m t.D ri N l0 N 00 N ri ®® ri Ln 0 0 0 0 Lri ri ri ri ® Cl) LO N O N o o 0 0 Lfi 00 M r I 00 00 0 o r -i rn r -i n ri r -i 00 ® N M 00 M 111 s r -I .o,—,.,o o 0 0 0 Lr) Ln o N 'zT CO Ln N oo r-1 ''..... N ri Q Z C7 Z J LUH M Ln J ',, J } C N D ° ° Lol J J J >z Q Nv N O ti 13 j O a o ci a o C3) � U '.E iE 0 4 u 0 ?---) ba......... ra.�' M u aj CL ::::3 4 E 4 4 .E E E 0 U N M ro 0 4- r_ v E 0- 0 � v ca > C: v r +2 an a E E sco E � a� o bn U Q) an a� Co O1 fr6 m °° W o O+' to U --i U a m E 0 r --i LOW 0 fs N M Y C: D M U- U a--+ O a- 0 o O lD to Izi- M N N 04 } U:. ,, W Cha V ✓: C O i r F ✓ c6 i �m {V Dig � " 1rc lu LL - SIU/A i. OrA Cl) M„ r O a C (6 _:. i >- E Y C: D M U- U a--+ bA a- 0 o O lD to Izi- M N bn cB N 0- (3) 4J L N Q 4 bn C N D O 0 .E X N }� r 0 0 Os U o c � c l G Nj7" � l��a�r � o�yrba k OO •��o— E OUO�ron) +_ja-+ o� C " 4-1 O O = 3 ul O 0 O m . 90�14Nm 4-1 44-- 0 Qj E Q 0 0)m > CD 0) M N 0 4-J ro N lie, til O 4-J III 4-J 44— jo 0 O O 4-J ra do (1) 4- ra op V) D 0 C:) 0 (3) N -0 E E ru w C: E ca -, IM Cly C!A Sty c� ra Oar ICUp Cls M _0 C' Ila ap O E Cil 0 E 1", E IV O PSI :10 c M 0 W E .rZ 0 W) lip In Qd -0 0 (Lp IV In, ILI. CD �t IV C A:Z 0 V ate" Yf" Z IM Cly C!A Sty c� ra Oar ICUp Cls M _0 C' Ila ap O E Cil 0 E 1", E IV O PSI :10 c M 0 W E .rZ 0 W) lip In Qd -0 0 (Lp IV In, ILI. CD �t IV C A:Z 0 V ate" f a a� „� U I�IIIIIIII � � " a 'r7 IIDWIu�\I ................ yyfl111I �1�..�.., ��IIIIOImi��. �lllllllllllllllll�lio-,_ . . . . uuihil. c6 O O 'E m N ra X CL� Ln UO a) O U cna-J O C ON co dJ N u O O N N i > cJ 4O ate+ 0N U � o v N o ro O .0 •> -0Q ca N O O Qaj to v . an E > _0 v Q o f z; ro E m O —0 O 0 L 0 N -0 � 4- Q w U .� Q N . . N M O W N P. a ._ IIp r� as riiaa�a i IN"ooJ 1rr �f�i"4 � r9j 19� ' or r � �✓in M° �cim r `' LL f xo a) � 4-j -1 U u L O a--+ O 41 L Q Q C6 a) 5. 4—j L (o U c a) (o L O i O O Vi U c C 4-J/ Y MO V) a) f6 U i a (/] a--+ L O a) — °L bn a) wo c ca = u L (D Ln 01 F"a) u =CL — O ; CO -0 CO N V) N }-+ O I O o dJ N u oC U :3 aJ 'o O Wd U fB ro O = +- O .� +- Ln N U -co: V 4—j 0 4 cu(/) v O C6 U N =3U m pvim' ° a) > 4-J ° i o i b � � U S✓ cz> N a0 . Ln +J 0 Q) o J O 0 � N i cl O v Q q;: F= � O N LLr r�, 0- ( N N N 0) O a - L X W t s v x 3 pro Y c � � �� ° � � C:u � O �� C: O .0 .N��E O''` O O O o d o+= QO �:0 Y H Q E Ln -0 Ln [u M 4- 0 }' .� O cn 4-J +-+ C: O _O N C6 N }' N QO p N O UlV p v E U v O Q o a o W `v / 1'PM H O a v -0r-IM m m o(flP �ll� � W (/) N (� Q N O L � U °J 0 M ° Ln O E N o 0 O u N > V) C L N O = C_> N .E O N C O ; C � i U ate-+ X O ,fu U LL f6 w N N O (A N 4-J (1) V � O � 4 a..r 00 H Ln � L `~W i O 0 Ln Fir) :A' w wV w u 0 • r-4 zzoz aunt TZOZ ozoz 6TOZ 8TOZ LTOz 9TOZ STOZ 17TOZ £TOZ ZTOZ TTOZ oTOZ 600Z GJ N O t Cu � N H O i i m m 00 w LA w 00 I u,,, W, 0 M 0 o E _0 "T I 0 0 4,k", M'', M, W c 4-j 1. Y LL CT, 0 cvk 0 0 0 M ep ep roQj 0 0 W, 00, "All"ll rp > E 0 CL 0 Qj M > 0O 0 > x 4- D 0 Qj 4-1 U a ai-0 0 (1) O (1) > 0 0 0 0- 4-j Ln M 4-j C)- 0 4- Co 4-j 0 U J rI Naj Ul) (1) (3) > E _0 0 0 W c 4-j 1. Y 0 4-j roQj 0 4-J E CL CL 0 Qj M > 0O 0 > x 4- D 0 Qj 4-1 U a ai-0 (1) O (1) > 0 0 0 0- 4-j Ln M 4-j C)- 0 4- Co 4-j 0 U J rI Naj Ul) (1) (3) > W •— 7EL 4-J ai (11 Z CU M 2 " CL C)- 0N N M H s H v N Cl v ato_ v }' aj +' t� vi aj 4 U (� a N '� Q • 0 o Z v N 0- Q ao0 0 C:(107 Q V U a ( :3v O E �c O 0 ° c bD w v ca O � N Q r -Ii c6 O 3 N ++ Vf cu U a 4-j C6 0 -0 p o N a i0- L° 3: N M 0 z v Cl o v �+ O N . CU E CL a > M Ln vtn 4-1 Q O o ai a 0 +� � O 4-1 Q N tA E S a1 CL x U +' N — N ro O m bD O dJ O � N Q _0 ro ca i a.., C: c6 a)a _0 Nra 4-1 U E + U x V N O o N a v L L° ° > I I I C: 0 C: C) 'Ej E 0 E 14-- 0 Ln U 0 Cl 0 4-J C 0 O 0 4 - cu �= CL E = 4-1 0 0 Z mo Q) _0 0 0 U a) - m 0 0 0 4-j a) C: 0 Ln a) U m 0 C"4 4-f tA u CU 0 a)Ln -0 r"A a Q Ln m a) 0- I I I vi ca N �L c ra N a) bn M L O N v L 2 4-J Q� Q� Q Q� U c C6 0 H _0 m N_ /-J V > 0 E CL 0 Z) m N -' �4+ `, i i m O m 0 *, Ln O C c � Ln N O N Q F Q) O 4--J U Q V L A N a_+ V L A E O A qp a N N O � � Q Q) 4--J Q Z) 4-j L2 O a LLQ. r� Mo O ' N = cu U N Q _O 41 4-1 N tUD N ca N O L O Q Q O a In X � N to O N 'N 4- 0 L U 0 LO Ln X m O N Q N L i -J m 0 O o° U Q m QL Q N N a-1 � N -0 E N � L V% O N ✓�.�rr cn U. -S L - m Z) m r [� C IL¢=a O m J a,o U- 0 0 4a v N .- -0 IL C6 ami — N O N L n C7 O N ✓�.�rr cn U. -S [� C IL¢=a N M p p N b U f6 to Q +j U a) CL w N L U o Ev i W CL +� N Ln cu p v U C6 v p Q _0 � s C _ CL_ O— N Q NN aN+ 0 � (D Iv m o N O m t a m O u E w Ou cQj ) a N o m cn p 4- N M O co M N N 0) cu a - L X W t rn c O U 0 O U U) c =a LL 0 0 0 U c c 0 s� N ra 4-j m a O U 4-j v E 0L _O a a N a a 4-j m 4-j to Li) cB a ra a a a L to > a a M (B O " E Op a"' %I.- •_ a w' O Q co V) 0 X }, a =3 `� 00 a > ra a N -0 a 4--j ai Q a i N C: i a f6 O m }1 H U 4-J •� V1 M N O U O M 0 00 U 00 CU a O m U N M O Cl) 7 N N 0) O a - L X W U) c L- 0 LL O O U c c d s tko L- 0 O ra O dJ n1 4- q j U _ t8➢ C$ ,,.m.... Qj V) U kn aj �L ( �% 0 ° Q.b � 41 C!y C� Qboc O u O 07 U O c) Q NO C6 co N i N V > C N CL O 7 c > CLi LnO _ N O N .� N X m NN N L NO L m•M C i` (� L LU l7A Q Ln L m a) � N U }, Z3 L N O to .c L qA � O N � C O N O cfB tz, C N N O }' O O c_ O O t O c O v o -i x U m a CL O O ., O r N +, (N Li a� N N E E o a a, E a 0 a 3 w •� Y •: 3 x �, W ra N M O V 7 N N 0) O a - L X W c LL O O c c a_ i tko CC O q 1 CL a1 Cg a1 � C:> �+ >, ai O O O O r� u a1 a1 O a1 4� O O 4 ' to O =c �} to Ma1 +� O Qj �a} a} u O , aj °0 00 ra C u u u m Lh _ a) Ln 1 •® �'d CSP Q..J �J m a1 c/'8 t!9 Z + N N a1 M O a1 Q 1 `~ o � i O �-- O N ma1 s c ON E E O +, i O aJ > m p[ m m a1 -r- 47 ci U m Q : a1 O on _V Ln ate-+ N N > 'Ln aN-+ M 4- M� Z N N ai +-1 O � N Ln_ a1 ?�' a1 a1 E 4-jQ a1 4- 4. 4. 0 aJ i X +� NE +� �+ + a1 Q n3 X ° c o '1' ern n O O s a1 m O a =3 N r -I N N Z L/)4� -0- d m E 7 = N � E N � � L i ;n +� i N .� E ' o C 4- s to_ �cS s 0 " 'a� .7A i J D N IZ = Q o G M N M O LO 7 N N 0) O a - L X W O cu 41 Cu a) E rq C 0 c x w aj V1 4�d M 4) V1 Q d) E I 10 " 9J Mo m CP .9= z a z 0 (b c 10 uj a qj 0 31 C��lr u ai -0 CL `U 0 E (u 41 E ad U E C3 0 m n 0 cr u vi CU m. C C-0 "Lu, +� qj 4- 0 000 4- C: E 0 a CL 0 0 Z cr 'OR m aR V1 w > 0 C) It 0 a M V1 CL X C in u R4 c 0 m < C E 46 0 0 X 4) CL (D 4.0 IV Z luj 4n V) A CIA shun ( ........ . CIA shun Anire , 9 1 Ln A I N M O O LO N N 0) cu a - L X W t .3 c O U c O U: U) c =a LL C: 0 0 U c 'c c 0 " d N N 0) O a - L X W U) c =a LL O O U a c C: d O N LO N N 0) cu a- x LU 3: c O .Ln 0 00 c7 n C) Ln 4-J _0 Ln Ln _0 o E < L- bZ ai bn ro 47 7Eb a) U 0 ai a) 0 cu q— c .--o 4-J Ln QJ CLO V) ro CA ai ai ai 4-j ai " E tw ro u x 0 -a ul ra :t CL to Ln Mo (1) rO 4-J bjD L- U W ro C: 0 0 0 C: 0 ra aj Ul) cu U GJ 0 tn -a 0 aj E bn ai tn _0 aj 0-0 4-j EL o 4- aj X a) E — 0 u _0 a) E 0 aJ W -a . -c c Ln Ln L- 0 4-J W V) aJ bD -0 V, L- < 0-2 moo C) ca 2 x r - LO N Ncu /�IIIII L wl W L .3 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 259 of 321 From: Mary Beth Haralovich To: PublicComment(c3i cityofot. us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:06:30 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, We strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As residents who rely on the vital services that our local hospital and emergency service providers offer, it is our job as a community to ensure that local nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and others have affordable housing options. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! J. J. Johnson & Mary Beth Haralovich Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 260 of 321 From: Susan Kutsch To: PublicComment(abcityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for ]oint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:47:27 AM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a resident who relies on the vital services that our local hospital and emergency service providers offer, it is our job as a community to ensure that local nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and others have affordable housing options. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 261 of 321 From: Jason Victor Serinus To: publiccomment(dcityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:30:32 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a resident who relies on the vital services that our local hospital and emergency service providers offer, it is our job as a community to ensure that local nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and others have affordable housing options. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! Jason Victor Serinus http://www.jasonserinus.com (He/his or Jason/Jason Victor) • Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile • Music and audiophile critic: Stereophile, San Francisco Classical Voice, Classical Voice North America, Seattle Times, Opera Now, Seattle Symphony, Port Townsend Leader, Bay Area Reporter, American Record Guide, AudioStream, Stanford Live, Gay City News, Copper, Opera News, Carnegie Hall... • WA State LGBTQ Commission Commissioner https:Hlgbtq.wa.gov/ • Whistler Extraordinaire: The Voice of Woodstock whistling Puccini's "O mio babbino caro" in "She's a Good Skate, Charlie Brown" • "The Pavarotti of Pucker" • Editor, Psychoimmunity and the Healing Process: A Holistic Approach to Immunity & AIDS (Celestial Arts) "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel "You see, we can't always name the things we feel ... and that's where music is so marvellous, because music names them for us, only in notes instead of in words." Leonard Bernstein Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 262 of 321 From: Janet Keller To: PublicComment(cbcityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + Planning Commission Mtg on 2/13 Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:26:50 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a resident who moved here because of the established and outstanding service sectors like the maritime trades, non-profit programs, restaurants, art and entertainment, I want to ensure those local workers have access to affordable housing so they can remain a part of our community. In addition, I want to see our town attract more young families with children. This population also needs access to affordable housing, as do the teachers and child care workers who help meet the needs of parents with young children. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! I strongly support more `missing middle' housing that can meet the needs of regular workers, not just retirees from California like me. Sincerely, Janet Keller Janet Keller, CPCC, PCC Endgame Coaching tel: 510.919.0512 e/m: janetkelle cc ,cni gmail.com zoom: htWs://coactive.zoom.us/i/5109190512 cal: https://janetkeller.acuiiyscheduling.com Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 263 of 321 From: Michelle Reddel DC To: PublicComment(c&i cityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + Planning Commission Mtg on 2/13 Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:56:25 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a resident who moved here because of the established and outstanding service sectors like the maritime trades, non-profit programs, restaurants, art and entertainment, I want tc ensure those local workers have access to affordable housing so they can remain a part of our community. In addition, I want to see our town attract more young families with children. This population also needs access to affordable housing, as do the teachers and child care workers who help meet the needs of parents with young children. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workfo Sincerely, MicheCCe ReddeCDC Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 264 of 321 From: Joanne Rittmueller To: PublicComment(cbcityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + Planning Commission Mtg on 2/13 Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:39:01 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a resident who moved here because of the established and outstanding service sectors like the maritime trades, non-profit programs, restaurants, art and entertainment, I want to ensure those local workers have access to affordable housing so they can remain a part of our community. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! Thank you, Joanne Rittmueller Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 265 of 321 From: Bill Wise To: PublicComment(cbcityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + Planning Commission Mtg on 2/13 Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 3:10:26 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. I have volunteered in various capacities here in Jefferson County - as co-founder and chair of Team Jefferson EDC for seven years, in the Climate Action work to inventory our climate footprint in 2008 and more recently in 2018 as co-founder of L2020's Energy Action Group which morphed into the PUD Campaign of 2008 to form our Jefferson County PUD. These activities have assisted to some degree to create jobs and support the wellbeing of Jefferson County citizens. Now almost 20 years in, I see affordable housing as the most critical of needs with regard to the wellbeing of our community. I want to ensure our local workers have access to affordable housing so they can remain the essential part of our community that they are. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 266 of 321 From: Carla Main To: PublicComment(a)cityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + Planning Commission Mtg on 2/13 Date: Thursday, February 9, 2023 10:54:37 AM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, As residents who moved here 22 years ago, we strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. This community has changed so much in the last 22 years, and housing that was once affordable is now out of reach for most workers! We moved here to support the established and outstanding service sectors like the maritime trades, non-profit programs, restaurants, art and entertainment, It is imperative that we ensure those local workers have access to affordable housing so they can remain a part of our community. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable housing for our local workers! And thank you for all of the work you do on behalf of the residents of Port Townsend! Your efforts are noted and greatly appreciated! Carla Main and Brad West Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 267 of 321 From: vikis To: publiccomment Subject: Public Comment for 2.13.23 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 7:01:23 AM Attachments: Community Centered Housina Develooment.odf Dear Council Members, Planning Commissioners, Community Development Director, and Planning Staff, The next six to eight months will be critical in determining the City's response to the Housing Affordability Crisis for decades to come, first through zoning code updates and then through a Comprehensive Plan update potentially requiring further updates to the zoning code. Next year (2024), the city will also be helping to develop a new 5 Year Plan to End Homelessness in cooperation with the county, housing service providers, community housing activists and people with lived experience of homelessness. Changes to the zoning code will affect not only what type of housing gets developed and how much of it, but also how and where it gets developed and who does the development - with profound implications for whom housing development serves I strongly believe that we - as a community - need to claim the future of housing development as ours to determine. I further believe that a visionary and systemic housing plan will embrace community -centered housing development as the way forward. Community -centered housing development means that development is: • Community -scaled: Its physical form is scaled to foster high- quality public spaces consistent with the historical scale of Port Townsend's neighborhoods and existing homes; Community -inclusive: It prioritizes housing as a basic need rather than a for-profit opportunity by providing sufficient housing for all incomes and redressing the historical injustices of exclusionary zoning; Community -driven: It puts resources (and decision-making) into the hands of the community and not outside developers; Community -owned: It fosters community wealth by providing opportunities for the community to invest in itself through community -owned housing; and Community -controlled: It encourages participatory and democratic local governance of housing development and our housing commons. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 268 of 321 To this end, I strongly advocate for a strategy that restructures the zoning code to: (1) make it easier and less expensive to build lower-cost housing, including missing middle housing (that is, more units on less land in what are now single-family zones); and (2) include a policy measure that would require larger developments to designate a portion of new housing units as affordable for households making low to moderate incomes. This strategy aligns with the Missing Middle Housing bills, HB 1110 and SB 5190, now before the legislature and best fits the vision of community -centered housing development presented above. I also strongly agree that we need a larger, systemic housing plan. A just and inclusive plan would prioritize housing as a basic need rather than a profit opportunity, minimize displacement, and address the historical injustice of exclusionary zoning. Such a plan would include goals for housing production by income level; permitting that empowers community -driven, small-scale housing development; anti -displacement policies and programs; and publicly supported programs to accelerate non - market development options (e.g. CLTs and cooperative housing) and workforce housing development, including missing middle housing options. The attached paper is the longer version of how I arrived at the above statement. It represents a first attempt to synthesize a vision of a caring, inclusive, participatory, and sustainable community built on caring relationships and locally -rooted, broad-based ownership of place -based assets with an analysis of Port Townsend's housing crisis and what we can do about it as a community. thanks you all for your commitment to Port Townsend, Viki Sonntag, community activist PS Thank you for including the attached paper in the packet's public comments along with this email. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 269 of 321 Zoning Changes for Community -Centered Housing Development: A Vision and Research Policy Paper Viki Sonntag, Community Activist, Port Townsend February 2023 In response to the extreme and prolonged shortage of affordably priced housing, both rental and owned, the City has prioritized creating opportunities for more affordable infill development in its 2023 workplan. A particular focus of their efforts is removing barriers in the zoning code that make it expensive and difficult to build housing sufficient to the community's needs. Most of us in Port Townsend are aware of the housing affordability crisis and its heavy burden on people's lives. More and more of us are at risk of or have fallen prey to homelessness. Others are being unwillingly forced to move out of the city to find housing and many are having to commute from outside the county to work here. Having to pay more and more for housing as a percentage of income puts market -rate rentals, let alone buying a house, out of reach. The lack of housing, in turn, compromises the city's ability to provide essential services and business owners' ability to keep staffed. And, as housing prices soar, so do our property taxes. All of these impacts matter a great deal to the future of the community we love dearly. It is clear that we cannot leave things as they are and expect different outcomes. There is also an urgency to do something now given the many harmful effects of this crisis. As a result, there is increase in momentum towards changing the rules governing housing development. At the same time, zoning is intricately tied up with other parts of the housing market, such as financing, real estate practices, state law, permitting, building codes and local builder/developer capacity. This makes changes complex and unpredictable. All of these factors vary considerably from place to place which makes comparing Port Townsend's housing markets to those of other cities challenging. As a result, what things to change in the zoning code and what to expect as a result are up for debate. What this Paper is About So what can we do to understand what zoning changes will make a difference to preserving the future of a Port Townsend we love? A good place to start is the community's vision for its future, followed by identifying zoning rules that are driving up costs in the context of larger system dynamics, and then, look at the evidence supporting different zoning changes as they have been applied elsewhere, recognizing that Port Townsend is unique. The following effort to put zoning in the context of a community -centered vision for Port Townsend is mine but one born out of 10 years of community activism in Port Townsend focused on housing and economic inequality, a multitude of conversations with a diversity of folks, hands-on experience of building six below-market rate housing units (including my own Page 1 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 270 of 321 1000 sf house at $200/sf, albeit 10 years ago), and three years on the planning commission. I invite anyone who lives here in Port Townsend to give feedback on this synthesis of observations, research and consideration of possible solutions. Vision and Values To answer the question of what zoning changes will lead to the kind of community we want in Port Townsend, we need a vision based on clear values. These values then inform the choices we make today. While a true vision of Port Townsend's future must necessarily involve a broad based community discussion', the vision crafted here reflects a history of community -driven initiatives and ownership, such as the choices to: convert from a private to a public utility; ban big box stores from Port Townsend; value an independently owned hospital; identify with a strong, diverse and networked marine trades industry; embrace public pathways; champion an economic development focus on growing locally -based businesses; foster a hub of intentional housing communities (e.g. co -housing, ecovillages, cottage clusters); and create the first Local Investment Opportunity Network (LION) which has become a model for local investing across the country. Port Townsend is also a community of relationships and caring. We have many beloved local organizations stewarding land and the socio-economic commons, among them: Local 2020, Jefferson County Land Trust, the Port Townsend Marine Science Center, Jefferson county Foundation and Jefferson County Immigrants Rights Advocates (JCIRA). More recently, Community Build has empowered the community to provide essential housing for people experiencing homelessness and the Housing Solutions Network has become a force for workforce housing. The long term solution to our housing crisis is found in a corresponding vision of a caring, inclusive, participatory, and sustainable community built on caring relationships and locally - rooted, broad-based ownership of place -based assets. Community -centered housing development means that development is: • Community -scaled: Its physical form is scaled to foster high-quality public spaces consistent with the historical scale of Port Townsend's neighborhoods and building stock. • Community -inclusive: It prioritizes housing as a basic need rather than a for-profit opportunity by providing sufficient housing for all incomes and redressing the historical injustices of exclusionary zoning. ' In 2020, Local 2020 conducted a community visioning survey. Two survey results highlighted both the need for affordable housing and concerns about rising inequality. The results can be found at ha s.//12 2 ..o w - caln. nt ia.plaa ds a _.. 3LLoca.i....._2020...._Visia�ni_r�g...._I��.�arj:.C2�:i Page 2of16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 271 of 321 • Community -driven: It puts resources (and decision-making) into the hands of the community and not outside developers. • Community -owned: It fosters community wealth by providing opportunities for the community to invest in itself through community -owned housing. • Community -controlled: It encourages participatory and democratic local governance of housing development and our housing commons. An example of community -centered development is the work of Jefferson County's Habitat for Humanity which is one of the most productive Habitats in this country in terms of housing production per population. The intentional communities — Quimper Village, Port Townsend EcoVlllage and Rosewind Co -Housing — provide other examples. Many individual homeowners are stepping forth to build ADU's to help fill the housing gap and LION is providing financing. The Olympic Housing Trust is getting ready to build its first community of family housing units next to a community garden. And other ideas are in the making. To realize the vision of community -centered housing development, the rules for governing this development as contained in the zoning code must embody the principles that foster inclusive, participatory and sustainable community. These include: • Providing a level playing field by increasing access to land and housing for all income levels impacted by the housing crisis; • Minimizing displacement by centering racial and economic inclusivity in all development; • Fostering greater community engagement through ensuring democratic participation and holding open, transparent and honest community conversations with the intent to build trust; • Promotes the development of local capacity to provide for our community's needs: and • Catalyzing public resources to aid in building community wealth. The next section of this policy paper discusses current research on the housing crisis in the context of Port Townsend. This summary of the research is presented as a series of issues. In the real world, these issues are complex and interrelated but here they are broken out for the sake of comprehensibility. Housing Market Dynamics and Zoning Rules 1. While there are many drivers of housing unaffordability,z there is more than ample evidence (and consensus) that the massive undersupply of lower cost housing is a primary z Among them, the financialization of the housing industry, demographic shifts, sharp rises in building material costs, economic inequality, and social opposition to building affordable housing. Drivers of Housing (Un)affordability in the Advanced Economies: A Review and New Evidence. 2022. Yeonhwa Lee, Peter A Kemp and Vincent J. Reina. Page 3 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 272 of 321 cause.' Zoning regulations that limit the supply of land available for housing and the number of units that can be built on it are of particular concern (see Point 7 below). • There is a broad emerging consensus among researchers across a range of disciplines that bad zoning policies are the main driver of housing unaffordability.4 • While zoning changes can spur lower-cost housing development, housing prices may still go up for other reasons. In other words, lower costs do not necessarily mean lower prices. (Think of insulin as another market where there is a huge disconnect between cost and price). • Zoning changes that make it simpler and easier to build lower cost housing are often referred to as missing middle housing policy. Generally missing middle housing looks like smaller houses on less land. They cost less to build than traditional single -detached homes, translating into lower sale and rental prices and increased affordability. • However, cost is only one component of price. Zoning doesn't determine what profit margins are or even how fast or how many houses get built, although zoning can influence these. 2. Single-family zoning has resulted in historical patterns of racial and class discrimination. These patterns persist over time and contribute to the racial wealth gap. Research shows that the more land dedicated to single-family zoning in a community, the greater the exclusion of non-white and lower-income people from housing.' This is why single-family zoning is referred to as exclusionary zoning. 3. Zoning not only affects the amount of housing built but measurably impacts other important elements of the quality of life in our community, such as traffic, transit development, economic development, open space, sprawl, social inclusion, walkability, and climate change. Research shows that higher density residential zoning positively impacts these elements. • Communities with lower density levels and less diversity of uses also have a higher dependence on automobile commuting and increased carbon emissions than do communities with higher densities. High density counts towards climate change goals. Single-family zoning also drives increasing house size. Smaller housing units are more energy and resource efficient. 3 Washington State is ranked 6t" in the country in the underproduction of housing units. 2022 Housing Underproduction in the United States. Up for Growth. Ihagp..: ug rgr.o}n t ...o g,/�.p.p.l_y.::�lho�.:viisiir�_n/haus.%ink... ua.in �_e rp rad uapti ain� a For example, see The Economic Implications of Housing Supply. 2018. Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko, which argues, "The implicit tax on development created by housing regulations is higher in many areas than any reasonable negative externalities associated with new construction." Also see, Cancel Zoning, The Atlantic. 2022. M. Nolan Gre . htt s: www.theadantic.corn ideas aUch'uve 2022 06 tonin hoaasin affoUdabiVit ruirmb ark'on Y.............p......./../............................................................................................../......................../.................................I...................../...................................gx...............................8...................................................Y..........................Y....4........................g... Ih o u sto n�/66 J.2.8 �/ ....................................................................... 5 Zoning by a Thousand Cuts. Sara C. Bronin. 2022. ht p.s.//.pa.rsssUn..,cm./s1.,3/.parsFlm?btra_t...._id.:mm3:124 Page 4 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 273 of 321 • Higher density neighborhoods support the existence of close proximity to goods and services accessible by foot or bike. Low density development leads to sprawl and the degradation of open space and our environmental commons. 4. Zoning must conform to a number of state laws that govern land use. Because housing affordability, growth and displacement are regional issues, there is a lot on what local authorities can or cannot do in state laws, the most famous of course being Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). GMA directs cities to put growth within current urban boundaries. This means increasing density as our population grows.' • Growth Management is cited as an example of a land use policy promoting density at the city level. It seeks to make cities more environmentally friendly and limit urban sprawl.' GMA's urban growth boundaries preventing new greenfield construction are designed to protect farms and forests from urban development, an issue of huge importance in our rural county to many community members. • GMA also sets the ground rules for our cities' Comprehensive Plan to which the zoning code is subordinate. An important update to the GMA incorporated into state law in 2021 directed cities to do inventory and analysis of housing units for all income levels (RCW 36.70A.070).' Currently we only have numbers for housing production in total, so we don't know how much of that housing meets the needs of different income groups. This GMA update should rectify that but it also takes time to implement. (We also don't know how much housing construction is blocked by local zoning regulations or how much displacement occurs or who is being displaced. See Point 13 below.) • Another important GMA element governing zoning is RCW 36.70A.540 that lays out the rules for affordable housing incentive programs.' An important limitation in this RCW is that rental housing units to be developed shall be affordable to and occupied by households with an income of fifty percent or less of the county median family income, adjusted for family size; and owner occupancy housing units shall be affordable to and occupied by households with an income of eighty percent or less of the county median family income, adjusted for family size. (See Point 11 on Inclusionary Zoning below for related discussion on the impact of these restrictions on workforce housing.) 5. Current legislation at the state level would allow up to a fourplex in all single family zones in cities of 6,000 or more in population statewide (HB 1110 and SB 5190).10 There is strong support for this legislation across the business and public sectors and environmental and social justice activists. a The limited housing supply probably acts as a brake on population growth. Many people are being forced out or our city and county to accommodate people with more money coming from outside the community. Evaluating Housing Affordability Policies in Your Area. Emily Hamilton. 