Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101206 Minutes CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Third Floor Conference Room Thursday October 12, 2006, 7:00 PM Meeting Materials: EXH. I Agenda for October 12, 2006 EXH.2 R. Sepler & J. Surber, ADUs as Accessory Use to Single-Family, Attached Development ADU Off-Street Parking Requirements, dated October 10, 2006 EXH. 3 Guest List 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair George Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL: All members of the Planning Commission were present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, George Randels, Julian Ray, Liesl Slabaugh, Cindy Thayer, and George Unterseher. Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director Ill. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as written, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of September 14,2006 . Page 3: Jeffree Stewart . Page 4: Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN); an should be a . Page 7: ...... staff will come back at a later date with specific language. . "Overtime" should be over time (two words) . Page 9: CTED is Community Trade and Economic Development . Spelling -- Phil Olbrechts Ms. Thayer moved that the minutes be approved, as amended, and Ms. Slabaugh seconded. The minutes of September 14, 2006 were approved, as amended, all in favor. Minutes of September 28, 2006 . Page 2 paragraph beginning with Mr. Beckwith, last line, space missing . Page 3 strike the word Leader Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2006 Page I of8 . To chair the HAPN committee (format as italics) Needy, not needed, new comers Community Action representative should be capitalized . . Mer. Randels moved that the minutes be approved, as amended, and Mr. Ray seconded. The minutes of September 28,2006 were approved, as amended, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Tourist Homes and Transient Accommodations - LTAC Update (Rick Sepler) Rick Sepler reported that he and several members of the Planning Commission had attended the LTAC (Lodging Tax Advisory Committee) meeting on October 10, to present the recommendations of the full Planning Commission on Tourist Homes and Transient Accommodations. The LTAC has voted unanimously to send the recommendations on to the City Council. He said that, in accordance with City Council's direction, the same memo must be presented to the CDLU (Community Development and Land Use) committee of the Council; their next meeting has been rescheduled from October 24 to Friday, October 27 at 2:00 PM. Following that, it is likely that this item will be on the agenda for the first City Council business meeting in November, at which time the Council will charge the Planning Commission with implementation of these recommendations. Chair Randels verified that, since he would be out of town on October 27, Roger Lizut would be available to represent the Planning Commission. b. Interim Ordinance Workshop (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Sepler apologized for the lateness of the e-mailed meeting materials, due to the press of multiple projects, and offered paper copies to those who needed them. He mentioned, for the record, that the Interim Ordinance will be subject to its required public hearing Monday evening (October 16); a hearing must be scheduled within 60 days of adoption. He said that he did not anticipate any concerns being raised; any issues and outcomes will be passed on the Planning Commission. Mr. Sepler referred to his memorandum, EXH. 2, which delineates two of the six issues that were part of the Interim Ordinance. He stated that the purpose for this meeting is to outline the current operative regulation as adopted, not the Interim regulation, and provide the details of three approaches that could be used, as a starting point for discussion. He said that staff would then proceed with anyone of the three or a combination, according to the direction of the Commission, and follow through at a later meeting. Issue #1. Should OfFStreet Parking be requiredfor ADU's (Accessory Dwelling Units)? Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2006 Page 2 of8 Mr. Sepler said that currently the municipal code does not require additional off-street parking for ADUs. It does say that that off-street parking for other uses on the site must be continuously met. That is, for a single family home requiring two off-street spaces, if there is only one, they must establish the second one (not for the ADU, but to meet current code). Bed and Breakfast (B & B) information is also included, for comparison purposes. Briefly, B & Bs are required to have at least one additional parking space to those required for the residential unit, with a maximum of one space per sleeping unit. This issue has come to the attention of staff because of where cars associated with new ADUs are being parked, de facto. If the frontage is not improved, and there is not good off-street capacity, there are cases where drainage ditches are filled in, creating run-off and drainage problems, or where people are parking in travel lanes. One of the City goals is to minimize impervious surface area, but to provide a reasonable overall solution. Another method that is in use (to limit the number of spaces) states that the required number of off street spaces can be reduced by the number of on street spaces available. Therefore, if there is adequate parking on the street frontage, then this is a moot issue. But, if there is inadequate parking, it could have an adverse impact on an area. Staff proposes three alternatives for consideration. The first is to keep the specific regulations after the Interim ordinance expires. The advantage is no new impervious surface. and reduced cost; the disadvantage is that safety and transportation concerns will continue to mount. The second is to require one off-street space for each ADU, which resolves the transportation issue. However, impervious surface and costs increase, and there may be a negative impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. The third approach is to assess the need on a case by case basis, which minimizes creation of impervious surface and additional cost. Discussion/Deliberation: Chair Randels suggested that an additional con for approach 2 would be that requiring new off street parking may reduce street parking, if new curb cuts are required. Ms. Thayer said that she was in favor of option 3, but with a concern about public perception. She said that any criteria would need to be highly specific