Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07122004 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND t. ~?' ", ;!~;:. ~ '!'~.I:II'! CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF JULY 12,2004 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council ofthe City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this twelfth day of July, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the Olympic Room of the Waterman & Katz Building, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Freida Fenn and Kees Kolffwere excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Planning Director Jeff Randall, Planner Jean Walat, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. Planning Commissioner Alice King and architect/developer Ross Chapin were also present. Jean Walat presented the staff report, beginning with a review of outstanding issues to be addressed at the workshop. Council has previously identified these issues at meetings . and workshops. COTTAGE HOUSING Low Impact Development Techniques The LID section was put together with help from the Puget Sound Action Team; Ms. Walat stated the technique is so new that there are no existing standards for developers; therefore the developer will be accountable for doing an evaluation of techniques and whether or not they will work on the site, and use these techniques whenever possible. Mr. Randall stated that the complexity of the maintenance agreement follows the complexity of the project; he added this isn't really a new requirement, but does let people know that the process is applicable to a cottage housing project. Mrs. Medlicott asked that the language be made clearer; for example, "city stormwater standards apply, but in cottage housing projects, we encourage low impact techniques." Mr. Benskin stated that some jurisdictions require low impact techniques because they work and are a good thing; he is in favor of establishing as a requirement rather than an option. . City Council Workshop Meeting Page J July J 2, 2004 Staff will develop alternative language for this section. · Ownership options beyond the condominium model Ms. Walat noted that when a binding site plan (which is required for a cottage housing project) is done, it specifically requires a condominium form of ownership. The staff has suggested language that would allow expanded ownership options such as associations, cooperatives or other similar techniques. Mr. Watts stated that this is broad enough so that if another alternative form is offered, it can be accommodated with this language in place. Limitations on rental of units Mr. Watts has stated he does not believe the City can legally place restrictions on an owners right to rent property; however a condominium or homeowners association could choose to place such a restriction in their own CCRs. It is recommended that the placeholder for general rental restrictions be deleted. Options specifically for affordable units will be researched. Required separation of Cottage Housing Developments in R-I zone · Staff recommends some separation to preserve the underlying density pattern of the zone (4 dwelling units per 40,000 square feet). A recommendation of 500 feet has been suggested. Planning Commissioner Alice King stated that the Planning Commission did not recommend a separation requirement as they thought it was a property rights issue since the first developer of a CHD would impact the right of others to create similar developments. Mr . Watts stated this is not technically a rights issue because you are using a special use permit; there is not right to develop and it can be argued that a separation requirement would serve the greater good. Mr. Timmons asked about shoreline or bluff situations in terms of the intensity of development. Ms. Walat stated the project would be required to meet ESA requirements. Mr. Randall also noted the shoreline regulations would apply to take care of most site-specific issues. Mr. Timmons asked if cottage developments would be prohibited in shoreline setbacks. Ms. Walat stated that shorelines takes precedence over zoning so that is probably what would happen. Staff will bring forward language to set a moratorium on such developments until the new Shoreline Master Program comes into effect. · City Council Workshop Meeting Page 2 July J 2, 2004 · The council favored either the 200 or 500 foot separation with support for applying it in both R-I and R-II zones. PUD provision for allowing more than the maximum number of cottages allowed in CHD chapter. Consensus was to remove the provision for processing CHDs with more than allowed number of cottages. It was noted that applying both requirements to the same development would be confusing and eliminating the provision would not prevent an applicant from proposing a PUD with "cottage-like" units. Minor test changes There were no objections to the minor text changes proposed. Cottage design standards Mr. Benskin stated that by establishing design requirements for roof pitch, many types of cottage styles would be eliminated. He noted that he considers it a limitation which defines a certain type of cottage and excludes other design options. Ross Chapin, architect and informal cottage consultant to the City, was