2022. s RCW 36.70A.070 Ih..ps. as. lea.Dov/ronr/defaullt.aslax?ciite::::36.70a.010 9 .__._....p 1�a A._Ie:.v�t2.:.gou�rcw�deFault.asgx?cite:::::36.70A.540 RCW 36.70A.540 Ihtt s:. 10 HB 1110 and SB 5190. httpsL a 2..leg.nra.. ov billsuinmar BiiIIIlNumber �.�.O Irroitiative Fallse$�Yeair 2023. and ggy/. i.11sgn.rn1LV.?5p.IVINumber-5].90&Chamber-Senat.e.&.Yeair-2023 Page 5 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 274 of 321 • In a recent Seattle Time/I<UOW-sponsored poll (Feb 2023), seventy-one percent of likely Washington state voters, across partisan lines and from cities to small towns and rural areas, support legislation that would eliminate single-family zoning in Washington cities and allow more homes like duplexes and small apartment buildings." • The one standout from supporting this legislation is the Washington Association of Cities, a non-profit, that claims neutrality on the bill but whose main issue is "local control". Local control as referred to in this context does not mean community engagement but the power of city officials and local planning departments to make land use decisions. 6. The housing crisis is regional. What happens in Seattle and Tacoma, the East Side, and Everett affects Port Townsend. • The state's shortage of homes rose from 64,000 in 2012 to 140,000 in 2019—more than doubling in just 7 years. 12 • Shifting populations contribute to an influx of out-of-towners competing for housing. Many of these are able to convert their equity in higher price markets to cash, obtaining a competitive advantage over locals in purchasing homes in the Port Townsend market. 7. Single-family zoning combined with maximum density rules is a primary deterrent to more housing construction.13 Single-family zoning drives up rental and housing costs over time by restricting housing supply. • Exclusionary zoning restricts the number of households that can live in a jurisdiction, leading home prices to be bid up by those who can afford to pay them. • Missing middle housing is less expensive than stand-alone houses because the homes are generally modest in size and the cost of land is split —a triplex, for example, puts three homes on a city lot where only one was allowed, often under one roof. In contrast, detached -house zoning guarantees that only the most expensive kind of homes can ever get built in most residential neighborhoods." • Zoning laws favor the construction of single-family houses on a relatively large amount of land. Currently 89% of Port Townsend residential land is restricted to single-family housing plus an ADU on single lots of 5000 square feet or more. • The Port Townsend code already allows for a variety of housing types such as duplexes and triplexes but not on single lots, that is, the amount of land required for each unit in a multi -family dwelling is the same as for a single family residence. So a duplex, for instance, requires 10,000 square feet. Allowing duplexes and triplexes by themselves 11 https://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2023-POLL-WA-Voter-Views-on-Housing-Policy- Issues.pdf 1i Washington's Middle Housing Bill Explained. Sightline. 2023. Dan Bertolet, Sightline. Ih_t:tps.;://washiin.tons 2023 middle housiirr billl ex laiined 13 Zoning by a Thousand Cuts. Also, Inclusionary Zoning Hurts More Than It Helps. 2019. Emily Hamilton. 14 Seven Reasons Washingtonians Need Middle Housing. 2023. Dan Bertolet, Sightline Institute. Dr:t:t ?s.;:// w w.:_si.gD.tl.irge aarg/ ):3./d ,/0 / v ln.:::r a_s ln_s::: a:sbjn. t�sn..needs:::midd.le.-hou�aslri /.. Page 6 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 275 of 321 without allowing for greater density has not perceptibly increased construction of these types of housing as land cost is prohibitive. 8. Research indicates that any change to single family zoning rules will take time to affect housing production rates and the mix of available housing stock. 15 • Although zoning changes affect development capacity by allowing different types of housing and more housing units to be built per acre, building capacity can take some time to develop. 16 On the demand size, changes in homeowners' preferences also take time. The very gradual up take of ADUs in Los Angeles is an example of how slow change can be.17 While ADU's have been allowed for decades in Los Angeles permits were difficult and expensive to obtain. Now more than 20% of new units in Los Angeles come from backyard conversions with the increase in ADU permits only recently taking off. From 2017 to 2021, the number of ADU permits issued in the city increased by 202% to over 5000 ADU permits per year. • One thing that can make a huge difference in speeding up building capacity is developing programs that address the other housing development barriers slowing production such as financing and permitting. This was one factor in Los Angeles' ADU success. 18 For example, it can be "difficult if not impossible" for homeowners to find lenders who will take ADU rental income into account when deciding whether to issue a construction loan, thus the importance of establishing new lending options particularly aimed at low-income homeowners. 9. Exclusionary zoning requirements, other than single-family zoning, that affect housing production include: minimum parking; maximum height; maximum floor -to -area ratio; and obligation to undergo a public hearing; minimum lot -size mandates; and maximum lot coverage. With the exception of floor -to -area ratios (for single-family residences and duplexes and triplexes), all of these requirements are in some form in the PT code. • Port Townsend reduced parking minimums in 2022. Further reductions calls for a better understanding of the relationship between parking requirements and transit development. • The permitting process for different housing types is important. Housing applications subject to public hearing requirements are more likely to be rejected.19 10. Upzoning refers to the process of changing the zoning code to allow new development capacity, whereas rezoning refers to a zoning change in allowable land uses, for example, from single-family to multi -family. While changing the base density (number of housing " Unlocking the Potential of Missing Middle Housing. 2022. David Garcia, Muhammad Alameldin, Ben Metcalf and Willima Fulton. htt s: Lernercenter.berl<ele .edu w content u loads 2022 t2 Missin Muddle Brief C)ecember- 0.......��.........................................................................................Y................../........ P..................................../......42............................................/.........../........................................................................................................................................ " Building capacity refers to how much housing is actually being built where development capacity refers to what could be built. 17 New housing in Los Angeles leans heavily on ADUs 18 https://xtown.la/2022/09/20/adus-los-angeles-housing-numbers/ 19 Zoning by a Thousand Cuts. Page 7 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 276 of 321 units per acre) is one way to upzone, there are other ways, for example, changing height restrictions. • For most of its history, upzoning has been limited to targeted areas. Different impacts are associated with targeted upzoning compared to upzoning over a broad area (see Point 12 on Ending Single Family Zoning), for example, an entire city compared to a neighborhood.20 Inclusionary zoning (see Point 11) is also considered a form of upzoning but with different impacts than market -rate upzoning.21 • Market -rate housing development is most often associated with upzoning. • Research shows that targeted upzoning is often associated with gentrification and segregation. For example, a 2021 study of New York City neighborhood upzonings found that upzonings are likely to accelerate, rather than temper, gentrification pressures.22 • Another unintended impact of upzoning is to create sprawl. Developers seeking to avoid inclusionary zoning requirements look for land outside the targeted areas. This is why we see development the recent Madrona Ridge and Cook Avenue developments in Port Townsend even when the city is offering incentives in the form of development fee waivers in the Rainier sub -area. • Limiting residential development to single-family homes on spacious lots restricts the supply of housing, driving up costs but it also keeps the cost of the single -family -zoned land itself down relative to what it would be if that land could be used more intensively. If you upzone only targeted areas in places where the demand is great, you will see single family property owners not only selling to apartment developers (who will pay more for the land if they can put more units on it), but others holding out for a similar deal, driving prices up dramatically.23 This is a common story in large cities. • Considerable attention has been given to a study of the impacts of upzoning on land values in Chicago .21 "[The results show] that one effect of upzoning is a short-term increase in property transaction prices. First, the upzone for increased construction (density classes) quickly increased transaction values. This is a sign that land prices adjusted to the expanded ability to build, providing a one-time boost to incumbent landholders and suggesting interest in future redevelopment at higher densities." This study has been used to argue against density increases. However, Freeman, the author of the Chicago study, says, "Since I did not find any increase in construction resulting 2° Housing Arguments Over SB 50 Distort My Upzoning Study. Here's How to Get Zoning Changes Right. 2019. Yonah Freemark. https:Hthefrisc.com/housing-arguments-over-sb-50-distort-my-upzoning-study-heres-how-to- get-zoning-changes-right-40daf85b74dc 21 Upzoning is also not the same thing as ending exclusionary zoning (see Point 12). 22 How do upzonings impact neighborhood demographic change? 2021. Jenna Davis. rr7721.000703 23 What Would Mass Upzoning Actually Do to Property Values? 2022. Daniel Heriges. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/1/18/what-would-mass-upzoning-actually-do-to-property-values 24 Upzoning Chicago: The Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction. 2019. Yonah Freeman. https://yonahfreemark.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Freemark-Upzoning-Chicago.pdf Page 8 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 277 of 321 from the upzoning, I was not measuring the impact of higher density. So it is inaccurate to argue that I identify increased density as a cause of reduced affordability. "25 11. Incentives to developers to build more affordable units, primarily density bonuses, (often referred to as inclusionary zoning programs, or inclusionary zoning for short) has marginally increased the number of below market -rate units being built but not at the rate that is needed, that is, demand still swamps supply. • First developed in the 1970s, Inclusionary zoning is used by municipal governments to encourage developers to build below-market rate houses. It is often imposed on new developments, sometimes citywide and sometimes only in certain neighborhoods, in a process referred to as upzoning (see Point 10 above).26 • Density bonuses increase median -house prices. To cover the cost of providing the affordable units, developers need to raise the prices of the market -rate units that are cross -subsidizing the affordable units (units usually restricted to those with incomes from 100% or lower of the area median income). This leads to high-end developments which, over time, push median market -rate prices up. One of the most extensive research studies of density bonus impacts found they raise prices by 1% for every year of their existence.27 Compounded over time this is a considerable increase in price. • At a minimum, for-profit affordable housing projects require a 15 to 20% profit margin to obtain market (private) financing.28 • As researcher Emily Hamilton points out, "The value of density bonuses rests on localities' underlying exclusionary zoning; if local rules permitted homebuilders to provide as much housing as they think would be profitable, density bonuses wouldn't have any value. Inclusionary zoning, therefore, cannot be a remedy to exclusionary zoning."29 • "Where density bonuses raise housing prices, the burden of this policy falls hardest on low-income households that are not lucky enough to qualify for a unit that is designated as affordable."30 • Housing production rates vary considerably according to different features of IZ program.31 Higher rates are associated with rental unit production, jurisdiction -wide coverage, providing incentives (and different incentives), compliance options, and 2s Housing Arguments Over SB 50 Distort My Upzoning Study. 26 Over the past four decades the federal government has dramatically shrunk its role in providing public housing, shifting instead toward a practice of giving real estate developers, banks, and other powerful players in the housing industry significant public subsidies and tax relief to incentivize the buildout of affordable housing. Cities like this approach because they do not carry the bulk of the cost of the subsidy in their budgets. 2' Inclusionary Zoning Hurts More Than It Helps. 28 The Economic Implications of Housing Supply. 2018. Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko. 29 Emily Hamilton: Inclusionary Zoning and Its Exclusionary Effects. 2022. Podcast. rj.ttps.:,//atl_a.in:ta. urban.iize.,_cGL. � ost erniil har�iltor7 inclusionair-zor�in -and iits exclusionar-eFFecGs 30 Inclusionary Zoning Hurts More Than It Helps. 31 Examining the Effects of Policy Design on Affordable Unit Production Under Inclusionary Zoning Policies, 2022. Wang and Balachandron. Page 9 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 278 of 321 incomes targeted to very low-income households. Longer affordability lengths did not impact production. Higher unit production is also associated with population growth and overall housing growth. 12. In 2021, Oregon legislators ended single-family zoning in many of the state's localities, followed closely by California in the same year. At the local level, Minneapolis policymakers replaced single-family zoning with triplex zoning in 2018, followed by Portland in 2021. Since then more states and more cities are considering these changes including many in Washington. Instead of picking specific areas to concentrate new high-density housing as with targeted upzoning, ending single-family zoning allows the next increment of density— typically some version of duplexes through fourplexes – on nearly every residential lot.32 The resulting changes in development patterns have been referred to as density light, blanket upzoning and mass upzoning. Ending single family zoning policies are also closely tied to missing middle housing policies (see Point 1 above) and ending exclusionary zoning policies. Allowing infill housing development in places where infrastructure already exists is an important strategy to bring down costs. According to Washington's Department of Commerce, (DOC) missing middle housing (or infill housing) is the least costly way to do housing development. They have been strong supporters of the state's missing middle legislation. Allowing infill housing in single family zones would bring workers closer to jobs and essential services, reducing traffic and climate impacts. The cost of getting to work would also be reduced (especially of gas prices are high). Transportation is a significant hidden cost in housing affordability.33 Some critics of ending single-family zoning argue that allowing housing development everywhere will trigger a speculative frenzy with greedy developers transforming the character of our neighborhoods and towns. Proponents of infill and density counter that this is a misperception of how zoning affects land values in that the value of a piece of property is determined by its development potential, not zoning. Upzoning in targeted areas, all else equal, will increase property values, especially if there is pent-up demand for the new uses, but upzoning every property will not substantially increase the value of every property."," " What Would Mass Upzoning Actually Do to Property Values? 2022. Daniel Herriges. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/1/18/what-would-mass-upzoning-actually-do-to-property-values 33 Housing Underproduction in the United States. 2022. Mike Kingsella and Leah MacArthur, editors, Up for Growth.. h.Lts.:,/�u.pf®.irgirowtlh.org/apply-tlhe-visionlhousiin-undeirprd_uati ln./ 3a For the lengthier argument, see What Would Mass Upzoning Actually Do to Property Values? 35 Much has been made of the jump in land prices in Langley following their recent zoning code update. As an economist, I was surprised that some have found this "unintended consequence" a surprise. Every study I have read on zoning impacts on affordability predicts a rise in land values. It's basic economics — when you increase the value of land by allowing more uses on it, prices will reflect this value increase. (It's important to keep in mind that value is not the same as price.) On the flip side of a zoning change, when land owners (many, not all) predict a change in land uses, they will hold onto land until they can get more for it. However, this land storing also leads to market distortions of underutilized land with no housing on it. There is also the reality that, on a personal level, most home owners appreciate a rise in their home's value. It is a standard tenet of community development that we protect home values and community character by disallowing development that might decrease value. Page 10 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 279 of 321 • These reforms are too recent to evaluate their effect on new housing construction and affordability. However, initial indications are they do not produce rapid changes in housing production for the reasons cited above in Point 8. • Kuhlman who performed a very early study of the impact of Minneapolis' changes on housing prices. Argues that the price of some parcels must rise in order to encourage redevelopment and produce more affordable housing options for the city as a whole.36 • Ending single-family zoning in June of 2022, Spokane City Council unanimously approved permitting construction of multi -family homes on lots previously zoned for single family residences with next to no opposition after a year long trial. The change opened the way for community -driven, small-scale projects, for example, allowing a local foundation to move forward with its plans to provide more free housing for families who travel to Spokane so their children can receive treatment for cancer.37 13. State law (RCW 36.7OA.O7O)38 requires cities to identify local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing. • Cities are required to establish "anti -displacement policies, with consideration given to the preservation of historical and cultural communities as well as investments in low, very low, extremely low, and moderate -income housing; equitable development initiatives; inclusionary zoning; community planning requirements; tenant protections; land disposition policies; and consideration of land that may be used for affordable housing." • Anti -displacement policies are a new area of focus in housing policy, especially for small cities. 14. There is the challenge of engaging the community, particularly those most impacted, in a process that is complex and that can be intimidating. At the same time, we know any lasting solution requires the engagement of the community in the discussion, especially those most impacted. • Research shows that members of the public who speak at hearings are not representative of the population as a whole, have a status quo bias, and often lack an understanding of the benefits of new housing.39 Evaluating Potential Zoning Change Strategies Historically, this has led to segregation both by class and race. I have been frustrated by the land price increase in Langley being used to argue against zoning density changes in single-family zoning in Port Townsend for a number of reasons but mainly because it ignores the potential for community -driven development, such as a nine -unit tiny home development in Langley specifically built as workforce housing. See the story of this development along with Langley's zoning changes in No place for workers to live? Whidbey Island town aims to fix that. 2022. Joshua McNichols, Libby Denkman, and Sarah Liebovitz. KUOW. htt s: www.kuaw.oU stories no- lace fgE::workers. todive ..whidbe .usVand.town.aims-to .fix.that p.......��............................................................g�...........................................?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... se Upzoning and Single -Family Housing Prices. 2021. Daniel Kuhlman. 37 Zoning Changes Help Families. 2022. Jeff Humphrey..h:....psILm 1polkaineciity.oirLi/news stories / 02.1. l/ , ./ am.iin. cg Inane es hell -farniliess ss Ihtt.ps.� p. Ole.wa. ov ircw default.as x?cite:::::30,70a.070 se Zoning by a Thousand Cuts. Page 11 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 280 of 321 The following is an evaluation of different approaches to changing the zoning code based on the research findings above. My review of the research focused on scholarly work examining the impacts of zoning changes on displacement, housing availability and affordability and that of policy institutions focused on inclusionary economic development. Of the latter, I found the work of Up for Growth, the Democracy Collaborative, and the Urbanity Project, Mercatus Center of George Mason University (led by Emily Hamilton) to be of particular merit .40 While the evaluation is grounded in an intensive review of the research, there is a danger both to over -simplifying the complexity of the Housing Affordability Crisis and extrapolating from others' experience to Port Townsend. Moreover, crafting a strategic approach to the Housing Affordability Crisis is a systems change problem that will take patience and courage because there are no quick fixes and we can't control all the outcomes. It will take all of us as a community to address the problem -- which means encountering differences in a way that is respectful and supportive of others' intentions. We are also trying to address the harms of housing patterns that has evolved over a century bound up with people's ideas of the American dream. These harms will not cease over night because development patterns cannot be changed overnight: displacement will continue to occur; people will still be competing for a limited supply of homes for some time to come; and housing prices may go up or down (in the short term) depending on market forces we don't control but over the long term, they will continue to rise — hopefully, just not quite as fast — along with the cost of living. This is why a focus on housing underproduction through the lens of equity is so important. As Up for Growth puts it, "The good news is that we can choose to adopt a new approach to building homes that addresses not only availability and affordability, but also has positive impacts on equity and inclusion, economic vibrancy, and climate change."" Finally, any system change comes with transition costs. Who bears these costs is of major concern in making any change, large or small. For too long, the most impacted have been those least able to afford it. Without centering those most impacted in developing strategy, we will continue to perpetuate the problem that gave rise to this crisis in the first place. With these caveats in mind, I evaluate four strategies for (re)structuring the zoning code using principles for cultivating an inclusive, participatory and sustainable community as evaluation criteria. These principles are: • Provide a level playing field by increasing access to land and housing for all income levels impacted by the housing crisis; • Minimize displacement by centering racial and economic inclusivity in all development; 40 See Housing Underproduction in the United States; Community Control of Land and Housing; and Evaluating Housing Affordability Policies in Your Area. " Housing Underproduction in the United States. 2022. Mike Kingsella and Leah MacArthur, editors, Up for Growth. h:t:t s: J�!�.�f�,_U�r��nrtl�_:erg/..�.�.42.�_Y:: tV�e.::v s.i_din.�lho s.!_0�::_u_nd_�Upr��_��ti�ln.Z Page 12 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 281 of 321 • Foster greater community engagement through ensuring democratic participation and holding open, transparent and honest community conversations with the intent to build trust; • Promote the development of local capacity to provide for our community's needs: and • Catalyze public resources to aid in building community wealth. The four strategies are not mutually exclusive. As the zoning code updating process unfolds, it likely will involve some mix of elements from more than one of these strategies. For example, while most of the Planning Commission's discussion has been focused on eliminating barriers to small scale development, there is a need to revisit multi -family zoning rules as well. Further, the success of any strategy requires careful detail design to minimize negative impacts such as displacement. The four strategies are: Strategy 1– Do Nothing as the Market Will Take Care of Itself: This is the least viable strategy option as the Affordability Crisis will only worsen under a business -as -usual strategy. In fact, the Affordability Crisis is a result of the market itself shaped by zoning rules where only some people have access to affordably priced housing. This option also disregards the potential of community -driven small-scale efforts to contribute to housing development. In short, the playing field is heavily tilted to large, outside developers. Strategy 2 – Incrementally Change the Zoning Code but Leave Single -Family Zoning Intact: This strategy has the potential to remove some of the barriers to building lower cost housing and Port Townsend has already passed incremental zoning changes such as lowering minimum parking requirements and permitting zero -lot line construction with minimal opposition, but leaving single-family zoning intact would make community -driven, small-scale developments such as duplexes and triplexes prohibitively expensive for those who cannot afford the land. While this approach would allow room for continued community engagement in deciding which changes to make, it does not ensure broad based participation or center those most impacted. To date, we have not seen a lot of participation in public discussion of zoning changes beyond housing activists. Yet, many in Port Townsend favor density for other reasons such as preserving open space, reducing climate impacts, and fostering social inclusion. We need to outreach to these groups as well. The main challenge for this strategy is how it evades addressing the discriminatory impacts of single-family zoning rules. As Dan Bertolet has written, "The best time to stop exclusionary zoning and all its harmful effects would have been a century ago. The next best time is now—that is, in the 2023 Washington legislative session. Passing the middle housing bill would ... undo the ugly historic legacy of zoning designed to segregate.1142 Strategy 3 – Incentivize Developers to Build More Affordable Housing through Targeted Upzoning: Inclusionary zoning can result in the production of more affordable housing for 12 https://www.sightline.org/2023/01/03/washingtons-2023-middle-housing-bill-explained/#fn-1 Page 13 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 282 of 321 low and moderate income residents (up to 100% AMI). It can also result in buildings and neighborhoods that have a mix of income levels, without having to rely on taxpayer funds to provide them. However, density bonuses depend on keeping exclusionary zoning in place since it is exclusionary zoning which provides their value. The research on incentives to developers to build more affordable units, primarily density bonuses, shows that they have exclusionary effects and increase median home prices over time. Further, it is difficult to see how inclusionary zoning could be extended to subsidize workforce housing development (up to 150% AMI) as this would require even higher end development. Strategy 4 — End Single Family Zoning: Zoning rules intended to protect single-family zoning are a key driver of rising housing prices. While small scale infill development is unlikely to meet the need for housing sufficient to need any time soon, it does provide an option for those with initiative and those wanting smaller scale housing. Infill development of this type is a key strategy of not only lowering the cost of housing (for example, it is possible to build a permittable tiny home, for example, for $100,0000), but also reducing housing underproduction which dramatically affects the price of housing. With programs to support potential homeowners such as that developed by the Housing Solutions Network to support homeowners interested in adding ADUs, production could be accelerated. Small scale community projects have also led to greater community engagement in addressing the impacts of the housing crisis through projects such as Community Build. Changes to the zoning code will affect not only what type of housing gets developed and how much of it, but also how and where it gets developed and who does the development with profound implications for who housing development serves. This is why it is so important to have a systemic understanding of zoning changes in the context of market dynamics. In addition, whatever Port Townsend's chosen strategy to increase housing production through zoning updates, it needs to be embedded in a larger housing plan that makes it easier and less expensive to build more housing, prioritizes housing as basic need rather than a profit opportunity, minimizes displacement, and addresses the injustice of exclusionary zoning. Some of the non -zoning elements of such a plan would include: • A better picture of how much housing is needed for different housing income segments as required by state law for our next Comprehensive Plan update. This will help to ensure that we target resources where resources are needed most. • Permitting that empowers community -driven small-scale housing development. Every time we complicate zoning law, it has repercussions for who can afford to meet those requirements. This is where permitting enters. Right now the rules and permitting process favor large-scale projects by outside developers. We need to make it easier for local builders and the community to advance community -scaled projects. One thing to consider is revising the permitting process to meet the needs of different types of builders and developers as suggested by Eric Peterson. • Publicly -supported programs that will accelerate workforce housing development. This goes beyond allowing the right thing to be built to supporting the right kind of Page 14 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 283 of 321 development. Let's expand on Housing Solutions Network's program to support ADU development with like programs to support housing conversions, co -buying opportunities, and non -market development options such as housing cooperatives and the Olympic Housing Trust. Create a comprehensive strategy to help keep low-income and fixed-income single- family homeowners in place. Examples of anti -displacement strategies developed by Puget Sound Sage include: programs to defer property taxes until sale of property; program to fund and develop a canvas to inform homeowners of their alternatives and tradeoffs to selling their homes; land -use and development strategies to allow homeowners to stay in their homes, but leverage the unused land on their property to both develop new affordable housing AND help homeowners pay property taxes and maintenance costs.43 • Support for rent stabilization policy at the state level. Towards Community -Driven Housing Development This paper represents a first attempt to synthesize a vision of a caring, inclusive, participatory, and sustainable community built on caring relationships and locally -rooted, broad-based ownership of place -based assets with an analysis of Port Townsend's housing crisis and what we can do about it as a community. The next six to eight months will be critical in determining the City's response to the Housing Affordability Crisis for decades to come, first through zoning code updates and then through a Comprehensive Plan update along with further updates to the zoning code. Next year (2024), the city will also be helping to develop a new 5 Year Plan to End Homelessness in cooperation with the county, housing service providers, community housing activists and people with lived experience of homelessness. As remarked above, changes to the zoning code will affect not only what type of housing gets developed and how much of it, but also how and where it gets developed and who does the development —with profound implications for whom housing development serves. So what strategy should inform our zoning code and Comprehensive Plan updates? I strongly believe that we — as a community — need to claim the future of housing development as ours to determine. I further believe that a visionary and systemic housing plan will embrace community -centered housing development as the way forward, resulting in housing that is: Community -scaled: Its physical form is scaled to foster high-quality public spaces consistent with the historical scale of Port Townsend's neighborhoods and building stock. 