so that people would understand whether or not creation of off-street parking was required for them. Mr. Ray agreed there was a need to avoid the appearance of capriciousness, as well as to have clarity and consistent enforcement. Several commissioners noted the difficulty of developing objective criteria. Ms. Slabaugh said that, on the other hand, the public would also be intolerant of "black and white" rules that do not allow for the uniqueness of a situation, and where the rule does not make sense. A rule with some flexibility would be more adaptable to the individual instance, and possibly more reasonable. Mr. Lizut said that, in a perfect world, option 3 would make more sense. His concern was that, given the record of poor enforcement in Port Townsend, allowing case by case determinations would increase the risk of code violations with impunity. Chair Randels mentioned that he had learned at the I. T AC meeting that the City Manager had recently interviewed a retired U.S. Marshall for the part-time position of Code Enforcement Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2006 Page 3 of 8 Officer. Mr. Sepler said that it is a new position. Typically, enforcement is handled by the police. He reviewed the current enforcement process and noted that certain adjustments to the process would also be in order. There was further discussion about how the filing process would need to be tightened up to allow the enforcement role to be handled effectively. Mr. Lizut stated that the current design review and filing process is not as clean as it should be; he said it tends to be erratic and give the applicants a mixed message. Commissioners agreed that hiring an enforcement officer would be a step in the right direction. Mr. Sepler asked if Commission members would consider a hybrid approach, where an applicant could choose off-street or on-street parking, provided they met the criteria. Mr. Emery said that he would favor the hybrid approach, using very specific criteria with language similar to what is found in Section 17.72 cited in EXH. 2. Ms. Thayer said that giving an option would be [me. Mr. Ray suggested that option 3 be structured with an "opt out" modality: require off-street parking unless very specific conditions are met, such as abundant street frontage and no culvert, drainage or safety issues, etc. Mr. Randels also suggested associating a "no protest" agreement as part of the process. He also stated that this approach allows flexibility while placing the burden on the applicant to show why off-street parking should not be required. It was agreed that Mr. Sepler would craft language to describe the option 3 hybrid for Planning Commission review at a future meeting. Issue #2 Should ADUs be allowed in concert with single-family attached (duplex, triplex and fourplex) housing? If so, would each of the single-family attached units be allowed one ADU (e.g., a condominiumfourplex is allowed 4 AD Us) or only one per single- family attached structure? Mr. Sepler said that this issue has arisen several times, that the code is somewhat unclear and, as such, could be appealed. He said that the standing interpretation by Leonard Yarberry, Director of Development Services, is that the intent was not to allow multiplex dwellings (duplex, triplex or fourplex) to have ADDs. The alternatives are: I. No changes. (For obvious reasons, this is not recommended.) 2. Prohibit the establishment of ADUs as an accessory use to single-family attached dwellings. 3. Prohibit the establishment of ADUs as an accessory use to single-family attached housing in the R-III and R-IV zoning districts. Commissioners noted that option 2 would prohibit any ADOs for any multiplex, even a duplex. Chair Randels said that he did not understand the logic of that option. He cited an example of a duplex in an R-II zone on 10,000 square feet which would not be allowed one ADU, while two unattached single farnily dwellings, each on 5,000 square feet, would each be allowed one ADU. Ms. King said that the rnaximUID density in R-II was 8 units per acre; if each unit added an ADU the result would be 16 units on one acre. Mr. Randels responded that that is allowed exactly what is allowed under single-family zoning. Mr. Sepler said the distinction is that typically for a uniplex single-family dwelling, the building is situated with the house oriented to the street, with front and rear set-back, etc. Often with ADUs that are added later, the access is not easily facilitated. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2006 Page 4 of8 Ms. Thayer added that the homeowner lives there. She said in a duplex or triplex, there does not need to be owner occupancy. Mr. Randels said, in that case, one would not be permitted to build an ADU. There was discussion about the rationale for requiring owner occupancy, and whether or not enforcement was feasible or practical. Ms. Thayer said that the provision is intended to ensure some control over the ADU. Chair Randels described a scenario where a property owner builds a duplex on 10,000 square feet, resides in one unit and rents out the other unit. He said he did not understand why even one ADU would be prohibited in that case, when it would be permissible to build two ADUs in the case oftwo non- attached single-family houses on the same acreage. Chair Randels asked if Mr. Sepler had been able to gather data about the number of multiplex dwellings that have been built within the last 5 to 10 years. Mr. Sepler said there had been several inquiries, but had no data about actual instances. Mr. Emery cited an example on San Juan Avenue where the owner lives in the ADU at the back of the property, while renting out the duplex. He said he knew of other instances where owners were living in the ADUs and renting the main house. Mr. Sepler said that the rule is that owners are supposed to reside on site, in the primary building. However, he said the City had been permitting owners to live in the ADUs. Ms. Slabaugh said she did not see a problem with owners downsizing: living in the ADU and renting out the "primary" house. Mr. Sepler said that the problem has arisen where owners are not actually living there, and are renting out the ADUs as vacation homes. He noted that this was anecdotal information only. Chair Randels restated that he wished to have the actual data on nurnbers of multiplex structures that have been built over the last ten years, in order to understand what the threat is. Ms. Thayer said that until the Growth Management Act and the new plan was adopted, the City had very minimal lands