present to discuss design standards for cottage developments. · He noted that the issue is not so much roof pitch as the definition of cottages; is the desire for clusters of houses that happen to be more dense or to encourage homes that are cottage scale? He stated he could live with the roof pitch proposed but it does limit the possibilities. He suggested that cottages are generally 1.5 stories in scale, rather than 2 stories; in most of his designs he uses a height of22.5 feet to the peak ofthe cottage; 23 feet gives many possibilities and is a big difference in scale from 25 feet. He noted that the affordable housing discussion is somewhat difficult to relate to cottage developments, as it is difficult to design cottage style dwellings with character if they are not constructed with a minimum quality standard. He stated that if roof pitch is to be required, think about the main roof; secondary roofs break up the main roof. He commented that it is good to have very clear guidelines, as most people are not good designers. Other critical elements, according to Mr. Chapin, are eaves, trim, and landscaping. Defining the private and public domains are as important as the architecture and there must be a separation as well as an eye to how the houses relate to the common area as well as to each other. Mr. Chapin noted that a developer can have architects establish standards for inclusion in CCRs. Ms. Sandoval stated it might be helpful to the Council to have some CCRs from · City Council Workshop Meeting Page 3 July 12, 2004 · existing successful cottage developments for reference. Mr. Chapin suggested the Umatilla Hill CCRs. Mr. Chapin cautioned the Councilors that some builders and developers would simply see this as a way to get more profit from their developments; he stated the Council's job is to make sure the community benefits. He added the emphasis should be on scale and massing with emphasis on breakup of the mass. Ms. Sandoval suggested restrictions on exterior heat pumps and addressing lighting Issues. Mr. Timmons stated many of those types of regulations might fall within CCRs as the City regulations go to regulating good design. Mr. Chapin stated that affordability and cottage housing need to be pulled apart; it is unfair to strap the issue to the back of cottage housing as the cost per square foot is much higher for a smaller, more intense cottage. He stated that 60% of all households in the country consist of 1 or 2 people. He added it is almost impossible today unless subsidized in some way. Mr. Masci spoke against legislating aesthetics too tightly as one person's idea of a traditional cottage may not be what others would like to see; he would like to open up the design standards so that a creative opportunity is created, not a series of restrictions. · Mr. Chapin added that neighbors must be assured the development will be an asset to the neighborhood, that it will be well done and fit in. He urged that design review be design based, not style based. Mr. Benskin agreed the emphasis should be on developing good projects, not preventing what someone doesn't want. Jeff Randall stated that including manufactured housing in a cottage development seems fine with certain caveats related to design; for example requirement of eaves may be more important than the slope of the room; trim, windows, height and the relation of one floor to another. He stated that a "cookie cutter" approach would eliminate flexibility and some other alternative forms of housing such as straw or stucco buildings; this is where an alterative design review process would be helpful. He noted that the alternative process would need to be specific and have applicable standards, probably a broad statement of each principle and the ability to say how an alternative design achieves that outcome. Mr. Masci stated that staff should be involved as well as a citizen committee. Mr. Randall asked how the Council felt about proceeding with changes to the ordinance based on this discussion, without affordability as a component, with the recognition that the City will be looking at applying affordability standards on a broader basis. · City Council Workshop Meeting Page 4 July 12, 2004 . Mr. Masci suggested that a cottage development where homeowners have their own association, could initiate their own criteria for affordable units. Ms. Robinson stated that most cottage units are not for families of more than two people; the affordability issue is more applicable in PUDs and developments where larger homes and lots are planned. Ms. Sandoval suggested looking at "payment in lieu" as a means of developing affordable housing. Mr. Timmons noted that the City faces the issue with difficulty in large part because there is no local active non-profit housing provider. There was general agreement to de-link the issues of cottage housing development and affordable housing and to discuss affordable housing policies on a broader level. Mr. Watts stated that the ordinance will be brought forward on August 2 and a public hearing will be scheduled for September. AJDOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. . Attest: Van, ?(~ Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk . City Council Workshop Meeting Page 5 July 12, 2004