41 htt s: nextcit .or urb nist...n s heave...shou H..seaWe.tactor...e u'ut .into....0 zone -decision ......./../ .././ ........... _Y...........,............................................................./........................................................................................................................ _9............ Y........................................................................................ Page 15 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 284 of 321 • Community -inclusive: Prioritizes housing as a basic need rather than a for-profit opportunity by providing sufficient housing for all incomes and redressing for the historical injustices of exclusionary zoning. • Community -driven: Puts resources (and decision-making) into the hands of the community and not outside developers. • Community -owned: Fosters community wealth by providing opportunities for the community to invest in itself through community -owned housing. • Community -controlled: Encourages participatory and democratic local governance of housing development and our housing commons. To this end, I strongly advocate for a strategy that restructures the zoning code to: (1) make it easier and less expensive to build lower-cost housing, including missing middle housing (that is, more units on less land in what are now single-family zones); and (2) includes policy measures that would require larger developments to designate a portion of new housing units as affordable for households making low to moderate incomes. This strategy aligns with the Missing Middle Housing bills, HB 1110 and SB 5190, now before the legislature and best fits the vision of community -centered housing development advanced here. I also strongly agree that we need a larger housing plan which makes it easier and less expensive to build more housing. A just and inclusive plan would prioritize housing as a basic need rather than a profit opportunity, minimize displacement, and address the historical injustice of exclusionary zoning. Such a plan would include goals for housing production by income level; permitting that empowers community -driven, small-scale housing development; anti -displacement policies and programs; and publicly supported programs to accelerate non - market development options (e.g. CLTs and cooperative housing) and workforce housing development, including missing middle housing options. invite anyone and everyone who is interested in advancing this vision to contact me to discuss how we can make this initial effort here a collective one. A next step will be to develop a narrative representing the vision of community -centered housing development in an immediate and accessible way. I humbly acknowledge that not everyone wants to read 15 pages of policy research. I look forward to hearing what you have to say and want to contribute, committed to an open heart and mind. Thank you for considering joining with me in this vision. Page 16 of 16 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 285 of 321 From: mweston(caolvnen.com To: PublicComment(acityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:40:24 PM Dear City Council Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a resident who relies on the vital services that our local hospital and emergency service providers offer, it is our job as a community to ensure that local nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and others have affordable housing options. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! regards, mike Weston Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 286 of 321 From: Peter Bonvun To: PublicComment(acityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 7:52:54 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a senior resident who relies on the vital services that our local hospital and emergency service providers offer, it is our job as a community to ensure that local nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and others have affordable housing options. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! Social housing, such as being considered in Seattle, is an option worth study. Sincerely, Peter Bonyun 990 22nd St Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 287 of 321 From: Connie Ross To: PublicComment(ai)cityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 8:50:41 PM Dear City Council and Planning Commissioners, strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. I have required medical attention several times over the past 3 years and, while I have not once witnessed any unprofessional or complaining healthcare workers, those employees that have stuck it out these past 3 years without giving up and leaving have been left with a heavy burden. It is not just the workforce that cannot find a home here to take a needed position at the hospital, but those that remain are working harder than ever without a visible change in their situation. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please, turn every rock to ensure your decisions will produce more affordable housing for our workforce. Our remaining healthcare workers are in great need of more staffing and we all are depending on your creativity, persistence and help. Sincerely, Connie Ross Port Townsend Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 288 of 321 From: Noreen Mccarron To: PublicComment(abcityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for ]oint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 9:27:34 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a resident who has lived here since 1975,and worked at the hospital for 33 years , I know how much we need the services our local hospital and emergency service providers offers., Tt is our job as a community to ensure that local nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and others have affordable housing options. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! Sincerely Noreen McCarron Sent from my iPhone Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 289 of 321 From: Rosemary Sikes To: PublicComment(acityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Saturday, February 11, 2023 6:23:51 PM Dear City Council members and Planning Commission members, T read the Planning Commission Memo to City Council for the Feb 13 joint meeting. The memo is well thought out and researched. Please move forward with this plan as soon as possible. We desperately need health care workers, teachers, marine trades workers and more. We have the jobs but we have no housing where these workers can afford to live. T am 69 and broke my left elbow the last Sunday in January 2023. T am very concerned services will be affected by our lack of affordable housing. Sincerely, Rosemary Sikes 1709 Cise St, PT Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 290 of 321 From: ann weston To: PublicComment(abcityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for ]oint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:37:29 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a resident who relies on the vital services that our local hospital and emergency service providers offer, it is our job as a community to ensure that local nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and others have affordable housing options. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 291 of 321 From: Forest Shomer To: PublicComment(cbcityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Sunday, February 12, 2023 9:26:18 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I'm interested in encouraging what might be called "Reinhabit Uptown." In more than 40 years' residency in Port Townsend, I have lived in several Uptown locations and in several different capacities: as single-family head -of -household; as single adult in a single Victorian shared household (4 or more adults); and as sole occupant of an ADU. Currently I live in detached housing on a 2 -house double lot just beyond Uptown toward Fort Worden; for many years I lived in the same neighborhood in a small single-family house on a 5000 s.f. lot. Earlier in life I lived in an urban collective in Seattle that afforded housing to 12-16 adults (ages 18-45) in two semi -attached large homes in a fully built -out neighborhood. Comparing aspects of that residency with the Uptown PT I know (and love), I see the seldom -realized potential for such housing either as intentional collectives (as we were in Seattle) or as some contemporary version of the boarding-house or cooperative. Such housing addresses the well- known need here of people in the early years of employment; in service jobs; perhaps also those who want to live here for 6 months or a year without home -buying, to see if it is the right place for them. I scanned through the report of the Dec. 15-16 City meetings and didn't see this type of option named, yet I observe daily that Uptown is underpopulated compared probably with any historic period of the town in the past 150 years. I am thinking mainly of two things: reinhabitation of older homes of 4 bedrooms or more for group living, where perhaps currently there are fewer than four residents (related probably) or only seasonal residents making Uptown housing for weekend transiency a less -viable or non-viable option. Uptown is effectively the one part of town that may have a fair number of vacant bedrooms and provides walking -distance housing to jobs, shopping, bus transit, ferry, library, community center, churches, waterfront .... basically, to village -style living where a personal motor vehicle is not a requirement. Walkability. Sincerely, Forest Shomer Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 292 of 321 From: Kathleen Holt To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Affordable housing Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 3:47:03 PM To who it may concern I am a 14 year resident of Port Townsend. When 1 moved here as a retired citizen I was able to afford to rent and then purchase a home. The same home would not be affordable to me today. Please make the decisions around density which will affect affordability a priority for our town. Regards Kathleen Holt 2910 kimball court Port Townsend Sent from my iPhone N M 4- 0 M N N 0) m d X W 5 3r U) c O U C: O U c M c 0 Lc L C: O U) E O U c c c� 14 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 294 of 321 From: Trent Diamanti To: publiccomment(abcityofot.us Subject: City Council Meeting 2.13.23 - Public Comment Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 2:39:43 PM Dear Port Townsend City Council I am writing to urge bold and forceful measures to address the housing crisis. I agree with those who are concerned about the purchase of new (mostly single family) housing by retirees and remote workers from out of the area, which continues to raise living costs and make Port Townsend less affordable. This hurts the whole community, but particularly damages the workforce that we all depend on. Dense housing is workforce housing. I work in real estate, and the multifamily units we need built are of little appeal to those moving here from afar, except for those coming here to work. We need to incentivize their development, primarily through zoning changes. Based on the laws of supply and demand, conclusive research by housing experts, and basic demographics, fears of land speculation causing rental displacement are baseless. Sweeping measures will be tremendously valuable to the health of our beloved Port Townsend. I urge the city council and the planning commission to take bold action to ease the construction of dense, workforce housing. Let's make it happen! Sincerely, Trent Diamanti Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 295 of 321 From: Kate Lore To: publiccommenbacityofot.us Subject: Keeping PT housing affordable for our workforce Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 2:52:46 PM Dear and Esteemed Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, I write to you as a concerned PT citizen who has a lot of passion about keeping housing costs affordable and sustainable for our community. As a previous resident i several community that got "discovered" as PT has, I know full and well what happens when there is an absence of zoning and planning with regards to housing: • Housing prices soar; • Workers and families who have lived in their hometown for generations get priced out of the housing market; • Local economies get hurt from the subsequent labor shortage; • School enrollment drops; and • The culture shifts away from that of a small town and moves towards a resort -like atmosphere where only the wealthiest can afford to reside. I therefore implore you to place affordability at the top of your priority list as you plan to increase the density of our community. We need to ensure that affordable and accessible housing is guaranteed for our workers and their families. Respectfully yours, Rev. Kate Lore 52 Buckhorn PI Port Townsend, WA 98358 Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 296 of 321 From: Kelsey Caudebec To: Publiccomment(cbcityofot.us Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 1:20:48 PM Dear City Council, Planning Commissioners, and other fellow community members: I strongly support and applaud efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our local workforce. As a few of you know, I grew up in Port Townsend, moved away for a while, and somewhat recently came home to settle back down here in my favorite town in the whole country. Many in generations before us have moved away from Port Townsend as young adults and then later on in adulthood been called home to nurture their roots and put down new ones. To use a different metaphor, I'm reminded of the salmon run - all those salmon, after exploring the wide ocean, making their way back to the rivers where they were born. But as we all know by now, that has been disrupted. Many of us simply can't do that anymore due to lack of available and affordable housing. I don't know if my husband and I can stay in Port Townsend long-term and raise a family here after all, because I don't know if we will ever be able to afford a home here. As I've said before, I am enthusiastically on board with building more homes and increasing density, but there needs to be a plan in place to ensure that new development doesn't create housing only for wealthy people - which it seems likely to do, if we leave it to the open market. We need to be sure that well-intentioned but under -researched zoning changes don't backfire and create a net negative for affordability. I am a proponent of upzoning, but let's be knowledgeable and thorough in our deliberation so that the results at least partially lead to meaningful increased affordability for locals who don't have the wealth to pay all cash or $100K over asking price. I've returned home with a skillset that includes non-profit work and community education, which I intend to continue to use to benefit this community that I love. My husband is a dedicated and experienced K-12 teacher who loves his work and is an important asset to our school district. I hope we don't lose Port Townsend. And I hope Port Townsend doesn't lose us. It's not that people who grew up here "deserve" to live here any more than anyone else - that is not true and not my argument. I am happy for others who have discovered Port Townsend and made lives here and enrichened our community and put down their own roots. I want them to stay and I'm excited for us all to continue to connect and build relationships. But what I am trying to express is the sadness unique to watching the place you grew up turn into a community where the average home price is twice what the average local family can Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 297 of 321 afford, while you're on the other side of a locked glass door trying desperately to figure out how you can get in there. Or maybe you've made it to the other side for now, but are uncertain how long it will last, worried you will have to say goodbye again. In principle, when someone is locked out of the choice of returning to (or remaining in) the place they grew up, something is broken. Truly, our housing crisis has rippled throughout the community and everyone has been affected in some way, whether they recognize it or not. I know you all recognize it and care about this issue and that for many of you, this is personal as well. Thank you for the time and energy you are taking to deliberate on this important topic. I appreciate your efforts. Kelsey Caudebec Network Weaver Housing Solutions Network Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 298 of 321 Alyssa Rodrigues From: Sandra Stowell <sjstoweII1000@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 3:23 PM To: PublicComment@cityofpt.us Subject: I support the Housing Solutions Network recommendation for planning for affordable housing in Port Townsend I am writing to support the Housing Solutions Network recommendation for planning for affordable housing in Port Townsend. I know we all want to move quickly and do something to improve the housing for low and middle income people here in town. But we cannot solve the problem overnight, and need to follow the research and plan carefully. We do need to avoid increasing density in any way that just encourages infill with pretty, perfect ADU's that create double expensive resale properties. Beautifully crafted and landscaped cottage developments, or charming uptown townhouses will be priced for well off retirees, or for vacation homes. This is a difficult problem, but we need to explore ways to create regulations that hold developers to creating more modest affordable homes for families or low income workers. Sandra Stowell PTArtist.com & Sandra Stowell.com Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 299 of 321 From: Kellen Lynch To: publiccomment(c&i cityofat.us Subject: Planning Commission Public Comment 2/13/23 Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:10:25 AM Attachments: imaae002.ona Hi there, I would like our Planning Commission and City Council Members to review the MRSC report on 'missing middle' housing that the City presented in November. This slide deck showcases the results of multiple cities efforts to increase density without protections for affordability. If you search for the word "affordable" you will find that no city has found positive results in relation to generating more affordable housing. I believe Bellingham's comment says it best, "Infill Toolkit housing has generally not equated to affordable housing." Let's be transparent about what density changes without protections will mean. The link to the report: h.tt.as.;/ cit of 't.. ranicus.com Meta\iie�nrer. h ?view id:::::4 cli id=251..4 meta id:::::2.091.44 Kellen Lynch I Outreach Coordinator 206-384-2135 vtrwvr.,o.l.y.m.oichousing—Lr ust.orz Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 300 of 321 From: dreoods To: publiccomment(acityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for February 13, 2023 - Joint Meeting of Planning Commission and City Council Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 2:51:02 PM Hello Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing this as a Port Townsend resident, and not as a member of the Port Townsend Planning Commission. Nothing I am sharing has previously been shared with either the Planning Commission or City Council. We have seen drastic increases in the average sales price in Port Townsend. Going from $280,000 in January 2018 to $590,000 in January of 2023 (Northwest Multiple Listing Service data, InfoSparks). Single Family Residences (SFR) are no longer an affordable purchase for many first-time home buyers and buyers alike. 2022 saw first-time buyers drop to 26% of the home -buyer market, from the more typical 40% market share (National Association of Realtors, NAR Magazine - Winter 2023). A multi -prong approach of tiny homes, eco villages, higher density housing, and incentives to attract affordable housing developers is our best approach to furnishing additional housing and easing the crisis. These options would open up more housing to our residents, workers, and people in 80% - 150% AMI households. Multifamily is, arguably, far less attractive to wealthy retirees and well-to-do buyers, and provides alternatives to SFR that will suit the needs of our residents and working population. "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now." To not act now will continue to leave our residents, workers, and vulnerable population exposed to market forces in an unequal competitive housing market. Thank you. Regards, Andreas Andreadis Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 301 of 321 From: JOHN Effmann To: Publ icComment(acityofot. us Subject: Public Comment for Joint City Council + PC Meeting on 2/13 Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 3:56:20 PM Dear City Council + Planning Commissioners, I strongly support efforts made by the City to increase housing supply, especially housing that will meet the needs of our growing workforce. As a resident who relies on the vital services that our local hospital and emergency service providers offer, it is our job as a community to ensure that local nurses, firefighters, EMTs, teachers, manufacturing workers and others have affordable housing options. The health of our community relies on our ability to attract, retain, and grow our local workforce. Please ensure your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! John and Cathy Effmann Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 302 of 321 From: Jaisri Linaama To: publiccomment(acityofot.us Subject: Public Comment for the Feb 13 City Council Workshop Meeting Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:47:30 AM This public comment is for the Feb 13 2023 City Council Workshop meeting (Joint meeting with the Planning Commission) and is from Jaisri Lingappa, resident of Port Townsend. My comments today are not about the items chosen for the April code changes, which appeared reasonable to me as of February 9th. Instead my comments are about the process that I have watched over the last few months. I am writing with these concerns because the process you use for the upcoming Comprehensive (Comp.) Plan amendment and subsequent update will really matter. If that process results in our town having many more units that are unaffordable to our local workforce, this town could be changed for the worse in ways that cannot be reversed. First, I want to emphasize that I sincerely appreciate how hard Director Bolin and the Planning Commission (PC) members have worked over the past few months. I thank them for their efforts and hope they can hear my concerns as constructive criticism meant to ensure a better process for the upcoming Comp. Plan changes. In recent months, a lot of time at the PC meetings on code changes has been spent making the point that we have to accept increased density. However, nearly every public comment in the past 6 mconths has agreed that we need more density in the future. The key issue was summarized by Siobhan Canty's public comment at the January 26th Planning Commission meeting, when she pointed out that the question is not whether to densify or whether to not densify, it's HOW we density. To date, I have not seen the PC address the "HOW" question in a systematic and evidence -based manner— I hope that is something you will strive to change in the future. When the community talks about the "HOW" question, what they are asking is HOW can we have density that ensures and protects affordability of workforce housing? The vast majority of public comments that we have heard at these meetings have been about the crisis of workforce housing affordability. Indeed, the public comments have told us about this crisis from many perspectives: the tragic personal stories, the statistics, the employer frustration, the loss of employees, the stress on our healthcare system, and the view from the perspective of builders, to name just a few. But to date the Commissioners' discussions of HOWto increase density have largely consisted of listing approaches that they say will not work. Specifically, despite no serious study or analysis, the Director and various Commissioners appear to have dismissed a whole slew of approaches used in other communities to incentivize building of affordable housing, including density bonuses, inclusionary zoning, deed restrictions, creative approaches to incentivizing permanent affordability, and hiring an affordable housing manager. Some of these approaches have been suggested at these meetings by the Housing Solutions Network Steering Committee, by the local Habitat for Humanity director, and by local builders. Yet, the PC's memo to City Council dismisses inclusionary zoning and density bonuses based on nonspecific "experience in other municipalities" without citing the evidence or attaching the relevant studies to the agenda. Other approaches suggested by the community are simply ignored. The PC needs to demonstrate their commitment to engaging the community by providing evidence for their statements well in advance of meetings, showing us that the evidence is not cherrypicked to support a particular bias, and responding to counterevidence provided by the community. As seen in their memo to City Council, the PC's favored solution for future action is "upzoning", which refers to allowing developers to build smaller, higher density units, such as duplexes, triplexes, and quads, in R1 and R2 residential zones. But they never seem to address the concerns about that approach that have been repeatedly raised by the community. For example, the community has repeatedly asked what will keep these smaller, denser units from being Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 303 of 321 luxury units that will be bought by wealthy retirees, highly paid remote workers, well-heeled climate migrants, and people seeking second and third homes? There is plenty of demand in our area for market rate units priced at $500,000 and above, which is what "missing middle" and "infill" housing often results in; but demand for units at those high prices is largely from affluent buyers who are coming here from out of our area. Units priced at $500,000 and above are not affordable to working households in our area, even those that earn double the area median income. Commissioner Neil Nelson, a builder, pointed directly at this problem in the January 26 meeting when he talked about how almost all his clients are coming here from other places with "a lot of money" because of climate change, and how you could cut lot sizes in half and the resulting units would "in a short period of time ... be just as expensive". What will keep developers from building smaller, denser units for affluent homebuyers just as they built single family homes for affluent homebuyers? As Liz Revord pointed out in public comment at the January 26th meeting, the Treehouse community is a dense community with small units, some of which are duplexes and condos — but Treehouse units are not affordable to workforce households. Small and dense does not equal affordable — in fact, small units in a tight knit community can be highly desirable for wealthy retirees, remote workers, and people seeking second and third homes. And yet, the PC discussions that we have observed to date have not grappled in a serious way with the issue of affordability. Instead of telling us what won't work, the PC needs to come up with creative answers for what could work to ensure that "missing middle" and "infill" units that result from their upcoming Comp. Plan amendment and update will be affordable to the workforce. Likewise, it is astonishing to see how readily the PC has dismissed the data from Langley on Whidbey Island, described at previous meetings, showing that their market rate upzone resulted in a huge increase in the rate at which land prices are rising relative to the rest of the Northwest. The PC's memo to City Council, attached to the February 15th agenda, states that "upzoning does not necessarily increase market values, as land values are increasing regardless of upzoning actions". Does the PC really not understand that there is a difference between an average increase in land values and a much greater than average increase in land values? To the many people in our community who are struggling to find an affordable home, the PC's inability to acknowledge that the rate of increase in land prices matters feels tone deaf and even tragic. The PC might respond that they have not time to discuss these difficult issues with the public, and during the accelerated timeline of the last 6 months that has been true. However, I hope that in the future the PC will be more conscious of using their time in meetings to engage in discussions of issues. During the February 9th meeting, they spent over an hour on a line -by-line editing of the draft of the memo for City Council. In most work settings, that type of detailed editing would have been largely done electronically in advance of the meeting to ensure that the group time was used wisely. Prioritizing time in public meetings for substantive and evidence -based discussions of the issues so that the public can understand their reasoning has to be part of the path going forwards if the PC is committed to "engaging the community and seeking their input on this issue" as stated in their memo to City Council. And if more time is needed for Commissioners to do edits of documents in advance of meetings, then please slow down the Comp. Plan amendment process to allow time for homework. We realize that what we are asking the PC to do, as this process moves forwards, is not easy and that the answers will not be perfect. But we hope in the future that Commissioners will stop implying that they simply cannot change the land use codes to ensure and protect affordable housing for the workforce. The Comp. Plan amendments will require a can -do attitude — a willingness to be creative enough to find solutions, even if it involves connecting private developers, land trusts, local government, and nonprofit foundations to generate new approaches. What is the point to breaking down barriers if that does not result in construction of the affordable workforce housing that we desperately need? How can an upzone that brings us more unaffordable housing be the answer? Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 304 of 321 From: Kelly Grace To: PublicCom ment(bcityofpt. us Subject: Public Comment Housing Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 3:24:08 PM Attachments: b3f898a7-709f-341e-7e8f-OlfO64893a3b.pnng 719b3274-1ef1-25e9-86d5-006dc3d90556.ona 33cd6c62-a48f-4799-bc6f-ce351eOD69c3.Dng I am all of the people below and I am also a person trying to make more housing available in my home location and would appreciate any assistance financial or with the laws in place to make it easier for me to do so, safely. Thank you. Dear Cit" Co un i + Planning Commissioneirs, II strongly support efflortsmade Iby, the Arty to increase housing sin a l espedalty h+ umu i ng that wiIt meet the ro ds of lou r gr ng workforce, As resident who relies on the vitait services, that our local hospitolond'emergency servicerovidrs offer, pt is ter job as a communityto ensurethat[local GUtllrw firefighters, EMTs, and anthers have affordable housing option . The health of our community relies, out our abiUtytoattract, retain, crud grow our uncal: rirkf r. Please ensuire your decisions will produce more affordable for our workforce! N M O LO O M a) d x LLQ t c 0 U 0 a c co c C LL C: 0 T) E O U c E O ,u _N O_ O J O a) 1 N O E a) C Q� '� O L >+ 0 a) � -O — > O J W ca - a) L "OO CU UO "0 - U Q � O •i/i a) ) � c � O f0 U E � Q J L a) 0 c0 O Q Q _0 o N p L y �� N Nm U � 0 U Cl) = O m Q ® U — — toLn _ .E a) 0 p � O c6 L +�+ a E L CL M �� O E co N ami U) .a C o 0 o 04 LO O =5 m a N L m cu O o �° Gs E c O C D� E CU : U) p O m U) 0 ca a_ CUO a mn m o o o U)� cn (}6 M U E i cn a)= E O U W O�� E U o O c� CD a) U m G1 O� co E c _+� } N p Mn r-, ' � Z Q >, +r L U U) p to O ZLu p i +� V!r L� �w Z E �a N �� ��®�Y_oo� E o2 Z V) OW�aJ w °N ocnoEE U Q) Ln cp a) D �� a) Q LL LL E +r vQ o o a) -C W c H o _N O_ co4 O a) 1 N O E a) C Q� '� O L >+ 0 a) � -O — > O J W ca - "OO CU UO "0 - co m a ) OE L O Q p (n O f0 U E {"' () L d L a) 0 c0 O Q Q _0 o N p L y �� N Nm U O� cOL� — a) _ N Lu ® U — — toLn _ O a) 0 p � O c6 L +�+ a +' ®� CL M �� C:a) o E co ami o coCo '�Mn o �° �� O o-0 C cn > U o o o U)� cn (}6 M U)p i cn a)= O pY= O�� E N O c� a)_0 p ® m G1 O� co E c _+� } N p Mn r-, ' L i v� U >, +r L U 4- m L O 0 p to _ O L p +� Fa CO �� ��®�Y_oo� E ocnoEE U Q) Ln cp a) D �� a) Q E Q +r U U -0 o a) a) -C 0 0 U a) �, := E o O C a v v U o o 'E o c p V to a) E L cn C U U CI3 � a) U N a) O a) a) " a) + .— O N �� co co Jp .� ON o o N O a) O iso -O p J l E o -o U) E a a) � E L a) o> cn E E � O E c a 0 O c fo u 41 o � co ® ®� ca �,0 W 0 � p p 0 - q U uU)< �a� Q d a0 v O U U—. ca �j U _ a7 a7 m 0 4w U a7 O � M o cn •= L N = nsO .0 W •� 1-4 En Q m E L 2 0 p V p �a > += _ v o U o CL CL > 0. o c=a FO--: v Q u v O a T L X W t c O U) U C O U C: c LL O E O U c .E C: m ,u 0) ++ O tV � a 0 Q ca � c M N E E �_ U E G> O C_ D N © a> U � Q ti C) 66 N (Y) N O O 0 E � C � L U)z a Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 307 of 321 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION OF JANUARY 12, 2023 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session on January 12, 2023, in the City Council Chambers at 540 Water Street. Chair Lois Stanford called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Andreas Andreadis, Samantha Bair -Jones, Bob Doyle, Rick Jahnke, Neil Nelson, Viki Sonntag, and Lois Stanford. Staff members present were Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin, Planning Manager Judy Surber, and Deputy City Clerk Lonnie Mickle. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 8 AND 15, 2022, MEETINGS. 12/08/2022 revisions include removing the extra comma in Andreas Andreadis's name. Replacing the word, "submit" to the word, "fit." in Director King's statement. Motion: Neil Nelson moved to approve the minutes of December 8, 2022 as amended. Rick Jahnke seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. 12/15/22 revisions include removing the extra comma in Andreas Andreadis's name. Changing "communities" to make it "community's." And under open mic section on the third line, change to "had spoken" and remove the word, "then". Motion: Samantha Bair -Jones moved to approve the minutes of December 15, 2022, as amended. Rick Jahnke seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Michell Sandoval- commented about zoning codes. Diane McDade- commented about the 9 points that the SCJ alliance team stated in their presentation. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 308 of 321 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Stanford asked for nominations for Vice Chair. Commissioner Sonntag nominated Commissioner Rick Jahnke. Commissioner Doyle seconded the nomination. Rick Jahnke was unanimously elected Vice Chair Commissioner Jahnke nominated Commissioner Lois Stanford for Chair. Commissioner Doyle seconded the nomination. Lois Stanford was unanimously elected Chair. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Accepted by unanimous consent. OLD BUSINESS City's Tactical Infill Zoning Project to Build Residential Capacity Consultant Bill Grimes targeted the following in his presentation: housing type variety, opportunities for increased density, mixing housing in creative ways and increasing housing supply. Mr. Grimes tasked the commissioner to complete an infill housing / zoning actions worksheet. In person comments: Liz Revord spoke on behalf of the Housing Solution Network about housing affordability including local workforce. Jane L Armstrong spoke about zoning lasting a lifetime and housing affordability and the needs of the people in this town. Michelle Sandoval spoke about permanent affordability, lot line adjustments, and mixed-use zones. Ms. Revord made another comment later about reaffirming the need for tiny affordable homes and permanent affordability in the area. Commissioners broke out into groups to discuss the provided worksheets. The Commissioners returned to their seats to discuss the worksheet calculations. Discussion ensued about RCW 36.70A.600C, permanent affordability and tiny homes. Chair Stanford asked if there were additional comments from the public. Liz Revord discussed tiny homes and affordability. Director Bolin and Consultant Bill Grimes provided additional information around the cottages, parking issues and the difference between ownership and building types. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business at this meeting. UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 309 of 321 The next regular meeting will occur on January 26, 2023, with the following meeting in the form of a special joint meeting with the County on February 1, 2023. There were no communications. COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Attest: Planning Commission Chair City Clerk's Office Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 310 of 321 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION OF JANUARY 26, 2023 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session on January 26, 2023, in the City Council chamber at 540 Water Street. Chair Lois Stanford called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Andreas Andreadis, Samantha Bair -Jones, Bob Doyle, Rick Jahnke, Neil Nelson, Viki Sonntag, and Lois Stanford, Staff members present were Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin, Planning Manager Judy Surber, and Deputy City Clerk Lonnie Mickle. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Lois Stanford asked for the agenda by consensus. Agenda accepted unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 12, 2023, REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING There were typographical errors. Commissioner Rick Jahnke moved to approve amended January 12, 2023, meeting minutes; Bob Doyle seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Z 0=1 - OLD BUSINESS City's Tactical Infill Zoning Project to Build Residential Capacity (Goal: Policy Discussion, Further prioritization of tactical infill action items, Prepare for February 13 Joint Meeting with Council) Planning Cornission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 311 of 321 Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin and Planning Manger Judy Surber presented on the continuance of prioritizing the Port Townsend Infill Housing actions. Topics for the presentation included the variety of housing types, the need to increase opportunities for housing, increase the supply of housing and identify possible policy initiatives to help the infill tactical process. The director listed a few barriers to the city's housing such as the ineffectiveness of cottage housing zoning design requirements, inconsistency in codes, design constraints of ADU bulk and dimension standards. Ms. Bolin addressed questions on the homework assignment for the Commissioners and spoke about the Growth Management Act Residential Building Capacity provisions. Later in the presentation, the director stated that if the city wanted to change to allow increase densities of housing, the comprehensive plan and development code of regulations would need to be amended to be mutually consistent. The presentation ended with the totals from the homework sheet given to the Commissioners. Public Comment: Jane Armstrong, with the Housing Solution Network, commented on housing displacement. Ms. Armstrong stated that we need to really understand the actions taken at this time. Kellen Lynch spoke about housing is a western world problem. Mr. Lynch stated he is working with Olympic Housing Trust and then proceeded to speak about the Dundee Hill Project in town. Richard Berg agreed that it would not be good to take setbacks off the workplan. Mr. Berg stated more flexibility in setback would be helpful to increase housing. Commissioner discussion ensued about adding mixed use of land trust facilitation, bonding requirements, and duplex, triplex and fourplex, housing density; financing was discussed and inclusionary housing. The Commissioners also discussed tiny homes and land use. Public Comment after discussion: Siobhan Canty spoke about density. Liz Revord spoke about result of former work to help housing and what lessons were learned from those developments, Debbie Jahnke asked about funding. Another point brought up by the Commissioners, was about people in other areas of the United States buying land here at the current cost with regulations and expense of labor going up. Planning Manager Judy Surber stated that we are the urban growth area, and that the problem, at the time of the Howard/Rainer Street subarea plan, the problem was not just building housing, it was jobs and housing together. Ms. Surber also mentioned speaking to a former multi -family builder, Gustayson, to question how it was done in this town previously. She stated that the community can find documentation on the City's website highlighting past accomplishment for housing. Public Comments continues: Richard Berg made another statement about regulations and the flexibility needed to get a project through to completion. Mr. Berg also mentioned that the economics of building Planning Cornission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 312 of 321 an apartment complex does not work in this area. Jane Armstrong commented on employers, stating there are no people for the jobs that are here in town. Debbie Jahnke asked about previous grant finance requirements for housing. Planning Director Emma Bolin responded to the question by stating grants requirements are decided at the time of the build. NEW BUSINESS UPCOMING MEETINGS 2/1 Special Joint City/County Planning Commission Meeting — temporary housing facilities 2/9 Regular Planning Commission meeting 2/13 Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop (Infill project) None COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT With no further comments, meeting adjourned at 8:41 pm Attest'. Planning Commission Chair City Clerk's Office Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 313 of 321 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION OF FEBRUARY 9, 2023 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session on February 9, 2023, in the City Council Chambers at 540 Water Street. Chair Lois Stanford called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Andreas Andreadis, Samantha Bair -Jones, Bob Doyle, Rick Jahnke, Neil Nelson, Viki Sonntag, and Lois Stanford. Staff members present were Planning and Community Director Emma Bolin, Planning Manager Judy Surber, and Deputy City Clerk Lonnie Mickle. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Lois Stanford asked for the approval of the agenda by consensus. Agenda accepted unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 26 2022 REGULAR BUSINESS MINUTES There were corrections to typographical errors. Commissioner Rick Jahnke motioned for approval as amended and Commissioner Bob Doyle seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 0 =*" GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) OLD BUSINESS City's Tactical Infill Zoning Project to Build Residential Capacity Goal: Prepare for February 13 Joint Meeting with Council Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 314 of 321 Public Comment Planning Commissioner continued discussion Public Comments: Viki Sonntag commented as a housing activist. Ms. Sonntag spoke about the other problems that have cause the housing issue in the town and how changing the current code will help the housing issues in the future. Liz Revord, director of Housing Solutions Network introduced Kim Herman former executive director of the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. Kim Herman spoke to the commission about the development of housing in rural communities. Mr. Herman highlighted the Evans Vista area in his comments and offered any assistance to the Commissioners. Jane Armstrong, the chair of the Housing Solution Network's steering Committee, spoke about discussions had between the director of the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, Kim Herman. There were online comments from Jaisri Lingappa and Suzanne Jones. Jaisri Lingappa commented about the vision statement and land values. Suzanne Jones spoke about affordable housing such as cottage and mixed-use housing. Planning Commissioner Discussion: The Director of Planning and Community Development, Emma Bolin started the conversation asking the Commissioners to discuss and review the draft memo going to City Council, review the draft amendments and to discuss the city council meeting on Monday the 13th of February. Commissioners started with the draft memo. There was a request to move a statement about green -house gases emissions later in the memo to later in the memo. The Commissioners requested clarification on definitions and a few statements in the memo. Discussion ensued about current market dynamics and for-profit developers. Director Bolin answered questions from the Commissioners about the annual comprehensive plan, periodic update and actions that didn't make the list on the memo. Planning Manager Judy Surber made corrections to the memo during the discussion. A motion was made to authorize Chair Lois Stanford to sign the revised memo and forward the memo to City Council. Commissioner Bair -Jones moved to approve the motion and Commissioner Nelson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Meeting Times Commissioner discussed the City Council's time change from 6:30pm to 6:00prn and if they would like to move their meeting time. No decision was made. Planning Cornission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 315 of 321 UPCOMING MEETINGS 2/13 Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop (Infill project) 2/23 Regular Planning Commission meeting (if needed) COMMUNICATIONS With all discussion completed, the meeting was adjourned 8:41 pm. Attest: Eity Clerk's Office Planning Commission Chair Planning Cornission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 316 of 321 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2023 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session on February 23, 2023, in the City Council chamber at 540 Water Street. Chair Lois Stanford called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Andreas Andreadis, Samantha Bair -Jones, Bob Doyle, Rick Jahnke, Neil Nelson, Viki Sonntag, and Lois Stanford. Staff members present were Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin, Planning Manager Judy Surber, and Deputy City Clerk Lonnie Mickle. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Stanford requested approval of the agenda by consensus, agenda approved unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9,2023, REGULAR BUSINESS Change "Ken" Herman to "Kim" Herman. Correct typographical errors. Commissioner Rick Jahnke motion to approve amended minutes for February 9, 2023, Commissioner Sonntag seconded the motion. Motion carried. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no general public comment. OLD BUSINESS Planning Cornission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 317 of 321 The next regular meeting is scheduled for March 9, 2023, which will be a public hearing on the infill project. It was noted that the March 23,2023, meeting may not be needed. There were no communications. COMMUNICATIONS There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:32pm. Attest: Planning Commission Chair City Clerk's Office Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 318 of 321 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2023 CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL The Port Townsend City Council met in a Regular Workshop Meeting and the Planning Commission met in a Special Session on the 13th day of February 2023 in Council Chambers at 540 Water Street to have a Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting. Mayor David Faber called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) There was no public comment. Roll Call: Councilmembers present at roll call were David Faber, Monica MickHager, Aislinn Diamanti, Owen Rowe, Libby Wennstrom, Ben Thomas, and Amy Howard. Staff members present were Public Works Director Steve King, Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin, Planning Manager Judy Surber, City Attorney Heidi Greenwood, and City Clerk Alyssa Rodrigues. Planning Commissioners present were Andreas Andreadis, Samantha Bair -Jones, Robert Doyle, Rick Jahnke, Neil Nelson, Viki Sonntag, and Lois Stanford. DISCUSSION ITEMS Tactical Infill Housing Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin and SCJ Alliance President Bill Grimes provided the Port Townsend Infill Housing presentation which included Introduction, What we'll be doing tonight, What do we mean by "tactical infill?", Steps in the Process, What's the statutory context, Reflection, What are our objectives now?, Factors affecting affordability, Tactical infill requires tactical partners, Accessory dwelling units, Cottage housing, Tiny homes, Single-family attached, Unit lot subdivisions, temporary residential occupancy, Miscellaneous amendments, What's the schedule?, and Tonight's Exercise. Public Comment: Andreas Andreadis spoke about housing prices and having a multiprong approach to Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 319 of 321 housing. Carolyn Woods spoke about her support to reduce zoning rules that block infill housing, support for ADUs, tiny homes, duplexes, and triplexes, and affordability protection for workers. Kellen Lynch spoke about ADUs, housing affordability, and MRSC report. Liz Revord spoke about the Housing Solutions Network, affordable housing, and introduced the Executive Director of Washington State Housing Finance Commission Kim Herman. Kim Herman spoke about page 2 of the Planning Commissions memo, inclusionary zoning and affordable housing, multi -family developers, cottage housing, lot sizes, unit lot designation, off street parking requirements, and temporary workforce housing. Jane Armstrong spoke about zoning code changes, affordable housing, and affordable housing strategy ordinance. Jaisri Lingappa spoke about the Planning Commission memo issues, data, references, and recommendations from the community. Abbie Little spoke about cottage housing, tiny homes, mobile home park zoning, R3 property with streets and utilities, and cost of infrastructure. Teri Nomura spoke about affordable housing and a community land trust. Connie Segal spoke about community growth, wealth and density. Discussion: City Council and Planning Commission reconvened around the workshop table for discussion. Discussion ensued around the Planning Commission selections and decision-making process. Discussion continued around having RVs as an ADU and whether it can fit into the ADU provision for the City. Ms. Bolin explained Port Angeles is currently looking at this idea as temporary housing and shared the concerns around it. Discussion ensued around Density Bonuses and why it did not make it to the larger list by Planning Commission. They went on to discuss the history of Density Bonuses in the City and State law around minimum density. They went on to discuss Land Trust facilitation and the intent behind the item. City Council and Planning Commission discussed the items on the list. This discussion Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 320 of 321 included ADU's and parking requirements, comprehensive plan policy, cottage housing requirements in relation to affordable housing, Future steps vs. April 1 deadline, March 27 special session meeting, house conversion in relation to duplex, triplex and fourplex barriers, Port Angeles progress and process, ADU's vs. Duplexes, and Front Facing Door requirement for ADU's/Duplex. They continued on to discuss the structure, complexity, and length of Code, receiving line in and line out documents in a timely manner, opportunity to address greyed out items on list, adding Land Trust Facilitating to whited out items, Cottage Housing naming, and simplifying the code. City Council shared they had no feedback on the draft language. Ms. Bolin and Public Works Director Steve King discussed density and Infrastructure in relation to housing. Discussion continued amongst Planning Commission and Council around further actions down the housing roadmap which included greenfield development and liabilities vs. density and infill, affordability research and direction, affordable housing strategy, Urban Growth Area for County, encouraging dense development in relation to policy, creating concrete goals in terms of how many units per category income related to type of housing, percentage of housing that is not year-round occupied, public investments, and income level diversity living by each other. Mayor Faber spoke about the importance of working on housing affordability, "what does the most good for the most people in our community" moral framework, Urban Growth Area for County, simplification of the code, housing costs, inclusionary zoning, and an all of the above approach that focuses on decreasing costs and complexity increasing flexibility in our code so more people can and will be willing to engage in building the necessary housing for our community. He went on to speak about having a simplified code/code audit, changes to base density, changes to setback requirements, single stair or point access reforms to allow for easier construction of small-scale apartment buildings, elimination of design review and conditional use, in favor of more by -right permit issuance, and removing parking requirements. The City Council and Planning Commission went on to discuss keeping the housing interesting in Port Townsend, system shift around housing, transportation infrastructure and plan for the future, property taxes on undeveloped property in the City, mowing undeveloped property, 2015 Planning Commission document regarding housing affordability, focusing on things that support health and human safety and getting rid of things that do not serve those purposes, R3 zones, importance of have flexibility, vacant homes in community, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Comprehensive Plan update in 2025, April 2nd items, Viki Sonntag's white paper, the importance of the work already being done by community, what is the next housing project, accelerating the availability of housing supply, RV's, and the town being the people. Public Comment: Richard Berg spoke about cottage housing development costs and ADU development challenges. Planning Comission Findings and Conclusions with Exhibits - Page 321 of 321 Siobhan Canty spoke about not thinking it is helpful to the community to equate more housing or smaller units of housing to affordable housing for working people if the City cannot demonstrate that they know what it means. Michael Mannox spoke about housing affordability, congestion/density, and contract/government housing. Liz Revord spoke about online participation public comment and dates for upcoming meetings. Julia Cochrane spoke about diversity, housing, and the history of zoning laws in relation to diversity. Scott Walker spoke about undeveloped lots being held for future use and parking policy changes. Terrie Smith spoke about curbs/sidewalks requirements, regulations for cottage developments, and parking regulations. Kelly Grace spoke about the youth who would like to stay in Port Townsend and creative ways to make this happen. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:41 pm. Attest: Alyssa Rodrigues City Clerk Packet topic Affordability Supply Notes At $350/sf, ADUs are not likely to be Accessory dwelling units ✓ affordable for lower-income households. But increased supply of units might relax pressure on market. This makes adding cottage housing easier, Cottage housing ✓ but it's unlikely units, built new, will be affordable. Intended to permit quick, inexpensive Tiny houses on Wheels ✓ ✓ housing units, this is a direct response to affordability concerns. This initiative facilitates conversion of existing homes into multiple units and Density and unit lot subdivisions ✓ ✓ permits creation of more easily financed land parcels, reducing barriers to entry to home ownership. Reduced parking requirements increases Parking land use efficiency and reduces costs in providing units, resulting in lower rent pressure. Permitting residential uses in non-residential Employer-provided housing ✓ zones allows employers to offer housing options where none are otherwise available, responding directly to business concerns. The suite of code amendments are Collective ownership consistent with new ownership types, like land trusts, to assist affordable housing efforts. Code updates welcome housing type variety, Miscellaneous revisions ✓ ✓ clarify definitions, opening the door for both increased affordability and supply. Comparing unit lot subdivisions to other land division tools What is it? CondornnriMUM relaflor-nslhp Allowed irri ands? Perariit lfylping l3errisily, limits Alternafive rnearmito dMide aiirdfor c,onixinerclal, RV/finy park anci industrrW use, ResWerfflW condos reqlite BSP peii, state Ilsms,, Dvide lot it try restAraint IIr.Asfor fef..,,, sirriple ownersltfllp Condos rnust use Condos riot B&i!� authoirized "t"es, "Iitle 18 i wlth il,lofice Yes, sublect to Coinrp IRan Lot size ininknums Yes, but not erppficaUe to s9aclked urks Setback Yes requireirneirit's AHIowslot Yes cliusteding? 'Itles,'"ritle 118 9 or less -,: I ype ll si ort lAat 10 or rriore = Type i111 '1t'es, sul*ct to Conn ,) Plain W Divides prop erty into rew,fltairrt lohsfuir fiee Wniple owners1hip, Orrily app fies &rrrenslorrai staindairdsto pairent bt with flexiblRy for wnp.deir uinteiIor lots, typlcaHy for attactied tvflts tke cottage '11OUsing aribi town1hoines, Alternatrve to a -,oii,°ndoiinllr°iiliiint,nii-nis fieqUlres FlOA Flrq.)csed < 5 acres = I ype ii > I; acires:.: Type 111111 RIM 58,117M aIHlows jurisdictioin to aiuftiom iize adirinhinistirative ql.ilprovall Lq) to arry lot thireslhold specified Ilby ordllnaince Without a lixuriblic Ilh. eaning. Yes, sUblect to Coirnp IPlan; however nc) bonus deiasity Only appllcalblle to paireiitkA UnUcits nnay be sn4l and have rns Irrflnliinurrr snce, "lees Only qlnpficaUe to externWbcundairips of ',rarent lot ian Yes PossffiW Condos 1place rnors Snce liwflk standarcis affolit'datillity rWldfiabiflty on afire Irnnainslired, resUts orubmines develqpeir wlhlch in detached urirts drives up is lmssed less affordaUe dcawn in unrit pr16ng, Attache tee sirnple urrJts ea6er to attalin = Ilsstentially rnore affbMWAe Processto enct"x1rage lrnflH overlays wRtr iincreased densRy. Fte1quires a cornpaniori subdivislon, )ie'es, 'll I i1e 17,32 Type Ill ee,s, W*ct to Cciin1,) F"Itair willi, 20% bonus deiasufies Mnlniunn lot area reqUired for subdMsioin de;: eiri6iig of zone tJnit lot rnin, size of 2,000 squaire feet, F"lexible, can llm reduced to zero, M Attac,ied fee sirnl!Ae sats in e. ioMertcr aft6n, ,nodest inert sky 13011US, Ilnuu9 i'Moo OWII large arnourrit of land nlnr RVRI rirckkfing ltrfiH chistering difficuft, Type M I-Ieaiiiing llixwnlner requires rTore firine, firne ia'*np'`y What is the Tactical Infill zoning amendment project? This project is about removal of barriers in zoning code to incentivize housing supply, but most importantly, it's about empowerment of the community to build housing. By reducing barriers to housing supply, the City hopes to place downward pressure on escalating housing prices. The proposed ordinance includes measures such as (but not limited to): • achieve supply by empowering individuals such as allowing two accessory dwelling units per lot or employers to provide housing in certain open space, commercial, marine and manufacturing zones, • streamlining permitting such as decreasing the level of review required for cottage housing projects, • facilitating variety by removing ambiguities in code so that it's clear that attached single family units like triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses can be constructed in clustered fashion and along zero lot lines. • The proposal also includes a new subdivision tool that allows attached housing types to be created without a needing to form an expensive condominium. Learn more about the project ere.. The City wants to provide insight and clarification on some of the points made in recent conversations on KPTZ radio .forums, regarding housing. What is a Comprehensive Housing Plan/strategy and how/when is the City getting one? There are several prongs that inform housing strategy and its affordability in the City of Port Townsend: 1. Comprehensive Plan Housing Il inn !2.t (updated in 2016), 2. Housing Action Plan (updated in 2006), 3. Housing Inventory and Needs , e m.e_E.t (updated in 2015). The Housing Assessment indicated that "inclusionary housing is a strategy that works best in markets with substantial new construction and larger developments and it can be problematic to implement. It's potential impacts in Port Townsend was determined to be minimal at best." Since 2016, the City has been 2glm... V shin the goals and policies in the Housing Element. The next step in the City's overall Housing strategy is to begin work on a Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, which is required every 10 years. Port Townsend is due in 2025. The City plans to start working on the update this year (2023), as soon as funding opportunities open for 2025 cities hopefully this summer. The Department of Commerce offers more information on what will be e.qu_i.ired. This grant funding will enable the City with staff and consultant hours to study housing units needed at various state mandated affordability levels and analyze anti -displacement policies. While waiting for funding, the City will focus on eliminating barriers in the code and examining altering densities where circumstances have changed through an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment. We will also contribute to affordable and workforce housing development by working on the Evans Vista Master Plan and capital developments so this neighborhood will be ready for development. Learn more Ihere. ...................... Nested within the Comprehensive Plan housing strategy is the overall strategy the City has planned in order to appropriately schedule and leverage funding for housing related projects. Strategy is the task staff works on daily amongst all other tasks. Learn more about the City's,(12..am to to I-!ousing, which is part of a several years -long strategy to leverage short, mid, and long term gains in housing. The 2023 Council Workplan includes a goal to prioritize and deliver targeted, timed, and impactful zoning code changes to help unlock and inspire affordable, dense, quality infill development. It looks like we need data first!?! The Growth Management Act changed the update cycles to provide more time for implementation. There is now a potential 10 -year update cycle for our community. Yes, the City will be collecting data for the next Comprehensive Plan update cycle. For example, it will conduct a buildable lands inventory to identify lands unencumbered by critical areas and lots that are more easily served by infrastructure. This information can help inform land purchases and possible transfer of development rights. The City will also begin scoping for a Housing Action Plan and Inventory. The Department of Commerce only recently (early March 2023) p. !_shed. projected housing needs and indicates that based on Office of Financial Projections to 2044, 3,985 housing units will be needed in Jefferson County. The Periodic Update requires the City to evaluate this data at the City level, and identify land for the various income levels of housing needed _V20&_wA th otheU poVi�ysis and umpVementation. In order to promote housing construction in cities, the 2021-2022 legislature passed SSB .5 ...8 to encourage cities to take an array of specified planning actions to increase residential building capacity without being subject to administrative orjudicial appeal under State Environmental Policy Act or legal challenge under the Growth Management Act. The Tactical Infill Housing amendments leverage the legislature's intent to provide a short gap measure to get housing units in the pipeline until the time of the Comprehensive Plan periodic update. Why does the City have sidewalks that go to nowhere? Developers must pay for their cost of public infrastructure so that the taxpayers don't pay those costs. Unfortunately, Port Townsend's rocky economic history and preplatted condition meant that a City intended to be home to over 30,000 people at the turn of the century resulted in a county street development pattern rather than a city street pattern home to only 10,000 or so residents today. At the same time, the Community Direction Statement in the Comprehensive Plan is to have narrow streets with walkable multimodal transportation facilities that are accessible. Accessibility with less dependency on vehicles means improved walkability for all users including those who are disabled. This means sidewalks must meet ADA standards and create connections The City code requires sidewalks be constructed with development along arterial streets in locations where the Non -motorized plan shows connectivity. Development in many areas of town do not currently require sidewalks. However, as the City grows, there will be increasing demand for safe connectivity and additional sidewalks and non - motorized paths. Nobody likes sidewalks to nowhere, but backing down on requiring them due to cost isn't an option that the community direction and Comprehensive Plan allows and ultimately places the burden on existing residents. The City is working on its Comprehensive Streets Program, which would include funding sources to help manage the streets program in a holistic and fiscally sustainable way (i.e. operations, new construction, preservation etc.) This program connects to Fiscal Sustainability as the City explores how to leverage financing tools such as Developer Transportation Impact Fees or Transportation Benefit District taxation to maintain existing infrastructure and help finance new infrastructure for eligible projects. The City is considering developing funding to support housing infill and affordable housing projects to lessen the burden of infrastructure to ensure that all income levels of the community has access to safe streets and sidewalks. . Learn more about Comprehensive Streets by browsing the City's Infrastructure and Development .gen_d_as._a_nd.._videos. What is the City doing to help landowners understand infrastructure costs and extension requirements? Much of the Port Townsend's vacant land that is not readily available with adequate infrastructure (water, sewer, and streets). However, it is challenging to understand as a buyer what will be required to develop the land; thus listed land prices can inaccurately reflect the intrinsic value of the land that may have significant costs to develop. The City is working to create and to publish a Development Review map identifying utility and street infrastructure extension requirements while preserving multi modal trails. This will help inform lot owners and purchasers of the costs to meet sewer, water, streets, and sidewalk development requirements for buyers and realtors. This will result in greater predictability and more informed decision making for developers and prospective home owners DRAFT CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2023 CALL TO ORDER/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Port Townsend City Council met in regular session on the 20th day of March 2023 in Council Chambers at 540 Water Street. Mayor David Faber called the meeting to order at 6:02pm. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present at roll call were Aislinn Diamanti, David Faber, Amy Howard, Monica MickHager, Owen Rowe, Ben Thomas, and Libby Wennstrom. Staff members present were City Manager John Mauro, City Attorney Heidi Greenwood, Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin , Public Works Director Steve King, Planning Manager Judy Surber, and City Clerk Alyssa Rodrigues. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mayor Faber announced the PT Main Street, Year End Financial Report and Poet Laureate presentations will be moved to April 3. In addition, he stated an Executive Session will be added before Special Presentations. Council members went into Executive Session to discuss RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) discussion of legal counsel about legal risks of current or proposed action for approximately 15 minutes. Council members went into Executive Session at 6:05pm Council members reconvened from Executive Session at 6:20pm. No action was taken. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Women's History Month Proclamation Mayor Faber presented the Women's Health History Month Proclamation to an AAUW representative. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Public comment City Staff Response There was no public comment. March 20, 2023 City Council Business Meeting Page 1 of 7 DRAFT CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants Approval of Minutes: None Resolution 23-021 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Economic Development Interlocal Agreement with Jefferson County, The Port of Port Townsend, Jefferson County Public Utilities District No. 1, and Economic Development Council Team Jefferson (EDC) Motion: Monica MickHager moved adopt the consent agenda. Owen Rowe seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING Resolution 23-022 Adopting an Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan for Public Rights of Way Mayor Faber reviewed the Public Hearing Rules of Procedures. City Manager John Mauro introduced Resolution 23-022 Adopting an Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan for Public Rights Plan. City Engineer III Laura Parsons RE, GIS Coordinator Tyler Johnson and Public Works Director Steve King presented the 2023 ADA Transition Plan which included ADA Transition Plan Description, ADA Transition Plan, ADA Transition Plan Content, ADA Transition Plan Context and Strategy, ADA Transition Plan Accessible Sidewalks Map, ADA Transition Plan More accessible sidewalk routes, ADA Transition Plan Community Involvement Next Steps, ADA Transition Plan Public Outreach- Summary, ADA Transition Plan Public Outreach- Public Hearing, and ADA Transition Plan Public Outreach- Presentation. There were no written materials to submit. Public Comment: Pat Teal spoke about her appreciation for the staff and work that went into ADA Transition Plan and DASH's support. Lani Peterson spoke about National Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month and Developmental Disabilities Awareness history and current work being done. Council and staff discussed priority routes, non -motorized plan, next steps, and staff vacancies. March 20, 2023 City Council Business Meeting Page 2 of 7 Council discussed volunteer efforts regarding inventory, working on priority DRAFT pathways, hearing device issue, and appreciation for staff and partnerships. Motion: Monica MickHager moved to approve Resolution 23-022 Adopting an Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan for Public Rights of Way. Libby Wennstrom seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. Ordinance 3306 Related to Increasing Residential Building Capacity; Amending Titles 17, 18, and 20 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code Mayor Faber reviewed the Public Hearing Rules of Procedures. Mr. Mauro introduced Ordinance 3306 Related to Increasing Residential Building Capacity; Amending Titles 17, 18, and 20 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin, Planning Manager Judy Surber, and SCJ Alliance President Bill Grimes presented the Port Townsend Tactical Infill Housing presentation which included Introduction, What do we mean by "tactical infill?", Process, April 1, 2023, Approach for Tonight's Hearing, Zoning Approach Packets, Accessory dwelling units- Packet A, Accessory dwelling units - Planning Commission, Unintended Consequences, Options, Impact of Staff Recommendations and Possible Unit Mix/Match, Staff Recommendation, Cottage Housing- Planning Commission, THOW and Long -Term Implementation, THOW- Planning Commission, THOW- Issues and Options, Max. Densities and Unit Lot Subdivisions Packets D and I, Single-family attached- Planning Commission, Unit lot Subdivisions- Planning Commission, Parking- Planning Commission, Employer Provided Housing- Planning Commission, Collective Ownership- Packet G, Floor Area Ratio (FAR)- Planning Commission, Setbacks- Planning Commission, and Final Motion. Written materials were submitted to the record. Public Comment: Liz Revord spoke about appreciation for community involvement and the importance of addressing affordable housing. Kim Herman spoke about the need to address affordable housing and taking other actions. Jane Armstrong spoke about the need for mandates on affordable housing, Tiny House on Wheels, and community involvement. Viki Sonntag spoke in favor of the proposed changes in the zoning code and spoke about the community benefits they will bring. Meg Lodes spoke about reforms not leading to affordable housing, concerns about affordability being addressed during code reform, and unaffordable building. Kellen Lynch spoke about a five -unit townhouse building project and its permanent affordability, the need for collective end destination, the need for City to listen to different resources, and mandating affordability. March 20, 2023 City Council Business Meeting Page 3 of 7 Carolyn Woods spoke about the importance of having a housing affordability DRAFT strategy and own rental experience. Todd McKellips spoke about personal family experience with finding housing and support for Tiny Homes on Wheels. Morningstar Garden spoke about the importance of traditional values, native and pioneer families, and the importance of long-term solutions. Naushard Cader spoke about the importance of doing analysis and research before adopting as well as supply and demand in relation to affordable housing. Kristina Hestenes-Stimson spoke about Floor Area Ratio Bonuses for Developers. Sarah Liljegren spoke about the importance of nature, unintended benefits of affordable housing focus, and prioritizing affordability. Alethea Cary spoke about Tiny Houses on Wheels regulations and employee housing regarding income. Scott Walker spoke about undeveloped lots, ADU's and ownership, GMA requirements, and parking requirements for ADU's. Zach Giffin spoke about tiny homes, sample Ordinances for Planning Commission, Washington State building codes, and energy efficiency for Tiny Homes. Lani Peterson spoke about being a homeowner in Port Townsend and the importance of housing affordability. Siobhan Canty spoke about public comment in the record, support for 30% set aside for all triplexes and more, real estate pressure for selling land, and the importance of not creating a gap. Ginny Wilson spoke about personal housing challenges, working class and lack of housing, need to look at 30% for affordable housing, and unethical housing. Buster Ferris spoke about creating and protecting housing for workers. Christopher Chimenti spoke about the need for affordable housing in Port Townsend amongst workers, adverse consequences from code changes, and the need for alternative incentives. Lily Queen spoke about personal privilege, expense of building housing, incentivize affordability in new construction, and more flexibility on lot coverage and setbacks. Carla Main spoke about the importance of being creative, supporting non-profit communities/organizations working on housing affordability, and partnerships. Judith Alexander spoke about outside the box ideas to help with housing. Naushard Cader spoke about using existing land that belong to public or can be donated by private parties and how it can be done. Sarah Liljegren spoke about career investors vs. brokers and investors cutting down March 20, 2023 City Council Business Meeting Page 4 of 7 trees for land to build. DRAFT Ms. Bolin shared her appreciation for everyone's comments, the City currently being in Step 1, mandatory affordability exploration, ADU tax revenue/construction tax, ending exclusionary zoning practices, FAR being about bulk and dimension, and Landlord Tenant Law in relation to employer provided housing. In response to Council's clarifying questions Ms. Bolin, Ms. Surber, and Mr. Grimes explained ANSI standard park models being built in Washington, Tiny House on Wheels Communities being in residential use table in packet, R -III is in residential use chart as conditional use, minimum porch size requirement in communities, missing "to" in first Whereas sentence in Ordinance, maximum lot coverage size should be 25%, #1 and #2 sentences are the same under Certifications, 50ft setback for arterials being used for commercial uses and definition, Tiny Homes on Wheels communities explanation from Planning Commission request, zero lot line reasoning for ADUs, housing affordability monitoring program through Evan's Vista, adding in Floor Area Ratio later, front yard setbacks, should 1 cottage dwelling unit/1500sgft for R -II and R -III, minimum lot sizes should be 10-5-10, could be changed to 5ft setbacks, and front yard ADUs. Council discussed typos within the ordinance which included Pg.1 of Exhibit A changing "his/her" to "their", Pg. 2 Exhibit B 3rd line "and occupied" addressed as a mistake, pg. 10 Exhibit C "to others" needs to be struck, pg. 20 Exhibit P "primarily intended for 1- and 2 -persons households" needs to be struck. In addition, discussion ensued around the need for 60 ft porches on Tiny Houses on Wheels in Tiny Houses in Communities and wanting it removed, multi -step process and permanent affordability, the need for a deep dive conversation about what a government entity can do that is reasonable, Council members working in this community, the need for community to utilize changes to create housing, and the biggest risk is doing nothing. Council members continued to discuss the difficulties around housing affordability, desperate need for affordability, material changes, community-based solutions, staff appreciation, tax revenue, changes to help move the needle, July 1 implementation date, and being thankful for the challenge. Staff recommended the record to be closed at 4:30pm on March 27, 2023. Motion: David Faber moved to keep the record open until 4:30pm local time on March 27, 2023. Amy Howard seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. Motion: Monica MickHager moved to approve first reading of Ordinance 3306 Related to Increasing Residential Building Capacity, Amending Titles 17, 18, and 20 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code with three amendments, changes, and additions suggested as a Council. Aislinn Diamanti seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. Council members recessed for break at 10:09pm. Council members reconvened from break at 10:15pm. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE SCHEDULED NEW BUSINESS March 20, 2023 City Council Business Meeting Page 5 of 7 DRAFT Ordinance 3307 Related to City Municipal Office hours and Amending Port Townsend Municipal Code section 2.20.010 Mr. Mauro introduced Ordinance 3307 Related to City Municipal Office hours and Amending Port Townsend Municipal Code section 2.20.010. He went on to explain the pilot program for City Hall hours, assessment of pilot program, advantages/disadvantages of office hours, services available online 24/7, and the change applying to all facilities except the Library. In response to Council's clarifying questions City Attorney Heidi Greenwood explained the process/timing for Ordinance approval in relation to waiving Council Rules and approving on first reading. Mr. Mauro explained they have seen public call extensions directly when City Hall was closed which could get resolved through better communication and training. There was no public comment. Motion: Aislinn Diamanti moved to waive Council Rules and approve 3307 Related to City Municipal Office hours and Amending Port Townsend Municipal Code section 2.20.010 Ben Thomas seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. Resolution 23-023 Designating an American with Disabilities Act Coordinator and Adopting an Americans with Disabilities Act Grievance Procedure Mr. Mauro introduced Resolution 23-023 Designating an American with Disabilities Act Coordinator and Adopting an Americans with Disabilities Act Grievance Procedure. Ms. Greenwood provided a presentation on Resolution 23-023 which included designating the City Clerk as the ADA Coordinator and changes to the timelines in the Grievance Procedure to 15 days as well as adding language to the resolution of any specific grievance. In response to Council's clarifying questions Ms. Greenwood confirmed she will update the language in Step 3 to reflect an additional 15 days after Step 2 meeting. There was no public comment. Motion: Aislinn Diamanti moved to approve Resolution 23-023 Designating an American with Disabilities Act Coordinator and Adopting an Americans with Disabilities Act Grievance Procedure noting changes to the complete procedure timeline. Owen Rowe seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT Mayor Faber provided the Presiding Officers Report which included the City Manager Evaluation process/schedule. In addition, he explained HB 1628 and asked for March 20, 2023 City Council Business Meeting Page 6 of 7 authorization from Council members for him to send an additional letter in support of the RAFT bill. Motion: Owen Rowe moved to authorize Mayor Faber to send an additional letter of support for HB 1628. Libby Wennstrom seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. Mayor Faber went on to share he will be presenting the Citizen of the Year Award. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Mauro provided the City Manager's Report which included staff appreciation, and legislative bills. SUGGESTIONS FOR NEXT OR FUTURE AGENDA, REGULAR MEETING AND/OR STUDY SESSION COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL Deputy Mayor Howard shared there is an AWC call every Friday to discuss legislative updates/changes for that week which Council members can attend. Council member Wennstrom thanked Deputy Mayor Howard for her work with AWC. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:33pm. Attest: Alyssa Rodrigues City Clerk March 20, 2023 City Council Business Meeting Page 7 of 7 From: Kim Herman To: clerksu000rt(acityofot.us Subject: Promoting affordable housing in Port Townsend Date: Monday, March 27, 2023 8:12:56 AM This may be my last opportunity to comment on the proposed zoning changes in Port Townsend to promote affordable housing. I have appreciated the time and energy put forth by city staff, members of the Planning Commission and the members of the City Council to consider and revise the zoning codes for Port Townsend in an effort to help create more affordable housing. I take at face value the comments of the council members that adoption of the zoning code changes are a first step towards promoting housing affordability in the city and look forward to the development of Evans Vista and the promised housing for low and middle income persons in that sub -area as it is developed. Having worked in the development of affordable housing for more than 40 years, I understand that progress comes in steps and may take time, but I still encourage the City Council to seriously consider the adoption of a requirement that for triplexes and multifamily housing built in Port Townsend, that 30% of the units be affordable to persons earning less than 120% or area median income as a good method to provide affordable housing in the city. I look forward to watching your progress in the future, Kim Herman Consultant to the Housing Solutions Network From: Liz Revord To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Public Comment for 3/27 City Council re: Tactical Infill Zoning Project Date: Sunday, March 26, 2023 7:20:07 PM Attachments: imaae001.Dna As the City prepares to implement its Tactical Infill Strategy this Monday, the staff and Steering Committee of Housing Solutions Network want you to know that we appreciate all of the work that City Council, staff and Planning Commission have invested to this point. Thank you. To the community members who have shown up and spoken up to ask for the inclusion of protections for affordable middle-income housing, we thank you as well. Democracy is messy. We are proud of the fact that everyone involved in this process has been respectful and honorable in their words and actions. We know that stronger, more creative solutions are possible because of everyone's engagement. We recognize that there have been tensions resulting from this process, and yet we all have stuck with it and continue to move forward. HSN has learned from this engagement process and we continue to grow in our understanding of how to work best with the City going forward. We look forward to future opportunities that augment City efforts by engaging the community as you develop an affordable housing study, strategy and plan and especially around Evans Vista. We appreciate that the City recognizes that there are many alternative and unexplored paths to affordable housing for households up to 150% of local income and that permanent affordability can be possible in some scenarios for people who live and work in our community. Thank you all again for your hard work, time, and energy dedicated to this process. In Community, Liz Revord, HSN Director Jane Armstrong, HSN Steering Committee i1Revord She/her Housing Solutions Network Network Director "We cannot solve our problems with the some thinking that created them."—Albert Einstein 11 From: David Faber To: Lily n; CityCouncil; publiccomment(cbicitvofot.us Subject: Re: Tactical Infill Code Amendments Date: Sunday, March 26, 2023 10:44:14 PM Thank you for your email and comments, Lilly. I'm going to forward this to our public comment email address so that it is included as part of the hearing. You make some compelling points! Best, David J. Faber Mayor, City of Port Townsend (360) 821-9374 From: Lily Queen <lily@cascadiahomedesign.com> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 11:14 AM To: CityCouncil <citycouncil@cityofpt.us> Subject: Tactical Infill Code Amendments Greetings City Council, I have the following feedback on the document AB23-142 regarding tactical infill housing and zoning changes: On the topic of ADU's: I think the idea behind having two ADUs is likely a good one— to increase the supply of rentals in our community where they are desperately needed. I wonder though, without an increase in allowable lot coverage, particularly on lots where existing homes are already built, if they will fit. Also, if someone is adding a second ADU could there be a requirement for affordability? Perhaps some sort of incentive given if that unit is rented as workforce housing? I have concerns that an unintended consequence of this change will be to increase property values for those who already own homes and not actually help to provide affordable housing. Happy to see that ADUs can be 5' from property lines but again, if there is already an SFR (or SFR + ADU) on a lot, 40% lot coverage is a barrier. Please consider 45% or even 50% if someone is going to add TWO more buildings to a single lot. Thank you for removing the requirement for the entrance of an ADU not be facing the street. appreciate that there are a variety of options for ADUs now including `guest bedrooms' and THOW. On the topic of setbacks and lot coverage in table Table 17.16.030 Please consider further decreasing the required setbacks to allow for more flexibility in design and construction. Here is some math for you. :) Taking a typical 50'x 100' single lot (5,000 sq ft) and subtracting the square footage for setbacks leaves 2800 sq ft of buildable area (2450 sq ft if using the 20' garage setback). Essentially half of the land on the lot is not available for housing. Consider 5' rear and side setbacks and 8' front setbacks to homes, 15' to garage front. For lot coverage, again using the typical R-2 single lot size, 35% lot coverage works out to 1750 sq ft (this includes not only living space but garages, covered porches and decks over 30" off the ground). If someone has maxed out lot coverage and wants to add an ADU, 40% works out to 2000 sq ft, only 250 sq ft more to fit an ADU on site. Consider 40% lot coverage for a SFR and 45-50% lot coverage if adding an ADU, possibly more if adding a second ADU. On the topic of cottage housing Exhibit M Please consider further streamlining this code. I would suggest removing the following: Under `Purpose and Intent' remove section B. Under 17.34.030 Density, number of cottage housing units and minimum lot area. This table is confusing and I think needs some further editing. Consider having the same density for all zones, as flexible as possible. For example, anywhere from 2-12 cottages with 800 sq ft minimum lot size for each cottage. Thank you for removing the requirements related to exterior appearance, please consider also removing ALL the requirements for Cottage Floor Area as it is limiting for design. The minimum lot size will dictate the size of the cottage that can be built. In section 17.34.120 Yards — Building setbacks from exterior lot lines. Please consider removing the setback requirement for interior lot lines. In the sections regarding requirements for open space, please consider streamlining these sections as they have the potential to limit the number of units that can be built, are highly specific and limit design options. Consider further streamlining section 17.34.180 Off-street parking, particularly the requirement that "Parking areas shall be attractively landscaped to screen parking from adjacent properties and street rights-of-way and shall meet applicable parking lot landscape standards." Thank you for including the option for Unit Lot Subdivision as an alternative to Condominium style development, though I'll need to do further research to fully understand what all is involved in that process and how it might be helpful to a smaller scale developer. On the topic of THOW in Exhibit Z Thank you for opening up the option for people to have Tiny Homes on Wheels! Please consider removing or decreasing the square footage requirement for porches for THOWs in Section D of Tiny House on Wheels Communities. Often SFR don't have porches that are 60 sq ft in size and 8' deep. A 20 sq ft porch (4' x 5') seems plenty for a Tiny Home. In Section E, it seems that 1250 sq ft for a minimum lot size is quite large for a tiny home (maximum size at 400 sq ft). Consider decreasing the minimum lot size to 800 sq ft. Thank you for eliminating and streamlining parking requirements! Thank you for including provisions for Unit Lot Subdivisions—it seems like quite an extensive administrative process and I don't fully understand the legal implications or hoop jumping that is required but if Habitat for Humanity and Olympic Land Trust are in favor, I support them! Other suggestions (either for last minute inclusion or for future updates to zoning): Eliminate all R-1 zoning and convert to R-2. Upzone R-2 to R-3 Eliminate paving and sidewalk development requirements whenever possible. These added costs can prevent projects from "penciling out" particularly where affordable housing is concerned. On the topic of ADA sidewalks, is there perhaps other funding that could help with these upgrades instead of putting the cost burden on homeowners or builders? Particularly when it comes to affordable housing projects, could there be an exception? Allow for smaller lots to be subdivided in a simple and streamlined way (possibly without the requirements of a "Unit Lot Subdivision"?) For example, splitting a 5000 sq ft lot in half or thirds (with an easement for access as required). Maybe this is already possible? Examine impervious surface limits and how those impact the ability to build a variety of housing. I think that the elimination of parking requirements helps but also consider allowing stormwater systems to be placed within setbacks (maybe this is already possible but I don't think so) And now for the BIG question of how to increase a supply of AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING and not simply increase the land and home values of those who already have housing. For this question, it is clear there are no easy answers, otherwise I'm sure the very intelligent people who have been working on this issue would have come up with a formula already. I'll try my best to streamline my thoughts/questions: I hate having to write this point because while I hear HSN and others when they advocate for mandates for affordability, I'm unsure about whether it makes sense from a financial point of view on the scale of 3 units. Perhaps a compromise (at least until further research can be done) would be for 5 or 6 2. 3. Q 5. Me 7. 0 units or more? As a designer/builder who wants to do the right thing and help with affordable housing, I am stuck between the desire to do good and the realities of how expensive it is to build!! What about incentives for both builders/developers who are willing to include affordable (80%-150% AMI) housing? Tax breaks? Increased lot coverage and/or decreased setback allowances? Increased density? Decreased permit fees and/or utility hook up fees? Ability to receive an exemption to paving and/or sidewalk development requirements? Are incentives (or requirements) for affordable rentals possible for homeowners who are willing to add an ADU or particularly when we're talking about people adding a second ADU? I have a feeling the answer is `no' but it seems like an issue worth exploring. How do we encourage local builders to forego taking on projects to build single family homes and be willing to build multiple smaller homes instead? Is there land the City is willing to donate for affordable housing projects? Would it be possible to create a fund from building permit fees (adding additional fees on a sliding scale relative to the size and cost of the project) that the City could use to build affordable housing? Perhaps an affordable housing tax on tourism that could help fund projects? I absolutely support the City pursuing an Affordable Housing Strategy/Plan/Action Committee/Advisory Board. If an affordable housing emergency is declared, does that open up any other sources of funding? Thank you all for being courageous enough to take on roles of public service and tackle these extremely challenging problems. I admire your dedication to the community of Port Townsend. I also feel that it is worth mentioning that in all likelihood there will be mistakes and missteps along the way but please keep the goal of not only a diversity of housing types but long term affordability as the utmost priority. Warmly, Lily Queen EM LILY QUEEN She/Her 206.795.8082 www. cascadiahorneesi n.corn ** Construction Plans ** CAD Drawings ** Planning help for residential homes with heart. From: Devon Cohn To: publiccomment(acity&t. us Subject: tiny houses Date: Saturday, March 25, 2023 7:59:20 AM I am writing to support making tiny homes on wheels legal in Port Townsend. I think it is an important and creative part of the solution of increasing housing in the area. I applaud creating a pathway to allow tiny homes, ADUs and other housing in Port Townsend. Will there be unintended consequences of requiring that tiny houses must be 'hooked up to utilities' as proposed in the March 9 meeting? This wording will likely exclude tiny homes from the areas of the City of Port Townsend that are not currently reached by utility services. It will likely exclude people on unimproved land from having tiny homes because the cost of putting in a septic system or connecting with the city's sewer & utility system is expensive*. It will also exclude people who are exploring and demonstrating proof of concept for safe, legal alternatives to utility infrastructure connections. Replacing language like 'hooked up to utilities' with 'have utilities' might offer more flexibility to the city, and be an easy solution that does not create future unintended barriers. *Perhaps there are pending code changes allowing composting toilets and grey water systems in the absence of conventional hookups, and perhaps this would count as 'hooked up to utilities'? Devon devoncohnna ama (650) 804-0467 mobile Any sufficiently advanced learning is indistinguishable from play. From: Jack McCreary To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: 3/27/2023 Mtg: Housing Date: Monday, March 27, 2023 3:27:22 PM I applaud the proposed removal of exclusionary barriers in the zoning code, barriers that now exclude all but detached single family homes in most residential areas. The revised code will notably facilitate the building of new auxiliary dwelling units, to include Tiny Homes on Wheels and other small footprint houses. Thus, these new inclusive zoning regulations should jump start efforts to expand the inventory of affordable housing. Such small homes are inherently inexpensive and easy to build in a short time. Skilled local labor and volunteers have already provided small communities with these dwellings. The proposed new zoning code will provide abundant opportunities to expand such housing throughout the city. The City Council, Staff, and the Planning Commission have approved these changes by a unanimous first vote after careful study. Hearty congratulations are due. Jack McCreary Port Townsend From: Tirzah Juskalian To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Public Comment on Zoning Code Changes Date: Monday, March 27, 2023 4:00:30 PM "We have affirmed provision in old age, twelve years of education and basic nutrition to be the right of every citizen because we have recognized that human dignity depends on the fulfillment of these fundamental human needs. And it is hard to argue that housing is not a fundamental human need. Decent, affordable housing should be a basic right for everybody in this country. The reason is simple: without stable shelter, everything else falls apart ... If we acknowledge that housing is a basic right of all Americans, then we must think differently about another right: the right to make as much money as possible by providing families with housing - and especially to profit excessively from the less fortunate... Whatever our way out of this mess, one thing is for certain. This degree of inequality, this withdrawal of opportunity, this cold denial of basic needs, this endorsement of pointless suffering -by no American value is this situation justified. No moral code or ethical principle, no piece of scripture or holy teaching, can be summoned to defend what we have allowed our country to become." Evicted, Mathew Desmond 2016 Tonight I expect the city to move forward with the code changes on the table. And though I feel very grateful to live in a community where "Tactical Infill Housing" is even on the table and so much effort has been spent on this issue, I also have concerns about the way this is moving forward. On the city website in regards to this initiative it states, "The City wants to eliminate barriers and incentivize unit development as much as possible to ensure an element of permanent affordability for our workforce. " During the past few meetings the community has stood up and aired concerns about potential consequences of these proposals, namely that opening up development doesn't guarantee affordability and in some cases has made it worse. Last week you could feel the tension in the room between the council - trying to move forward policies, on a deadline, that they believe will benefit our community, and the public, who don't feel heard in their concerns. I expect the same tonight. For this reason, I would like to ask the City Council to start looking ahead and to try to address the concerns of our community. As part of passing these code changes I challenge that council to make a pledge to task the Planning Committee to take on the affordability issue as its next 'April 2nd' priority. This means communicating to the planning commission that our next priority is Affordability and to task them with exploring models that could work in our community, ideally bringing in local and external experts in the matter, and asking for data driven results for our community to explore. Mathew Desmond continues to write, "There are losers and there are winners. There are losers because there are winners. "Every condition exists," Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote, "simply because someone profits by its existence." Exploitation. Now there's a word that speaks to the fact that poverty is not just a product of low incomes. It is also the product of extractive markets... Those who profit from the current situation - and those indifferent to it - will say that the housing market should be left alone to regulate itself, They don't really mean that, Exploitation within the housing market relies on government support. It is the government that legitimizes and defends landlords rights' to charge as much as they want; that subsidizes the construction of high end apartments, bidding up rents and leaving the poor with even fewer options..." Evicted, 2016 Tirzah Juskalian, Renter Port Townsend From: Blaise Sullivan To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: Residential building capacity Date: Monday, March 27, 2023 10:39:41 AM Hello City councilors, I urge the City Council to vote yes to all of the Infill Initiatives that are aimed at increasing affordable, longterm, and healthy housing for people to live in Port Townsend as soon as possible. This is one of the most critical components to keeping Port Townsend thriving, functioning, creative, and accessible. Thank you, Blaise Sullivan Blaise Sullivan residing on Nox-sXEldy❑am❑ (S'Klallam) and Aqokulo (Chemakum) land From: Kate Schinhofen To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Comment on AB23-142 Tactical Infill Code Amendments Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:20:13 PM It is heartening to hear that the city is considering allowing tiny houses on wheels as ADUs to address Port Townsend's grave affordable housing crisis. This will serve to house some of the people I know who work in our town but must drive distances daily from other communities where rent is affordable. It will help house those deserving citizens who lose their rentals and cannot find replacements, losing their life long connections and friend networks. And it is an easy fix to the situation that can be implemented quite quickly. I enthusiastically support the passage of this provision for the benefit of not only our good citizens in need but Port Townsend as a whole. Kate Schinhofen 470 35th Street From: Cindy Brittain To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Comment on AB23-142 Tactical Infill Code Amendments Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:25:31 PM Comment on AB23-142 Tactical Infill Code Amendments Good evening, I am writing a letter of support to make tiny homes on wheels legal here in Port Townsend. We have been living in Jefferson County, in the Port Townsend area since 2015. We have been caretaking a property for a nonprofit, and LOVE this community and would like to stay living here. But the idea of buying or building our own place is completely unaffordable. A Tiny home on wheels we COULD afford, and would LOVE to have one for our next home. Tiny home living fosters community building. We know people who would love to let us place a tiny home on their property, and live as their neighbors, but for the zoning laws. The biggest barrier to us is exclusionary zoning. Allowing moveable tiny homes as ADUs will help to remove this barrier. Building an ADU is not an option for us (we simply cannot afford that). A moveable tiny home is the most affordable non -subsidized option out there! Policymakers need to provide safe, legal ways for people like us to live in moveable tiny homes. We ask that you please: approve moveable tiny houses as ADUs; allow moveable tiny home communities as RV style parks in multiple zones; and allow moveable tiny homes as employer owned temporary housing. Thank you, please help us stay in this area. We love it here. Sincerely, Cindy Brittain From: Siobhan Canty <S2bh.a_oJ...l ives.or > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 3:55 PM To:.p.g_�flo 0_!rtu_ _uJ:...��..�.�tyD�fpt. us Subject: Support middle income people in PT! Dear City Council members, The code changes to increase housing density that you are considering tonight deserve more than the 6 hours of public dialogue - in totality - you are dedicating to this process. The reasoning behind these changes - that a significant increase in new housing will result in houses that will be affordable for working people that make $110,000 or less — is unrealistic. As the changes you are proposing stand right now, all of the new units allowed under these changes will be market rate and market rate housing is not affordable for middle-income people. The Mayor himself has stated that the current changes under consideration are likely to bring local housing prices down by 1%. Every working person in Port Townsend knows that 1% will not make a sufficient difference to their ability to buy or rent here in town. Jefferson Community Foundation asks that you include in the tonight's code changes a mandate that 30% of any new housing development of three units or more are dedicated to being permanently affordable to people making 150% of our area median income (currently a salary of $110,000) or less. These are people who work in maritime, nonprofits, schools, police and fire departments. There are government funding programs available to help make such a mandate possible to implement. We say yes to more housing in Port Townsend but only if it also benefits middle-income people who currently live and work here. Thank you, Siobhan Canty Contact: Siobhan Canty (she/her) President & CEO Office: 360.385.1729 Visit us online at JCIf::gives.or ! PO Box 1394 1 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 JEFFERSON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION GIM.:.:.. 113U111....1:3, 301 V1::::: From: ionrav(cbaol.com To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: public comment/Tiny Houses Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:19:18 AM In 2006 1 approached the appropriate city department to inquire what I would need to do to locate a tiny house on wheels on my double lot near the high school. I lived in a permanent house on the property and had plenty of space for a tiny house or two. I was older and wasn't up to the huge garden that could of occupied my adjoining empty space. Better for me was to support the local farmers by buying their products at the local co-op, farmers market, etc. It was plain silly for me to have this space and not be able to add some living space for the many service people who could not afford to buy a house or even rent a typical house. I heard rumors of possible job applicants or even currently employed having to leave the area because of the lack of a place to live. Outlandish! Having traveled extensively in an RV, I knew how one could live comfortably in a small space. It was even preferred for me! Anyway, I was shocked when I was told back in 2006 that I couldn't put a tiny house on wheels (or even a small house w/o wheels easily on my lot). I was told it was being considered and to check back. Seventeen years later!!! and they are finally making changes. Hallejuah! I do believe there should be some "rules" about tiny house placement, their appearance, their access, etc. to blend in to the neighborhood in a pleasing way. There are many benefits to allowing tiny house placement. Affordable housing, possible shared maintenance with the property owner, sense of shared community, and more. A big hug of appreciation to the counsel for making this happen! Thank you, Suzanne Hardesty From: Shannon Kidd To: PublicComment(&cityofot.us Subject: We want PT to Prioritize Affordable Workforce Housing! Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 11:46:59 AM Hello! My name is Shannon Kidd and this letter is to show my support for what the Housing Solutions Network is advocating for, which is affordable housing for all. I have lived in Quilcene and have worked all around the peninsula with a large portion of my time spent in Port Townsend for over 5 years. My biggest issue is that all of the people I hold closest (and myself included!) are technically "homeless" because of our living scenarios and how almost none of my friends live in a house. All of these people are working class—servers, boat builders, gig workers, artists, farmers, you get the idea. This community is incredibly hard working and extremely dedicated to their communities and building strong connections that are what made me feel welcome here. But, despite all of the hard work, long hours, and back -breaking effort that these people put into this community, we are denied safe and reliable housing. As reference, my partner is a welder and metal worker in the boatyard and I am a professor of design at Portland State University and work as a farmer. Both of these jobs have required dedication, long hours, and are highly skilled positions that offer us stability and consistency. We have actively been looking at homes to purchase or property to steward, but the prices in Port Townsend rival that of Portland OR. For a community that is so focused on "celebrating farmers" and "appreciating the front-line workers" I have been appalled at how inaccessible it is to live here. Affordable housing is key to building strong supportive communities that can thrive long term. The young people that are propping up this community on their backs have worked endlessly to build a town that isn't supporting them in a basic human right: housing. I don't want to say I am disappointed by Port Townsend's lack of compassion for its workers, but as someone that is actively engaged in this community, it feels wild that I have to go home and live in a trailer. How am I supposed to predict longevity and see myself with a home and family and child in a town that is so expensive to live in that I can't even afford rent? How am I supposed to support my community when I can't even look at homes in Port Townsend because I know I'm priced out? Why is it that this town is okay with young people not being housed properly? I love this place and the deeply passionate, creative, hard-working people I have met in this town, and I will endlessly show up for them. Please take this into consideration when moving forward with an affordable housing solution for 2023. Shannon Kidd Illn,l�afn� `cSl�ai��.r Check out my website! From: Bill Wise To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us; Cit&ouncil Subject: Affordable Housing - March 20th Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:16:43 AM Dear Council Members... We are counting on each of you to do everything in your power to lower the many barriers to the creation of affordable workforce housing. We likely all agree "there is no silver bullet". It will take the accumulation of many decisive actions on your part to dent the problem confronting our community. - I need not repeat the litany of possible actions (there are many) - each will help. Please bring your best to this March 20th session. We are counting on you to act and act now. Inaction is not an option. Bill Wise 710 Foster Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Bill Wise "Men are not our ennemies our etiemies are the fear and ignnoratice that male men into enneu'nies" Thich Muat I Uiiu From: Dianne Hammons To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Re: tiny homes Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:58:05 AM Hello, I've been working with Housing Solutions Network and I live in SeaBreeze Trailer Park. I also regularly meet with folks at Recovery Cafe. I'm keen to have you work on proposed zoning for moveable tiny homes. Tiny homes can be considered as ADU's and allowed in RV parks as well as other locations. Several key points: people are already living in homes not permitted yet. They are a viable short term solutions for multiple challenges. They are half as costly as other houses. The ANSI standard has already been adopted in CA, OR, ID, MA, and CO. Thank you for all your hard work to make this a better community and to give us a voice, Dee Hammons From: Hillary Sanders To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: Tiny Homes on Wheels and ADUs Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 4:02:47 PM Hello, I am writing in support of affordable housing in Port Townsend. I am a nonprofit employee, farmworker, and tiny home on wheels (THOW) owner. I have been looking to move to the PT area for over a year now, but the housing options in Jefferson County have been cost -restrictive and few and far between. Even with a real estate agent helping me, it has been hard to find anything within my budget. I recently purchased a tiny home on wheels in hopes that an existing landowner with extra room could provide the parking space I need. However, my options will still be limited to outside the city unless PT recognizes the value of ADUs and tiny homes. I ask as you consider affordable housing strategies, including "missing middle housing", that you please support ADUs and tiny homes on wheels. These options provide a creative and affordable solution to the housing shortage. Mobile solutions such as THOWs and RVs allow traveling workers such as farm workers and health care workers to have reliable housing. ADUs allow existing property owners to make the most of their space while retaining the neighborhood feel. In addition to denser housing projects, I think embracing these alternative housing options will bolster efforts to make PT a more accessible and affordable place to live. Thank you, Hillary Sanders From: arandrr(cbolvoen.com To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: We want PT to Prioritize Affordable Workforce Housing! Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:51:58 AM I really hope that the city will prioritize housing for working people, city staff, retail, service, healthcare state and federal employees in every pay grade need housing. It is unsustainable to only provide housing for retired and getting ready to retire folks with lots of money. Workers pay taxes, support the local economy and add to the vibrancy of the town. We have lived here over 20 years, owned property over 30 years and are missing the diversity of ages Geralynn Rackowski 311 33rd St PT. 360 385 1206 From: dberrian To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: Affordable Housing - March 20th Meeting Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:24:40 AM In Su-pport of Proposed Changes to Port Townsend Zoning Regulations <!--[if !supportLists]-->• <! -- [endit] -->There is insufficient housing in Port Townsend for people at all income levels. =!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->Housing that exists is increasingly unaffordable to area workers. -!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->The lack of available housing and its cost significantly impact Port Townsend employers. I don't think there is anyone in Port Townsend who can reasonably dispute these three statements. We all recognize that housing and its affordability are significant challenges in our community. Many people have worked hard to develop ways to address the affordable housing problem. None of the changes before City Council will solve the problem, either individually or taken together. However, each change is one more way we as a community can go beyond feel - good rhetoric to positive action that can improve the supply of housing and its affordability. I think we have what we can call an Ecology of Interests in addressing the problem of housing affordability. I think all of us share the value that all households in our community should have access to safe and secure shelter. We may differ, however, in the ways we think we should go about making that value a reality. It would be unfortunate if we let those differences distract us from what we have in common. We bring different perspectives and interests to the table when we discuss housing solutions. This can be a strength if we recognize the validity of each perspective and respect that each voice has a small part in the overall ecology that sustains our community. I urge the Port Townsend City Council to enact all of the proposed changes to the City's zoning regulations. This is only the beginning. More action, more creativity, and more resources will be required to truly make affordable housing a reality in Port Townsend. It is not just the City government that needs to be involved. Employers, financial institutions, advocacy groups, schools, unions, neighborhoods, and just us plain citizens all need to be involved to make sure that all households in our community have access to safe and secure shelter. If we focus on our shared value, rather than our individual ideas for programs, I believe we can make the kind of sustainable community we all want to be a part of. Submitted by David Berrian 450 - 35th Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (425) 482-3026 From: KIM HERMAN To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Cc: Liz Revord; brianCadesimoneca.com; John Enaber Subject: A public comment for the City Council Meeting Monday, March 20th, 2023... Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 2:33:12 PM Attachments: STATEMENT TO CITY COUNCIL 3-20-23.docx Attached is a public comment for the City Council Meating on Monday, March 20, 2023, pertaining to Item VII B. 3306, Related to Increasing Residential Building Capacity; Amending Titles 17,18 and 20 of the Port Townsend Municipal code. Please add it to the printed public comments for this section of the City Council meeting. Thank you for your cooperation, Kim Herman Consultant to HSN cell: 425-985-7195 STATEMENT OF KIM HERMAN TO CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 20, 2023, ON THE TACTICAL INFILL CODE AMENDMENTS First, my paper and ink suppliers would like to thank the city for providing a 381 page document that needed to be printed for a person that cannot read documents well on a computer. They are grateful! Second, I want to thank Emma Bolin and her staff for all their work on this issue, and the fact that in her opening comments, she noted the zoning code changes could help unlock and inspire affordable infill development, create more compact and affordable infill housing. And, in her March 9th memo, she cited Goal 7 of the current comprehensive plan, which is, "To provide an adequate supply of housing for residents of all income groups, including sufficient housing affordable to low -and moderate -income groups." She also mentioned the need to rewrite the Housing Element of the city's comprehensive plan in 2023 to set future policy to assist in the development of affordable and attainable housing. Finally, I also want to note her honesty, when she says in her latest memo: "We have compiled a list of actions that can help advance our housing supply but recognize that it may not fully demonstrate all the connections or resolve the supply/demand affordability gap." This brings me to the primary thing I want to say today. That is, that the public statements from the beginning of the Tactical Infill Code Amendment process have highlighted over and over again, the importance of, and the need for, affordable housing in Port Townsend. In fact, my rough count found the need for affordable housing was cited 97 times in the summary documents before you. And, this process was begun under the provisions of RCW 36.70A.600, which says a city planning pursuant to that provision may adopt "...a housing action plan which must encourage construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes..." You have to ask yourself, do these zoning changes contribute to that goal? My answer is no, because the proposed zoning actions will encourage "types of housing" to be built but do nothing to ensure that "affordable housing" will be built to meet the needs of the current and future residents of Port Townsend. The material before you contains 126 pages of information from the Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC) regarding "middle housing" studies done in Spokane, Wenatchee, Olympia, Bellingham, and Kirkland. And what did these cities learn about increasing the supply of "middle housing" and the creation of affordable housing for low income households? Here are some statements from those cities: • Bellingham: "Infill Toolkit Housing has generally not equated to affordable housing" • Kirkland: "This is not affordable housing, and new units come with high price tags." "Housing in Kirkland is not affordable for moderate income families." • Wenatchee: "40.2% of persons surveyed want, "a requirement that developers build a certain percentage of affordable housing units as part of an overall development." • Wenatchee: "Community needs pro -active incentives to encourage affordable housing: ➢ Multifamily Tax Exemption ➢ Work with low income housing providers to find positive and proactive solutions ➢ Pre -approved plans for ADU and cottage housing" • MRCS Overview: "Likely not affordable to those earning <80% of Area Median Income> The problem is that none of the provision before you require the development of affordable housing. What the Planning Commission has focused on is the "Type of Housing" being developed, not the affordability of the housing being developed. And, while I and HSN have no problem with encouraging the development of more types of housing, we do not believe it will address the overall need for more affordable housing in Port Townsend. My suggestion to the City Council is that you ask the Planning Commission to develop an Inclusionary Zoning Provision for Port Townsend that requires all future housing projects with three (3) or more units to agree that 30% of the units are deed restricted for 60 years for households earning less than 120% of area median income (AMI), with rents adjusted accordingly, to meet current affordable housing demand, in accordance with the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. By doing this you will be addressing the recognized need for affordable housing in the city that has been brought to your attention by the 97 comments from community members in the documents you have before you, and the city's affordable housing needs in the future. Otherwise, the city's work will not address the well-recognized need for affordable housing in Port Townsend. You may be asking, why should you do this? My answer is that according to the Department of Commerce's projections, and assuming Port Townsend is still housing roughly one-third of Jefferson County's population in 2044, you will need affordable housing for 949 persons under 80% of AMI (including 247 persons needing permanent supportive housing); 132 persons earning between 80% and 120% AMI; and 247 persons earning more than 120% AMI over the next 21 years. The projections also assume 186 people will need emergency housing at some time between now and 2044. Even assuming the 247 persons above 120% of AMI may be able to afford available housing, that still means you will need to have affordable housing available for the remaining 1,081 persons below 120% AMI between now and 2044. Using the same county ratio of persons per household as in 2021(2.06 persons/household), that means an additional 525 units of affordable housing available for persons earning less than 120% of AMI, and the majority of those will be earning less than 80% of AMI. Those figures together mean a total of 645 units of new housing in Port Townsend before 2044. Thank You! From: Tana Klebanow To: PublicComment(&cityofot.us Subject: Comment about supporting affordable housing in PT Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 4:38:46 PM I just read Ben Thomas's Newsletter that came with my water bill. I completely agree with Ben about the need to provide affordable housing and baking cookies. I am in the process of turning an above garage space into an additional ADU rental. It is difficult and expensive and I am doing my best. I would like to voice my concern for one idea that I have read that our City is considering or has considered. That is raising taxes on vacant land. I do not own any vacant land, but I am against raising taxes for vacant land in Port Townsend. In my opinion, one of the greatest attributes that PT offers is its trees and open spaces. I have a 12 year old daughter who plays with her friends in the open fields and wooded areas of our neighborhood. And many people walk in front of my home daily because of its proximity to beautiful undeveloped land. Taxes are already high and raising them will force some people to sell their land. Some people sell their land to take advantage of the current property value, but to force people to sell their land by raising property taxes is difficult to swallow and would drastically change our neighborhoods, losing what makes PT special. Thank you for reading and considering my comment. Warmly, Tana Tana Klebanow she/her tanaroseklebanow 4a gmail.com From: tone aoldenbera To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: Housing Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 3:51:50 PM It is my opinion that the best use of resources is in constructing multi story apartment buildings. More than 2 but not more than 4,or 6 stories should work well in Port Townsend. Apartment buildings are how most of the rest of the world houses its citizens and are more likely to end up the most affordable and least wasteful of materials. Tony Goldenberg From: wa(a)leaaltinvhouses.ora To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Cc: WA Subject: Public Comment for City Council Public Hearing 3/20/23 Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 11:57:49 AM Dear Honorable City Council Members, Thank you to the Planning Commission, City Council, and planning staff for thoughtfully discussing many ideas that unlock barriers to housing affordability, including allowing tiny houses on wheels (THOWs or moveable tiny homes) as: ADUs, in an RV -like community, and for employer -owned temporary housing in your city as part of a housing crisis solution. You are tackling an enormous project. I care about affordable housing choices for all residents in the state. My involvement with the Washington (State) Tiny House Association (WTHA) has allowed me to hear diverse stories from those who want to own a home. In a small poll of members, 19 of 27 respondents said they are looking for a legal location for a tiny house on wheels. WTHA hosts monthly virtual meetings. I've heard several Meetup members talk about how living tiny (< 400 sq ft) is allowing them to retire early or return to school for an MBA by decreasing their monthly expenses; a foster parent dreams of living tiny; a middle-income couple wants to stay in the same town but not in the large home they raised their children in; a grown disabled child wants to live near an aging parent. About me: I moved to WA State for a new job with WTHA in Sept 2021. 1 considered living in Port Townsend or Port Angeles, but settled in Olympia because it seemed that rent would be cheaper. After living in a converted garage for 9 months, I decided that rent was unaffordable and moved to a small CO apartment near my grown children. Luckily, my part- time job can be done remotely. More housing inventory (ADUs and moveable tiny houses) can also help improve the rental vacancy rate — especially near transit, on vacant lots, near walk -able shopping, in backyards, in neighborhoods. Other cities and counties will take notice of how Port Townsend is responding to the demand for affordable, legal, safe, quality housing. THOWs offer a faster solution than a traditional sized stick -built home in R3 and commercial zones. Those who desire to "live tiny" can bring a wealth of skills to your city. Respectfully submitted, Anna (Debra) Navarro Anna Navarro I WA()leaaltinvhouses.ora assisting Todd McKellips, ED, and the Washington Tiny House Association in their mission to: advocate for truly affordable, creative, micro -housing solutions in Washington State Todd McKellips - CEO, Seattle Tiny Homes, Inc. I Founder and Executive Director, Washington Tiny House Association P.S. I watched the 3/9 Planning Commission hearing remotely — well, 3 hours of it. I was impressed with the professional nature of the meeting from the extensive staff presentation to Commissioner questions/comments and sensible words from 8 residents who added to the discussion: some of infill be affordable permanently, people leave minimum wage jobs since PT not affordable, you put in lot of time, redo affordable plan, business owner can't get workers — has 5 more employees leaving, THOWs in permanent clusters, CA/OR/ID give us lots to build on, THOWs most flexible, thank you for your hard work, keep going, appreciate effort. From: Fred Kimball To: publiccomment(acityofot. us Subject: public comment on proposed zoning code changes Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 9:30:41 AM 3-17-23 To City Council members, Mayor Faber and City Manager Mauro: I would like to bring your attention to a recent report from the Washington Department of Commerce titled "Planning for Housing in Washington" htr,ps.;/ de toFcommerce. x. m s 6z6b bnbat8.3wik 2: kt tm! z4zv I'm sure that you all have had plenty of reading to plow thru in the past several months in regards to the housing question we are facing. I'm not intending to burden you with more reading but this report was released a couple of weeks back and has important data on housing needs by county. The report also has links to "Housing for All Planning Tools" and other links from the Department of Commerce that you may find useful. From the report I would like to point out the total needs over the next 20 years for Jefferson County is nearly 4000 units of both supportive housing and non -supportive housing. Out of those 4000 units, 1580 units are for folks in the 50% -120%+ AMI ( area mean income), basically workforce housing (regardless of workforce definition, folks in this demographic make-up our workforce) . That is approximately 79 units per year. Granted that is county wide and o that number could be parsed many ways to interpret the need in Port Townsend. For simplicity lets presume that 1/3rd of those units (population of Jefferson County is approx. 30,000, population of Port Townsend approx. 10,000 which is approximately 1/3rd of the county) are in the city of Port Townsend. That is 26 units of "workforce" housing per year for the next 20 years. As you review the proposed code changes ask yourself if the proposed changes will provide for that need? Keeping in mind the key word in this is affordable. By the end of March you will have decided whether to approve the proposed changes. Will you be able to look the citizens of Port Townsend in their eyes and honestly say that the changes made will meet the needs for affordable housing into the future? I'd say the proposed changes won't create the housing that is needed and won't offer any protection for affordable housing for now and future needs. Let's not kick the problem down the road for future council members to deal with when the problem will be even more dire. Let's make changes to the codes that encourage affordable housing, and protections to keep that housing affordable. In closing I would like to thank you all for your thoughtful and hard work on this very complex issue, there is no single solution, but we need to start solving the problem now with serious changes to the codes. I'm sorry to say that the proposed changes are just chipping away at the edges and will not begin to address the shortages we are facing. Sincerely, Fred Kimball Resident of Port Townsend for 37 years 560 57th St Port Townsend, Wa 98368 From: Janet Thome To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: Public Comments Regarding Affordable Housing In Port Townsend Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:09:51 AM Attachments: Screen Shot 2023-03-20 at 7.02.25 AM.ona Washington state has amended and adopted Appendix AQ Tiny House to be effective February 1 st, 2021. Appendix AQ Tiny Houses refers to tiny houses on a foundation, 400 square feet or less. Please consider adopting Appendix Q Tiny House and applying it also to a Modular on a chassis as several counties are already allowing. Quick Facts': • fitly homes that are hint off., sue rmust have WA State Labor and industries (LNI) approval as: a modular structure when Intended for a Inarmanent. Installatuon. d When you go to LII, ask flys the strucuare to be reviewed as a modular home that is mounted. an a Chassis. Homes reviewed under these standards are HUD compliant. d Emphasize you want: a HUD comp] iarn structure. a .A. tiny hone built on-site without a chassis are rov ewwed by'Thurston County Staff and . permbted as a single-family dwelling unit, accessory dwelling unk ar guest house. . A tiny home constructed, on a chassis must: be approved, by LNI as a. modular houme. ,A mania6crured home placement permb N Mq[r rcd. • Recreational. Park "railers or Park Models do not: Unca HUD standards as a Itt^rmancnt living structure;. Tiny Homes What Is a. Thay florue" Tiny homes are structures that come in all seats and shapes that can 'lie used as habitable space fur s'Icuping' living, cating and cooking. Can i builda. tiny bonne In Thurston County'! It depends on the zoning, district the InTlrcrt;y ynu reams to place the tiny home on is located rn and what ns cummUy on the property. Visit tic BLIUdi�ng DncWpn.ient Center In uwqulre about cnnstruenlIg a tiyty'honie oo y10tn faru�Purty.. Whar are the Code Requirements for a'riny Home? Habitable rooms fbr slecpang and living cannot be less than 70 square feet and must he at least seven feet in one dimension.. Habitable rooms nitim have no less than n a 7-fbotceiming height.. Bathrooms, trnflet and laundry rooms require no less than d"aH" ceiling height. Rcicr to they current international Rcsidendal Code (IRC) for cxcepttons to these requuemettts. « Plumbing Rcfcr to the IRC for minbuuni plmnh,ing texture clearance requi:rcments. + Sue-bul t tiny homes muss yucot the same requirements ofthe IniIIdIng code as a full•slre houne for safety, structural, energy axudc and aemfilation rcquucmcnts.. Questions Before. son Build! Contact the Bufld:iug Dewelopmenf Center at (3 60) 786.5490 or visit the, BBC: Monday -Friday from 8 a -m. to 4 p.m. at the addressed referenced. l clow.. '11—sta. . C'awaiy 9ti ld:tag tD-elttproe.nt. C -Ur gaol r.lk,ridg' D'i"4 kW crib; t, "-d d t liar, My pi ' WJA. firs501, Ph— I'9etl'47M-5410;'T'AVO:"ma Idmer. 711 nrf atltb A:37-raxx, far: 010 � ur!n, Ili yr g7yivir. � wuy�i rd7^ c,rrm Tiny Houses On A Chassis Tiny houses on wheels will go through the Modular inspection and 24242roval process with L & 1. This includes out-of-state manufacturers that sell to a consumer in Washington state. Learn More ASTM International Approves New Subcommittee Tiny Houses The tiny house industry is also developing new standards for tiny houses to develop a new classification for tiny houses on wheels that will be completed within a year to 18 months that can be adopted in the near future. ASTM International's committee on performance of buildings (LOO) has approved a new subcommittee on tiny houses. This new subcommittee (E06.26) intends to develop standards for several proposed subject areas for tiny houses, including but not limited to: • Best building practices • Test methods • Certification • A global quality assurance program • Requirements and auditing of third parties that provide plan review and inspect tiny houses • Tiny house community developments • Micro -grid utilities • Minimum construction requirements. The subcommittee intends to address a lack of express, unified standards for tiny houses, as throughout the world they have been variously designated as impermanent residences or grouped together with recreational vehicles and caravans. An initial primary focus of the subcommittee will be to develop a uniform construction standard for a tiny house on wheels that will result in a new classification of housing. A tiny house is a marketing term, and at this time there is no official definition, classification, or statutory construction method applying to tiny houses on wheels, " says ASTM International member Janet Thome, founder and president of Tiny House Alliance USA. "The lack of uniform industry standards has sparked court cases, titling issues, unsafe building practices, the lack of financing and zoning, and a global debate: is a tiny house on wheels a building or a vehicle?" Thome notes that the subcommittee also intends to address residential health and safety requirements, road safety regulations, and foundation requirements involved in full-time living in tiny houses on wheels. It has currently drawn international expertise from end users, builders, legislators, building officials, and advocates, from North America, Australia, Europe and South America, and is welcoming further participation. ASTM welcomes participation in the development of its standards. Anyone with knowledge of tiny houses is encouraged to contribute to the development of the subcommittee. JOINASTM. ASTM Press Release Thank you for your consideration. Warm Regards, Janet Thome Founder And President Tiny House Alliance USA 501( c) 3 Nonprofit Public Charity The Future Of Tiny Ls Now! 509 345 2013: Cell 509 770 1694 i anet(a�tinyhouseallianceusa. org Tiny House Alliance USA L Founder Of Tiny Portable Cedar Cabins From: Nan Tyrrell To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: We want PT to Prioritize Affordable Workforce Housing! Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 9:04:57 AM I am in favor of finding ways for people to live and work here in our wonderful community.I believe there are many ways to discover realistic options and letting people share in this process if a wonderful opportunity for each of us. Nan Toby Tyrrell From: Connie Ross To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: We want PT to Prioritize Affordable Workforce Housing! Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:17:35 PM Dear City Council Members, I hope you will find your way to doing absolutely everything to expand affordable residential building capacity in Port Townsend. There is NO greater priority. Every month that goes by finds us with a growing aged & retired population and so many jobs going unfilled. This is completely unsupportable. The time is right now and on into the future to restore this town to a thriving multi- generational community. Sincerely, Connie Ross Port Townsend From: Kristen Nelson To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Workforce housing Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 8:11:54 AM Good Morning, While I sit here and write you for a moment more of my employees are moving and stressed about having to move. I currently have 48 employees and it is a continuous stress and struggle for them to find housing. Most of them make $40,000-$60,000 per year. They used to be able to afford a small 3 bedroom place to live to raise their families. In the last 8-10 years prices of rent and houses went up so fast many of the places they lived were sold. They had to move out, and many of those houses remain as second home for those who bought them. Since housing prices went up so severely, my employees switched to 2 bedroom houses which they could still find and afford. In the last 4-5 years, there are now simply no houses available to rent and they are having to look at Poulsbo, Bremerton, Quilcene areas. Slowly they are also realizing the commute with gas prices is too much and are finding jobs closer to where they are living which is no longer in our community. I see the struggle and the stress they are going through not knowing where they are going to live, wanting to keep their kids in the schools they are going and be a part of our community. As the employer, I have been looking at properties that I might be able to build a modest 2 and 3 bedroom apartment building so that I might be able to offer them a stable place to live in our community, but I am struggling with the zoning of all of the properties I have explored. I agree that bonus density with no restrictions will just create more expensive houses still not affordable to our average workforce. I also understand that any program instituted where bonus density has some affordable cap would need to be monitored, but, I feel like with the many intelligent minds and creative solutions people in our community, we could get there and start encouraging the community to also create affordable workforce housing and not just wait for government to try and provide it. 1 currently have 3 positions open. 2 are $60,000 and above. Many people inquire but do not take the jobs because they can not find a place to live. Surely we can find a way to build places renting for around $1500month or better yet, a way to allow them to buy their own house and invite families into our community. Though I am currently most discouraged about zoning regulations, I know just changing zoning will not solve the whole problem. I believe we will need to create many different opportunities if we want a community filled with all ages of people. Thank You Kristen Nelson Owner Sirens Pub The In Between The Old Whiskey Mill 3/20/2023 Council members, We can all agree that creating affordable housing is an admirable goal. And PT's proposed parking and zoning reforms that reduce regulations around housing are seen as a solution to the local housing shortage. The view is that the market — given free rein — will create the preferred outcome. I can give you three reasons why code reforms will not necessarily lead to more affordable housing — and may have the opposite effect. One. A 2019 peer-reviewed study found a rise in property values and a lack of growth in dwelling unit construction after parking and zoning reforms in Chicago. A similar outcome occurred after Langley's 2018 upzone and after news of PT's upzone plan broke a subdivision that sold for 3 million in 2021 is now listed for sale at 6 million. Although the researcher explained that generalizing the study's findings can't always be done, he was clear that during an upzone, concerns about affordability need to be appropriately addressed. Because we're seeing growing in -migration climate refugees, cash -laden retirees, vacation home buyers, remote workers, and investors it is not surprising that Trail Crest sold 18 homesites, with many homes already built and fully occupied all ranging from $650,000 to over $1,000,000 dollars. Create more opportunities for these kinds of home buyers, and they will come. Two. Affordable housing in Port Townsend is an oxymoron due to high prices for land, materials, and labor. I have seen the previous ADU zoning and parking reforms benefit affluent, non-resident individuals with vast financial resources. The proposed reforms will give them an even brighter green light to enlarge homes on practically every square inch of a lot and use the ADUs for self-indulgence while being rewarded with an ADU parking perk. We have heard from HSN that over % of ADUs aren't rented and many are unaffordable. Non-resident and resident affluent can pay mortgages with dual and triple exorbitant rents, all while using a public right-of-way to store multiple vehicles and RVs with the parking perks. When investment portfolios are bolstered with income from high unaffordable rents while using a public right-of-way to do so, equity issues abound for neighbors and seekers of affordable housing. Three. Port Townsend's desirable status, the influx of wealth, the high cost of building, minimal desirable buildable land and a sheer lack of builders to meet increased demand could cause zoning reforms to backfire while trying to remedy restrictive single-family zoning laws that created single-family neighborhoods. In the 80's, trickle-down economics was seen as a way to boost the nation's economy. Again, an admirable goal. But it didn't work— in fact income and housing disparities exploded when rewards were doled out to the "haves." Zoning reforms without affordability protections could be a replay of this earlier debate. The privileged will settle comfortably into their homes, as low and middle-income earners are literally left in the dust. WE are ALL called to be guardians of this planet, this community and each other and you are to embrace your constituent's vision for this community, NOT your own. Opening a pandora's box of code reforms without affordability protections may cause more harm than good. We are never to forget that one of the most powerful forces that affect our lives in this world is that of unintended consequences. Thank you Meg Lodes From: JOHN Effmann To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: Affordable Workforce Housing, What is not to like? Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:04:15 AM Dear City Council Members: You have a decision before you that will potentially change Port Townsend for better for years to come. We need more affordable housing to support our growth, dreams and practicalities in our wonderful town. You may be seeing and reading from a different point of reference then we are, but how are we going to move forward if the structure isn't in place to provide housing for the `missing middle'? Where will the valued support workforce come from? It really seems very simple to us. If they cannot find housing opportunities that match with compensation packages that our LOCAL employers can offer, they will look elsewhere. And, every article that I have been reading shows that we have a lot of competition for those workers. Our simple request is this: Whatever changes you enact, make sure you include a lot of room for our future workforce segment that we so desperately need. Thank you, John and Cathy Effmann 3002 Gise St. Port Townsend From: vikis To: Publiccomment Subject: Comment Submittal for 3.20.23 Public Hearing on Tactical Infill Zoning Changes Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:23:58 AM In Support of Port Townsend's Proposed Tactical Infill Zoning Code Changes March 20th, 2023 We are all aware that the housing crisis in Port Townsend can lead to the devastating experience of people losing the place they call home with nowhere to go and that this crisis threatens the very livability of our community. The crisis is so acute, so widespread, and so embedded in our very way of living that there are no easy answers on what to do or even what is possible. At the same time, many people of good intent have stepped forward, committing time and resources, to respond to the crisis. While there are differences in how we see the crisis and what to do about it, for many of us, the question is how can the community come together to make a difference in this time of great need. One place to start is by supporting changes that will strengthen Port Townsend's ability to care for its own. This statement is a call to align our efforts to provide housing in service of community, belonging and social justice. Tonight the Port Townsend City Council will consider a packet of measures focused on removing barriers in the zoning code to make it easier and less expensive to build lower cost housing. Some of the proposed changes will help community-based organizations such as Habitat, Olympic Housing Trust, and Community Build to provide below market rate housing. Another change would enable local employers to leverage their land assets to offer new housing options for their employees. And, if approved, Port Townsend will become the first city in Washington to allow Tiny Homes on Wheels as ADUs. These changes have a common focus of empowering the community to care for itself through community -centered housing development. They support a vision of a caring, inclusive, participatory, and sustainable community built on caring relationships and locally - rooted, broad-based ownership of place -based assets. We believe these changes are in the spirit of what makes Port Townsend unique and that they will strengthen the community's ability to provide sufficient housing for all incomes and redress the injustices of exclusionary zoning that have resulted in historical patterns of class discrimination and racial segregation. These patterns persist over time and contribute to the racial wealth gap. For these reasons, we strongly support the following changes to Port Townsend's zoning code: Allowing tiny homes on wheels (also known as moveable tiny homes) as ADUs and employer-provided housing. According to Portland State University's 2022 research, the smallest conventional ADUs cost around $150 thousand compared to $45 to $82 thousand for a tiny home on wheels. Tiny homes on wheels are affordable housing for many and they are available now. Allowing extended stay tiny home on wheels communities in multiple zones. Because tiny home construction is not limited by local capacity to build new units and the infrastructure is simple, tiny home communities can be built in record time. They also provide an opportunity to extend community ownership to low income households. Simplifying cottage housing design requirements and allowing one cottage house per 1,500 sf in RII and RIII (subject to lot coverage requirements). These changes open up the opportunity for people to jointly invest in shared -resource, small-scale housing communities. Higher density infill housing is also one of the most effective ways to cut climate pollution and prevent sprawl. Allowing the conversion of single-family homes to multi -family housing. This change addresses the drain on resources of under-utilized single family housing. It needs to be followed with program resources offering financing, design, permitting and construction support to make conversions viable. Reducing permitting requirements for small-scale projects and adding the Unit Lot Subdivision process as an alternative to "condoizing" developments. The cost of permitting small-scale, more affordable housing developments is disproportionate to their benefits. These changes make permitting far less onerous and support community ownership of common resources. Because some in the community have voiced strong concerns around making changes without the city first having enacted an affordability mandate, we hope to have clarified the intent of the proposed changes. We too are concerned that policies and resources be targeted towards those most impacted by the crisis and oppose policies that privilege private interests over public benefits. At the same time, we do not see that opening access to land and housing for people with fewer resources than needed for a single family house — either through the proposed changes or through allowing duplexes and triplexes in single family zones — would prevent adopting a mandate that works to make affordable housing available. Rather, we see ending single family exclusionary zoning as a fundamental housing equity issue and a pathway for developing community -owned and controlled housing. The steps we take tonight as a community towards responsibly addressing the housing crisis is by no means the end of the road. There is still much work to be done. The city needs a housing plan that goes beyond zoning code changes. A just and inclusive plan would prioritize housing as a basic need rather than a profit opportunity, minimize displacement, and address the historical injustice of exclusionary zoning. We believe that we can reach the end of the road, if we travel together, and invite you to support the proposed zoning changes as an important step towards a caring, inclusive, participatory, and sustainable community. In community, Viki Sonntag, Peter Bonyun, David Berrian, Barbara Morey, Carol McCreary, Jack McCreary, Liz Berman, Julia Cochrane From: Amy Howard To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Fw: Leaning toward more housing Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:53:40 AM For the record. Amy Howard I she/her I Deputy Mayor I City Council Position 6 City of Port Townsend I vvvlNlvi 6 /.;drA ljlsI 250 Madison Street, Suite 2, Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-29801 F: 360-385-4290 Follow us on Facebook: ih i 1)1 I Help steer our future together with Engage PT: \1i\1vw Notice regarding public disclosure: The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity or official may be disclosable to third party requesters under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). From: Judy <lightenup@olympus.net> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 9:49 AM To: David Faber <DFaber@cityofpt.us>; Amy Howard <AHoward@cityofpt.us>; Aislinn Diamanti <adiamanti@cityofpt.us>; Ben Thomas <bthomas@cityofpt.us>; Monica MickHager <MMickhager@cityofpt.us>; Owen Rowe <orowe@cityofpt.us>; Iwennstrom@cityofpt.0 <Iwennstrom@cityofpt.u> Subject: Leaning toward more housing Dear City Council members, FIrst of all THANK YOU for doing the hard work of leading our community's urgent need for more housing, added to all the other issues you have to address as our elected leaders. I could not do your job, and very much appreciate that you all do it! Having been an activist who has focused all of my volunteer energies for the past 20 years on "community building", with leadership for the PT Peace Movement, the NW Earth Institute course proliferation, founding Local 20/20 (with others), instigating neighborhood -based community gardens and emergency preparedness efforts, and, more recently, by volunteering with Housing Solutions Network outreach HAT and getting Community Build rolling to create emergency housing for our homeless population, the foundation of ALL my volunteerism has first and foremost been to foster healthy, informed, and compassionate connectivity with all of us who call Jefferson County HOME. I have had my eyes very much opened the past few years, as many of us have, about the serious nature of our housing emergency. As I have awakened to the impact and seen restaurants closed, the hospital understaffed, the PUD having to incentivize hiring, just to name a few of the impacts TO our community of the shortage of affordable housing, I initially confronted despair - that ALL the work to develop a strong and heartfelt sense of community here could be lost as people with wealth from all over the nation have been discovering Port Townsend, "who we are, here" and flocking to buy housing in order to experience the utter benefits of what we have collectively sustained and created. I spent much of last summer and fall feeling angry, scared, and hopeless as housing costs climbed through the roof and people who grew up here, and naturally wanted to STAY here, had to make the heart -breaking choice to leave due to no longer being able to afford to live here. I am writing to beg you to be BOLD as you decide on what zoning changes make sense to install in our local code. By our essential nature, we ARE a compassionate community, an inclusive community, a connected community, and, a CARING community. Yet Jefferson County, like many other places, is being exposed to the forces of gentrification of our land and our housing by those with wealth. Due to the egregious income disparity in the world, I do not want those with excessive wealth to determine how WE get to live and WHO has to leave. To change what kind of community we have been means departing from our very essence as a community. Please protect permanently affordable access to the range of housing options that will allow our youth, our artists, and our general work force folks to be able to live here without an egregious commute to other counties to find housing they can afford. As decisions are being made on housing and zoning regulations, I implore you all to be bold enough to believe in the value of honoring who we have been and are at risk of losing, of our creative and artistic sensibilities. We can be an age -diverse, income diverse, racially diverse, and "every other kind of diverse" that makes a community a well-rounded, healthy culture to live within. Please vote from our essence as a community, and for who we WANT to be as a community recognizing what we want to protect and sustain about our past, as we move into our collective futures. Judith Alexander. Port Townsend resident From: Karyn Williams To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: Housing comments Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:00:05 PM Dear City of Port Townsend, I live in Chimacum and own Red Dog Farm, where we employ around 20 people annually. Finding workers who can locate afforadable housing is my biggest challenge as a business owner. My entry-level employees are able to afford around $800 per month. It is a real struggle for them to locate decent housing. Most end up in shared housing, trailers and the lucky few in ADUs or cabins. Those of my employees who are at a higher pay grade are eligible for home loans and desperately want to buy home or a land, but there is nothing available. This housing struggle has been going on for at least the past ten years, getting worse every year. My biggest concern is, What will happen in the next ten years? As a community we are clearly deficient in affordable housing now and the solutions are so minuscule in impact. We need a solution that will allow thousands of low income homes to be built every year starting immediately and continuously year after year. We are already behind and getting a late start on fixing the problem. Even with a huge improvement in 2024, we will still be in trouble. The solution needs to be drastic and ongoing. For those who live in PT and the surrounding areas, if you like eating out, shopping at grocery stores and other local stores, going to the farmers market, going to medical appointments, taking your pet to the vet, hiring home repair workers, etc. you are going to need to support low income housing. Without homes for workers, these services will not be available. As a business owner, I see the low income housing shortage as the number one concern for the survival of my business. If there is nowhere for workers to live, then they aren't available to work and businesses can't survive. Thank you for working on immediate and drastic solutions! Karyn Williams Red Dog Farm From: Kelsey Caudebec To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 2:53:14 PM Dear City Council, I'm glad to be here tonight to witness what I'm sure will be a thoughtful and robust deliberation session on code amendments and local housing. And as I've said before: regardless of whether or not we all agree on how to go about fixing it, I personally do feel that everyone on City Council genuinely wants to address our affordable housing crisis. I'm grateful for this and hold this in mind during all of these conversations. As many others here in the room tonight believe: obviously, market rate housing is going to occur, whatever happens. A certain amount of market rate housing is absolutely healthy and necessary for our community. Let's be sure, however, that moving forward - through these code adjustments, the next Comprehensive Plan, and beyond - that an increase in housing isn't only market rate. Recently someone shared with us an article that provided the following statistic: that for every 10% of new units built, the average price went down 1%. By that math, and using today's numbers, a 30% increase in housing here would take only about $19,000 off the 2022 Jefferson County median home sale of $615,000. Sure, that's something, but who does that help, when the resulting sum is still twice what the average local household can afford? And what if the land used to build all that market rate housing, was land that could have been used by an affordable housing provider or land trust? What is the net outcome for affordability for those who live here? One pertinent factor that makes our situation more complicated by comparison to some other areas where studies on this subject have been done, is that we are so geographically limited. Additionally, many of these studies focus on large metro areas - not small, rural communities like ours. Of course we need to build more, and of course some of that is going to be market rate. Moving forward, let's be sure that it's not only market rate. That's my two cents for tonight. I know you have many other public comments to read and that you have a long discussion ahead. I know you all care about this community and I thank you for taking on this important work. Sincerely, Kelsey Caudebec Network Weaver Housing Solutions Network From: Kellen Lynch To: oubliccomment(o)citvofot.us Subject: Olympic Housing Trust Comment 3/20/23 Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:59:32 AM Attachments: imaae001.ono imaae002.ono OFT Statement to City Council.Ddf Please find the public comment from the Olympic Housing Plan attached, as well as pasted into the body of this email: As a local non-profit housing developer, our team at the.Q pic dousing Trual is broadly supportive of the recent proposed code amendments regarding infill. We appreciate the City staff, volunteer Planning Commission, and City Council members devoting their attention to the opportunities that these changes may yield. _I I { I � l I fY I ;I Dundee Hill f^ERI@ l tlCf�e,AII C`ENlE i. I it I,kf fid rClADBAND f ..� I41.'Y"VVOI: CIN C1:.1='dM NAl... �^ p��Sl ill ECtiCllufi ,� 11PV1T lr�d .r A' ,LL NEW LAND)el"Fv.PIN � ro1d1 I'gmIVII o[l ALVIrkI fi L IES '115 L1WDUC:'AHI ICCLY_.IRAINI COMMON ROOM M / fl ^!BIKE PARKNO .... I K,f f rF.frll-I G.Y TYP F11 MY A primary benefit to our organization will be the addition of the unit lot subdivision, as it will positively and immediately impact our new affordable housing project within Port Townsend on Dundee Hill. To this end, the City is meeting its stated strategic goal of "establish[ing] systems to support diverse housing options with perpetual affordability", albeit by relying upon non profit developers to get there. We must underline four key takeaways for the City Council members to understand and support: 1. Any future density increase in the current zoning should be applied towards inclusionary affordable housing policies, which despite the critics, has absolutely been a tool for cities to retain control of local community development. 2. To enable local non profit developers in their work, help organizations like OHT pursue grant funding or environmental reviews that require city government sponsorship, such as CDBG or NEPA 3. We do understand the City's push for infill, and we request that the City delay on promoting additional density elements until the next cycle of the City amendment recommendations, after such time that an Affordable Housing Strategy can be drafted and a density plan can be administered. We must advocate for the City to assume their inherent leadership position and convene the local housing organizations in a meaningful and ongoing dialogue. This coalition of voices must include the range of housing providers, developers, and advocates. Thank you for your work, Olympic Housing Trust Board of Directors Jesse Thomas Teri Nomura Rachael Dunn Ted Howard Kristina Stimson Olympic Housing Trust P.O. Box 1537 Port Townsend, WA 98368 tplympic h��rrsin �st.c�r :.� . dyni i�h�ausin�Araa A orrg Kellen Lynch I Outreach Coordinator 206-384-2135 try,,.w.w..:r7,I,y,,,m..picr7ousin�trust.c�rg Olympic Housing Trust (OHT) Statement to City Council 3/20/23 As a local non-profit housing developer, our team at the C7lwmpic Housing Trust is broadly supportive of the recent proposed code amendments regarding infill. We appreciate the City staff, volunteer Planning Commission, and City Council members devoting their attention to the opportunities that these changes may yield. Dundee Hill PFRI11W YFIR, C,Nlwl]I-NFFNGF BROM+o-W bi, ftfr'rvvo w it"F'dM6Nr' I q " 3 Rf FROOM i � ` kal �)h4 <711R IC7 p^ V M M, 1p 11"I N I f f,` `' C?'�r11R1rtf IR�OT`v'eG."�{'+lbl Iwl w AILI - n NCI Yl, � .. i � � N) I iIh s nwpy, c, CHIMIMS P°4P G"z". J P W/ Y_ J111Q. ,'MRI€.IIN ' 101 SPTHACK ............................ .,.o. A primary benefit to our organization will be the addition of the unit lot subdivision, as it will positively and immediately impact our new affordable housing project within Port Townsend on Dundee Hill. To this end, the City is meeting its stated strategic goal of "establish[ing] systems to support diverse housing options with perpetual affordability", albeit by relying upon non profit developers to get there. We must underline four key takeaways for the City Council members to understand and support: 1. Any future density increase in the current zoning should be applied towards inclusionary affordable housing policies, which despite the critics, has absolutely been a tool for cities to retain control of local community development. 2. To enable local non profit developers in their work, help organizations like OHT pursue grant funding or environmental reviews that require city government sponsorship, such as CDBG or NEPA 3. We do understand the City's push for infill, and we request that the City delay on promoting additional density elements until the next cycle of the City amendment recommendations, after such time that an Affordable Housing Strategy can be drafted and a density plan can be administered. We must advocate for the City to assume their inherent leadership position and convene the local housing organizations in a meaningful and ongoing dialogue. This coalition of voices must include the range of housing providers, developers, and advocates. Thank you for your work, Olympic Housing Trust Board of Directors Jesse Thomas Teri Nomura Rachael Dunn Ted Howard Kristina Stimson Olympic Housing Trust P.O. Box 1537 Port Townsend, WA 98368 of mpichousintrust.org info@olympichousingtrust.org From: Debbi Steele To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: We want PT to Prioritize Affordable Workforce Housing! Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:06:49 PM It is no surprise to anyone that there is a housing crisis in Jefferson County and Port Townsend. The surprise is that we haven't done more sooner. We can make up this gap by changing and improving city housing/planning policies. We need more affordable housing and we need it now. Any and all changes you can make to facilitate that are needed now. Make more housing affordable for people who live and work here. It's a housing issue, it's a transportation issue, it's a climate issue. Debbi Steele Community Build Volunteer 2205 Redwood St. Port Townsend, 98368 805.312.6547 From: Steve Moore To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Affordable housing in Zoning Changes Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 3:24:07 PM Dear Mayor Faber, Council Members, and Planning Commission Members I know that tonight and next Monday you are meeting to decide what changes will be made in the city's zoning code - and I just want to reiterate that I feel that it is very important that we solve the problem of the lack of affordable housing for our workforce. The statistics are clear - we are tremendously short in housing that our actual workforce can afford to own or rent - and I am very concerned that our community will become much less desirable for anyone to live in if our businesses begin to close or offer poor service due to a lack of employees - there is definitely a trickle down effect in the offing here, in my opinion. Further, we are an aging population here and are faced with a medical care system that is lacking many critical staff because they cannot find places to live if they try to move here. That puts all of us at risk - and is certainly not a characteristic of a desirable place to live! Those surveys always rate healthcare as an important component of their rankings. It is my hope that, even at the 11th hour, the city will slow down and take action to address affordable housing in all of its zoning changes. Specifically, I support the request that all new development include at least 30% housing that is affordable to community members who earn 80-150% of AMI. Please do the right thing. Steve Moore 2904 Jackman Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (3 60) 774-1160 From: Megan Brookens To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: In Support of Affordable Housing Solutions Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 3:54:15 PM Dear City Council, am writing in support of changes to allow for more affordable housing for our community. We need comprehensive solutions for the issues we are facing today and a plan for the future. We absolutely need more housing options and higher density housing AND we desperately need an increase specific in affordable housing. This includes designating and restricting future development to focus on units that will be affordable for low and middle income people — for our healthcare workers, service industry workers, farmworkers, educators, social service workers, EMS/firefighters, maritime workers, etc. We also have a lot of folks who are housing insecure or experiencing homelessness and we need accessible transitional and emergency housing units close to the social services that most vulnerable folks in our community need to access. Housing costs have skyrocketed and families that live here year round can't afford to rent an apartment let alone own a house. We need affordable home ownership options including tiny houses (fixed and on wheels), townhomes/multi family building, large apartment complexes, etc. A lot of rentals that are available in the area are only available for a few months and many houses sit vacant from owners who only live here for part of the year. Airbnb and other temporary rental sites for this area can also reduce options for existing spaces that people can rent longer term. Restrictions on vacation rentals and Airbnb have shown promise in other communities. I know many people who have had to rent from high cost, short term airbnbs, who have had to crash with friends, or even turn down jobs because there was no where for them to live. This is not sustainable for our community and we are at high risk for a shortage of essential workers due to the lack of affordable housing. We need to change our zoning laws to be more inclusionary for folks to find a space for tiny houses. I urge you to make changes for additional ADU and tiny houses as well. Thank you, Megan Brookens From: Barbara Morey To: publiccomment(&cityofot. us Subject: Public Comment re: Proposed Infill Zoning changes/Affordable Housing Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 3:14:23 PM As a housing advocate, I see ending single family exclusionary zoning as a fundamental housing equity issue. At the same time, I am concerned that resources to support these efforts be targeted towards those most impacted by the housing crisis, while ensuring that factors contributing to for-profit development, gentrification or displacement are mitigated in implementing the proposed zoning changes. Efforts implementing these kinds of regulations and related policies have often supported privileged private sector interests over public benefits, and may function to create a supply of market priced residential and commercial developments that can lead to rapid increases in housing costs rather than expanding affordable housing for existing residents. As these new regulations are implemented, we also need to ensure that everyone can benefit from new regulations and policies that result in both public and private investments in housing. The proposed zoning, subdivision, and administrative procedure amendments are a feasible step in addressing the spectrum of our community's housing needs and help our community address the historical injustice of exclusionary zoning. I support this effort and offer thanks to the many community members, agencies, and planning bodies that have worked hard to develop this plan to address the crisis in affordable housing that we face in our rural communities. There is still much work to be done. The city needs a housing plan that goes beyond zoning code changes. A just and inclusive comprehensive plan would prioritize housing as a basic right-- rather than simply a profit opportunity - minimize displacement, and mitigate potential gentrification that could further exacerbate our housing crisis. Improvements made for the exclusive or primary benefit of middle- and upper-income residents constitute "gentrification." Research findings on the patterns, causes, and consequences of gentrification point to both challenges and opportunities for policymakers. Because gentrification can occur without direct displacement-- such as when higher -income groups move into previously affordable neighborhoods or communities and occupy market rate housing developments that were created to address the existing lack of housing-- both the cultural and financial landscape of the neighborhood/community may be significantly altered. Policymakers should continue to focus on strategies that amplify affordable benefits for long-term residents, while limiting the impact of gentrification and other potential, but unanticipated, negative consequences through which geographical areas become increasingly exclusive ( and expensive,) and disproportionately harms people living in poverty (or earning the local AMI) and people of color, as well as the elderly, families, and youth. Thank you, again, for your diligence and concerted efforts to create more sustainable/affordable housing for our community. 1 encourage you to adopt the proposed zoning changes that would expand our affordable housing through infill units, including Tiny Houses On Wheels (THOWS), and target the positive potential impacts on our community in implementation of these policies. It takes the whole village... Barbara Morey, Housing Advocate Previous Owner of residential rental properties (1983-2018) Limited -Income Senior Tenant Nevertheless, she persisted... From: Sol Riou To: PublicComment(acityofpt.us Subject: We want PT to Prioritize Affordable Workforce Housing! Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 3:31:57 PM Please support tiny houses with and without wheels, adorable housing, adu"s! The future of our community will be determined by your creativity tonight regarding enough below market housing available for workers in our community! Thank you for your concern regarding this desperate need - Sol Riou, MSW n� (�' 1 �, ityof port ���fi11N@INO�llo�4 '10wn e n Submitted By: Heidi Greenwood Department: City Attorney SUBJECT: Poet Laureate CATEGORY: ❑ Consent El El El X❑ Staff Report ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance Agenda Bill AB23-148 Meeting Date: March 27, 2023 Agenda Item: IV.a. ❑ Regular Business Meeting ❑ Workshop/Study Session ❑X Special Business Meeting Date Submitted: March 9, 2023 Contact Phone: 360-379-5048 BUDGET IMPACT: Expenditure Amount (2023): $900 Included in Budget? Yes 0 No ❑ Contract Approval ❑ Other: Discussion Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted) 3 -Year Strategic Plan: 1 - Build small town quality of life Cost Allocation Fund: SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Port Townsend Arts Commission (PTAC) has spent the last year researching and formulating a Port Townsend Poet Laureate proposal. The proposal calls for the Mayor to appoint a Poet Laureate for 2024 with a possible extension for 2025. The Poet Laureate would be appointed based on a recommendation from selection panel of experts identified by the PTAC, a PTAC member, and a City Council representative. The PTAC proposed paying the experts appointed to the selection panel a $300 honorarium for vetting applications and recommending a Poet Laureate. These funds are part of the PTAC budget. During 2024, the Poet Laureate receive an honorarium of $1200 and would provide no less than four publicly accessible events with an additional option of two more events, write one or more poems about a theme integral to the City, work with the Port Townsend Library on educational programing, and create a special project for the City. Since this $1200 would be spent in 2024, it is not yet clear where the funds will be budgeted. But the PTAC has committed to using their arts funds if the City Council does not separately budget for the Poet Laureate. The PTAC hopes that the commitment by City staff will be minimal beyond preparing the contracts, ensuring contract compliance, and processing the financial payments. The PTAC has coordinated with the Port Townsend Public Library regarding educational programing and the Library's participation in the Poet Laureate program. This proposal is for a pilot program. The PTAC plans to review the program following 2024 for future consideration. The PTAC is reviewing possible metrics to gauge the Poet Laureate program success and would welcome Council input regarding those metrics. ATTACHMENTS: Poet Laureate Proposal CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its February 8, 2023 meeting, the City Council Culture and Society Committee recommended approval of the poet laureate proposal as a pilot project for 2023-2024. The Culture and Society Committee also proposed that Council Member Thomas be appointed as the Council representative to the Poet Laureate selection panel. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to authorize the Mayor to appoint a Port Townsend Poet Laureate, as recommended by the Port Townsend Arts Commission, for calendar year 2024. ALTERNATIVES: x❑ Take No Action ❑x Refer to Committee N Refer to Staff x❑ Postpone Action ❑ Remove from Consent Agenda ❑ Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ❑ Other: Port Townsend Arts Commission Poet Laureate Program Proposal Poet Laureate Proposal Port Townsend Poet Laureate, a service -contract position co -managed by the City of Port Townsend Culture and Society Committee (CSC) and the Port Townsend Arts Commission (PTAC) and in partnership with the Port Townsend Public Library Program Background The City of Port Townsend is pleased to announce the inauguration of the City of Port Townsend Poet Laureate program, which is managed as a collaboration between the Culture and Society Committee (CSC) and the Port Townsend Arts Commission (PTAC), and supported by the Port Townsend Public Library. The Poet Laureate Program is established 2023. The first term of the Poet Laureate of Port Townsend January of 2024. Program Goals and Objectives The City seeks to name one Poet Laureate to serve, per term, an honorary position as ambassador of Port Townsend's active creative community, promoting the City's robust literary arts and celebrating the written word. The objectives of the program include: • Enhance the creation and appreciation of poetry and the literary arts; • Demonstrate the City's commitment to the literary arts and welcome artists into civic discourse; • Create a focal point and an official voice for the expression of Port Townsend's culture through the literary arts; • Contribute to the growth of the individual Poet Laureate; • Raise awareness of the power of poetry, written word, and the spoken word; • Inspire an emerging generation of critical thinkers, writers, and storytellers; • Provide a forum for cross pollination of art forms; DRAFT, Page 2 of 8 • Celebrate the cultural heritage, the spirit of the people, and the unique qualities of our region; • Create a unique program that will inspire other communities to celebrate poetry; • Collect new literary works that celebrate the diversity and vibrancy of Port Townsend and East Jefferson County for a growing body of work that commemorates the life of our region. Poet Laureate Eligibility The poet must: • Be at least 1S years of age at the time of nomination or application; • Have been a Port Townsend (or East Jefferson County) resident for at least one year prior to the application/nomination deadline and remain a resident throughout the one or two-year term; • Be committed to bringing poetry to a wide range of places and people; • Be able and available to reach East Jefferson County audiences through travel and other means; • Provide evidence of achievement in the art of poetry; • Have demonstrated a previous commitment to promoting awareness of poetry; • Be prepared to undertake the public role required of the laureate. Review Process The Port Townsend Poet Laureate Panel, as seated by the PTAC, and approved by the CSC, will be a small team of persons with a combined knowledge about: creative writing, public programs, and the City of Port Townsend, and will include a representative of the CSC and the PTAC. The Port Townsend Poet Laureate Panel will review and vet the applications and recommend the Poet Laureate to the Mayor. The selection process is coordinated by the PTAC and the Mayor's Office. Guiding principles for the program as follows: • An open call for poets; • Applicants for the contract -position of Poet Laureate will reside in East Jefferson County; • A two-part review process will be enacted: • Stage One: open submissions will be reviewed. All eligible submissions will be considered. Applicants will submit the following: DRAFT, Page 3 of 8 • Full curriculum vitae; • Short biographical statement; • Four to six recent poems (from the last three years); • Short narrative (no more than 2 pages) articulating how they will fulfill the scope of work of the position; • Stage Two: three to five finalists will be interviewed by the Port Townsend Poet Laureate Panel Appointment The Mayor will appoint the Port Townsend Poet Laureate in December of a calendar year, to announce in January, the beginning of Poet Laureate term. Poet Laureate Honorarium The Port Townsend Poet Laureate will be contracted by the City of Port Townsend and the Port Townsend Arts Commission and receive an honorarium of $1,200 made in two payments of $600 based on benchmarks established in the legal contract. Because the City operates with fiscal -year budgets, at the end of the year, the PTAC and CSC will review the reflections and contract of the Poet Laureate to ensure all duties and responsibilities were fulfilled before issuing a second year contract for the full term. Port Townsend Poet Laureate Panel An honorarium for three panelists each to receive $300 for their service in support of interviewing and vetting application submissions for the Port Townsend Poet Laureate. A City Council representative and an Arts Commission representative will be offering their civic service as volunteers to the literary arts and the community in their standard operating practices with the City of Port Townsend appointment to advisory boards and committees. DRAFT, Page 4 of 8 Scope of Work for Term The Poet Laureate will fulfill their scope of work during the calendar year. The scope of work is three fold: 1. The first duty is ceremonial, as the voice of the city the Poet Laureate will: • Provide no less than four public, accessible events across East Jefferson County (at various locations discussed by the CSC, PTAC, and Poet Laureate); • These might include: • First City Council Meeting • Public Art Dedications • Public Building Dedications • In addition, the Mayor's office may recommend two more optional activities; • Write one or more commemorative poem(s) each year of term relating to an integral theme to East Jefferson County to be included in a potential anthology or a library of poetry for public installations. 2. The second duty of the Poet Laureate is educational. The Poet Laureate will: • Write quarterly social media/newsletter updates, work with Port Townsend Public Library and the City staff for educational communications that encourage excitement about poetry, literacy, and literary events in the city; • Participate and coordinate with the Port Townsend Public Library during National Poetry Month (April), potentially creating a residency for the month in the Carnegie Room; • Engage East Jefferson County residents, visitors, civic and elected leaders, youth, seniors, and students of all ages about the value of poetry, creative writing, narrative expression through two or more self -coordinated, community partnered activities that are reviewed and approved by the PTAC; 3. The third duty of the Poet Laureate is inspirational and offers poetic nourishment for years to come to celebrate the City of Port Townsend, the Poet Laureate will: • Create a special project proposed by the poet which will: • Nourish the poet's own poetic growth and interests; • Inspire community around literary arts, poetry, and literacy; • Creatively engage community in poetry; • Offer a unique legacy for both poetry and the Poet Laureate in the city; • Be reviewed and approved by the Port Townsend Arts Commission. DRAFT, Page 5 of 8 • Ideas for the Poet Laureate's special project include: • A series of readings at unique sites; • A series of workshops at unique sites; • A collaboration with a community organization; • A library of poetry by residents via an open call to all regional poets. • Determine that the project does not conflict with existing programs or readings in the City. Review Criteria All submissions in stage one of review process will be reviewed and scored as follows: • The candidate's prior experience on their resume and/or website; • The quality of poetry submitted; • The quality of the proposal. Submission Materials Each applicant shall prepare to provide the following: • Full name • Residence address (must be within East Jefferson County) • Contact phone number • Contact email address • Website and/or relevant social media • Biographical statement (7-10 sentences) Materials: • Four - six poems from the last three years • Brief narrative (1-2 pages) outlining your intent within the scope of work • Curriculum vitae • Please curate your resume to highlight your literary accomplishments and service to the poetry field. DRAFT, Page 6 of 8 Proposed Poet Laureate Program Details Specific to 2023 Timeline February — review and submit the panelist recommendations to the culture and society committee/mayor. Notify panelists and issue contracts. March — City Council discusses Port Townsend Poet Laureate Program April — Announcement an dCall for Applications (Port Townsend Public Library supports this process, and some panelists will work with the library to call for applications/generate excitement). May 31— Deadline for nominations to be received June—Poet Laureate Panel meets to select 3-5 finalists July— Finalist interviews August—Poet Laureate recommendations submitted to the Mayor's Office and Poet Laureate notified September -December — PTAC meets and plans with Poet Laureate to discuss plans Panelists for 2023 Review for 2024 Inaugural Port Townsend Poet Laureate Ellie Matthews Ellie Mathews takes pleasure in keeping a couple hundred fonts of metal type organized. She holds a degree in geography from the University of Washington with emphasis on cartography and graphic arts. She worked in design and software development. She is the author of four books: two nonfiction, a middle grades novel and a memoir. She has won cooking and writing awards including the Milkweed Prize for Children's Literature, a grant from the Seattle Artists Program for Literary Artists, a Fishtrap Fellowship, and the Pillsbury Bake -Off grand prize. Ellie Matthews is on the Port Townsend Public Library Advisory Board and has spent time curating the poetry section. DRAFT, Page 7 of 8 Lisbeth White Lisbeth White (she/her) is a lover of the earth, wanderer of lands, poet, expressive arts therapist, developmental editor, elemental energy healer, listener, and ancestor celebrant. She is certain our collective liberation is intricately tied to ancestral earth wisdom and firmly believes each of us has boundless capacity within to be our own wisest healers. She has received awards, fellowships, and residencies from VONA, Callaloo, Tin House, Writing By Writers, Corporeal Writing, Bread Loaf Environmental Writer's Conference, The Dickinson House, and Blue Mountain Center. She is a co -collaborator connecting Black artists and writers with social and healing justice organizations for mutual inspiration and support. Shin Yu Pai Shin Yu Pai is a Seattle -based writer and the author of 11 books, including most recently Virga (Empty Bowl, 2021). She is the recipient of awards from the City of Seattle's Office of Arts & Culture, 4Culture, and The Awesome Foundation. She is a 2022 Artist Trust Fellow and was shortlisted in 2014 for a Stranger Genius Award in Literature. From 2015 to 2017, Shin Yu served as Poet Laureate for The City of Redmond. Her writing has appeared in Atlas Obscura, Tricycle Magazine, YES! Magazine, NYTimes, Zocalo Public Square, Seattle Met, ParentMap, Seattle's Child, International Examiner, and South Seattle Emerald. Her work has appeared in publications throughout the U.S., Japan, China, Taiwan, the UK, and Canada. Shin Yu is the writer, host, and producer of The Blue Suit — a podcast on Asian American stories for KUOW Public Radio, Seattle's NPR affiliate station. The Blue Suit launched in July 2022 and is currently in production for a second season, which will begin releasing episodes in May 2023. New books are forthcoming in 2023 from Empty Bowl Press and Blue Cactus Press. (Shin Yu Pai was just announced as Seattle's Civic Poet!) DRAFT, Page 8 of 8 n� (�' 1 �, ityof port ���fi11N@INO�llo�4 '10wn e n Agenda Bill AB23-149 Meeting Date: March 27, 2023 Agenda Item: IV.b ❑ Regular Business Meeting ❑ Workshop/Study Session ❑x Special Business Meeting Submitted By: Connie Anderson, Finance Director Date Submitted: March 16, 2023 Department: Finance Contact Phone: 360-379-4403 SUBJECT: Year End 2022 Financial Update CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: ❑ Consent ❑ Resolution Expenditure Amount: ❑x Staff Report ❑ Ordinance Included in Budget? Yes ❑ No ❑x ❑ Contract Approval ❑ Other: ❑ Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted) ❑ 3 -Year Strategic Plan: N/A Cost Allocation Fund: N/A SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Year End Financial Report for 2022 provides a summary of the financial activity through December. These results are preliminary and unaudited. Financial results remained strong through the end of the year, resulting in solid ending fund balances or reserves. We have started 2023 with healthy reserves — truly a great place to start! Key revenues such as sales tax (T $765k), lodging tax (T $164k), and real estate excise tax (T $400k) as well as development and permitting fees (T $210k) came in higher than budgeted. Expenses remained under budget primarily due to continued underspending in salaries and benefits (,-L $962k) because of vacancies and timing on capital projects. While the reduction in expenses looks good on the financial statements, the actual cost is felt in lost productivity across the organization with both operational and capital project work left undone. Staffing has remained a challenge across the organization, with a current vacancy rate of about 15%, which equals approximately 15 positions out of the 100.70 approved positions in the 2023 Adopted Budget. The City is actively recruiting and reviewing all open positions. Because of the higher-than-expected revenues and lower expenses, the Ending Fund Balances are higher than originally estimated resulting in above Council Policy Fund Target percentages. The results are included on the attached 2022 Financial Policy Review Scorecard. In the 2023 budget estimates, the 2022 General Fund ending balance was estimated to come in around $5.3 million. The actual ending fund balance was $6.7 million, $1.4 million above the mid -year estimates. This $1.4 million almost covered the early debt payoff from earlier this month. The City begins the year in a good financial position. City staff are keeping an eye on the future. There are many unanswered questions such as will there be a recession? or will the consumer price index (cpi) stabilize allowing for things to settle down? There is no way to know the future, but the goal is to remain thoughtful and diligent while utilizing the resources we have available without overextending our bounds. We are continuously looking for the right balance. As a cash basis reporting entity, some of the variances to the annual budget identified in the report summaries may be a result of timing of either the cash receipt of the revenues or cash payment of the expenditures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2022 Year End Fund Summary 2. 2022 Financial Policy Review Scorecard CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action Required ALTERNATIVES: ❑ Take No Action ❑ Refer to Committee ❑ Refer to Staff ❑ Postpone Action ❑ Remove from Consent Agenda ❑ Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ❑ Other: t>4 ty� lh V otO n o M m� n O m m N b: W V� y� c0 0 co C O SD m m: n rti o o o W m n rt N to M VS Cti .r 00 m N .ti tD a m n n w ry M .mi o m m O O ti ry tri N .r tD w 01 m m M D1 lD r l6 ID N oo o N ill . a' f0 W, xi My o m. ry ry tD o I� SD W a T OJ Ol I� m m m o O 00 �p j Q m iri a V ry O O itt N G9 N O uni W Vi <D V .i a o io .m V N ry of C C N ti oo o o m ry to O 00 `J 0 +� N N J' N V ID `" n m .J 00 OD M n 00 n L..I... N M m o o NO rw.. iD n iD �0 00 01 cn O m o V 0 OI M tD x iy O N w O i0 O W .-i � M h' o M n m o V O m O � V l0 � 4D CO v1' �I-I` m 0. O '-' O o ti _. �-.: 01 M O ^ O� to ti ry ry cn N W �,. V O1 V ea•1 ry Ol O N K } v,,. N N °\° °\° C O m O a to N Cy �O ^ 00 n m19 '1 C C w � co N e•I N 3 o m x W 0 V O �• O �• n�� �• m n Ory 0 O W 0 O W W �0 N ry 0 W W Foo I15 W N •: O m M N t0 M O Oi O O n vm v O .-i V~i om O W � O a m m tT O N m c N M W a l7 M',.. ry a _ �: uM1 �� r, m _ _ ry N N A. m M O U.... .... e•i a m ryN rnN� � mO:: wV ao � o 'D O °o^ m 0i OON neoi c10 lLr . cO.+ ✓, o O y ry0w .m oWf N x to o0 mo M W 06 Y n m o ei OlT of O O tiD M 00 o n n m o N io 00 O n �0 00 M N a N O M C o O W 10 OI ry.. ID N N. .••i O N tU O4 N Q1 V tD m M V' } V m O O M ri O V n v1 1p' M y o tD ry N nn N a N n m o o ati oS .. N m m m m O N N. N W o W m M. c7 tD i=1. lD Dl N N O N O n 0 m o . n o l0 m M w LD N w � o m y W r V, M m o aio ± ^' m y N ry v oO m W. M W O00 fT. N N io l~D O 00 N m m N O O O d1 N M W m o a C O� •� N o n o Oo n O l0 C n: Q l7 VI IOD N; .ti C N M m n #. a-1 ti 1A U m a ie Cnn u oo OW r b n ^0 O m0) C 00C m NW NnNV C M 00 ii 1 N n N u� d rm o W 0 0 0 0 O Wiy ry o o 0 0 N W m M om O V m V W N ory O C n Ol w oN o ✓t O OI N: n iF d Q G ti m N C, o v ^ o ai o o' .. a N t,y "�. ry •. N v ry .+ ry O is .m.P a o ry oc N o m M o a o ry M M Ol m N C N z a oo lz 1 r nOi vNi M 0J N W o 0: o .+ 41 01 W Oo �n -r- 0 N t+l ^ vt 41, M o N N a a iD m n 1 o ryl W l0 W I� W n m o o m c m N N W a V ry n OI 41 N ti M: O M •- O . lD m M .. �: .. �n of m vi m n M w t0 m o a n v �n W I m v Ro 00 o of v o n O C ry o w in W a N:: LM a N I m io O n m ry m m O m m if' ry r••i In 10 E m M, N 14 N m ry O N M: W E U u Ln M 01 N N E ca ? LL 0 C 'a Y7 N m : Z O E v v u ¢ Z o Q.w LL a LL N Q� s LL o LU 0 o LA •` Q " � M O �) J {l: W N W ¢ � vi LL .E � O � - � ZF Z: J V V Y- 0 0 u y a w Q O c N c N w e LL F u v> 3 3 m :9 LA a O d ++ W u w m rsv 3 J vl ° u F o O u K ¢ v¢ c ,� Q V O > Z m ° m o E E H m v a E w K zi o Z 0 0 U w N r LL C7 4 ¢ - Jo ¢ u f5,. l7 in Lo' O ✓t v� ? u C7 STATUS OF PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO FINANCIAL POLICIES City of Port Townsend Ending Fund Balance Scorecard FUNDS COUNCIL POLICY FUND TARGET (Policy Adopted July, 2018) 2018 Actual Fund Reserve % 2019 Actual Fund I Reserve % 2020 Actual Fund Reserve % 2021 Actual Fund I Reserve % 2022 Estimated Fund Reserve % General Operating Fund General Fund (excluding ARPAfunds) 18 - 15% of operating revenue 1 20.4%1 20.4% 23.2% 58.0% 55.0% Special Revenue Funds Contingency Fund No less than 2% of estimated operating revenue 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.07. Street Fund 2 - 3% of expenditures 47.1% 26.3% 55.6% 55.0% 46.0% Library Fund 5 - 8% of property tax revenue 23.2% 20.1% 31.9% 52.0% 54.0% Real Estate Excise Tax Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Lodging Tax Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meetsi Meets Meets Fire & EMS Services Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Affordable Housing Trust Fund ISufficient to meet obligations I Meetsj Meets Meets Meets Meets Community Development Block Grant Fund ISufficient to meet obligations I Meetsj Meets Meets Meets Meets Community Services Fund 12 - 3% of expenditures 1 4.6%1 5.0% 13.1% 30.0% 29.0% General Obligation Debt Service Fund G.O. Debt Service Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meetsj Meets Meets Meets Meets Capital Projects Funds General Capital Improvement Funds Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Street Vacation Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Street Capital Improvement Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets 2015 Bond Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets 2017 Bond Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Enterprise Funds System Development Charges Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Water Sewer Operating Fund 60 days of operating expenses 226 1D2 150 177 163 Water Sewer Capital Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Stormwater Operating Fund 60 days of operating expenses 137 81 106 318 190 Stormwater Capital Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Transmission Line Replacement Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets 78 Water Sewer Revenue Bond Fund Sufficient to meet obligations I Meets Meets N/A N/A N/A Utility Debt Reserve Fund ISufficient to meet obligations I Meetsj Meetsj Meets Meets Meets Golf Course Fund ISufficient to meet obligations I Meetsj Meetsj Meets Meets Meets Internal Service Funds Public Works Admin Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meetsl Meets Meets Meets Meets Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Sufficient to meet obligations under review Meets Meets Meets Engineering Service Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meetsi Meets Meetsj Meets Meets Self-Insurance Unemployment Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meetsj Meets Meetsj Meets Meets Fiduciary Funds Firemen's Pension Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meetsj Meetsj Meetsj Meets Meets Refundable Deposits Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meetsl Meetsl Meetsl Meets Meets Agency Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meetsj Meetsj Meetsj Meets Meets Memorial Fund Sufficient to meet obligations Meetsj Meetsj Meetsj Meets Meets GO Debt Service as a % of General Government Revenue 2018 Actual 1 2019 Actual 1 2020 Actual 1 2021 Actual 2022 Estimated Annual Debt Service as % of Revenue IlLess than 15% 1 10.4%1 1D.6%1 12.2%1 11.5% 11.1%