zoned for rnulti-family. She assumed that the number of multiplex structures was fairly small. Mr. Unterseher asked for clarification on the definition of duplex, and associated restrictions. Does the structure need to be owned by only one owner, or can each half have a separate owner? What about zero lot line houses? What is the significance of a common wall? There was further discussion about how this related to a PUD (planned unit development) and/or a condominium arrangement. Mr. Randels gave the example of a fourplex built at the center of a 20,000 square foot lot. Mr. Unterseher cited an example at the Tree House development. Mr. Sepler said the instances that have been permitted included one at Tree House and several where the attached dwellings were manufactured homes joined by a breezeway. He said that one of the reasons that few duplexes are seen is that there is no incentive in terms of lot area. Chair Randels said that he did not think this whole issue was much of a problem and that, because of the lot size requirement, he did not see it becoming a density problem. He restated that the categorization of multiplexes as "single-family" continued to baffle him. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2006 Page 5 of 8 Ms. King clarified that these structures were designated "single-family attached". She said, "Theoretically, a single-family attached house could be allowed on less property." Ms. Thayer said that issue should be dealt with separately at a later time. There was then further discussion about the de facto impact of current rules: what is and is not being encouraged, and whether or not more affordable housing is being constructed, as had been intended. Other questions considered were: should the lot size requirement be reduced? Should one or more ADUs be allowed on a property where the primary dwelling is a duplex, triplex or fourplex? Is there a threat of unplanned development in R-III or R-II? When and how will each of these issues be considered and addressed? Mr. Sepler said that the City had issued one permit for a triplex with one ADU, and noted that there is nothing to prevent the addition of two more ADUs, assurning that ownership of the second and third units of the triplex are transferred to individual owners. There was further discussion about whether or not "condominiumizing" was the only way to achieve that separate ownership. Mr. Sepler said that another request was for two duplexes and three ADUs, and that was rejected on the basis ofMr. Yarberry's finding and interpretation, cited in EXH. 2. The site was part of a PUD south of the fairgrounds, where the PUD allowed a lower lot size. Mr. Randels maintained that the current land size requirements are adequate. Ms. Slabaugh said that she thought the issue was specific to PUDs. Mr. Randels drew an example of a fourplex on a 20,000 square foot lot (5,000 square feet per unit), compared with a PUD where the size of each lot has been reduced by 20 percent (4,000 square feet per unit). Mr. Sepler then posed an alternative configuration on the same property to show the variations that may arise and the need for more clarity in the code. Mr. Emery suggested that only one ADU be allowed for any multiplex. Ms. Thayer said that she agreed with Mr. Emery, and that only one ADU should be allowed for one attached dwelling unit, regardless of whether it is a duplex, triplex or fourplex. Mr. Randels said that if the objection, for any instance, is that a proposal is out of character with the neighborhood, then perhaps the regulations should be changed to allow only duplexes, not triplexes or fourplexes. He added that he did not know ifthis was the proper time to deal with that. There was further discussion as to whether this is a loophole that needs to be addressed. He said that he would recomrnend an amendment to the PUD ordinance stating that multiplexes are not allowed unless the lot size where proposed meets the requirements of the regular zoning. Other commissioners were in agreement with that notion. Mr. Sepler described a scenario of a fourplex of one bedroom apartments with 600 square feet each and an ADU of 800 square feet, making the ADU larger than the primary unit. Mr. Randels said that in reality, the cost of the land would preclude that. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2006 Page 6 of8 He said that no developer would choose to waste a 20,000 square foot property in that way. Mr. Sepler said he would attempt to clarify the functional direction desired by the Commission. [Recorder's note for draft only: However, the term multiplex led him and the Commissioners off into cinema theatre design and ROI/profit maximization considerations. After a minor diversion, all returned to the main track.] The understanding was summarized as follows: For duplex, triplex or fourplex structures, the Planning Commission prefers to allow one ADU per property site, provided the minimum land requirements are met. Mr. Randels suggested, also, that the PUD regulations should be amended to reflect that regular land use minimum requirements will apply for the construction of any multiplex structure, irregardless of the intention to add ADUs. In an ensuing discussion about the rationale, it was realized that Mr. Sepler had been referring earlier to two different instances: one that was approved and one that was denied. The triplex with one ADU, behind Memorial Field, was permitted. The PUD instance was part of a binding site plan was not approved: it concerned a duplex on two lots that had been split as part of the binding site plan. Mr. Randels agreed to take the issue off the table for the time being, but said that he would like to look at the whole instance and implications more fully at a later date. Mr. Sepler agreed to research the number of occurrences of multiplex applications and permits. He will also craft some language to reflect the direction indicated by the Commission on Issues #1 and #2. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS a. November 2, 2006 SMP Update Mr. Sepler distributed some materials. [Recorder needs to document the nature of the materials.] Chair Randels voiced his dismay that the SMP schedule had been delayed numerous times by the DOE (Department of Ecology). He said he was concerned that the City may be put at some disadvantage in dealing with certain project applications if the SMP Update is not finalized in the very near future. Mr. Sepler reported that Judy Surber had met with DOE representatives earlier in the day. He said he had suggested that she offer to draft a letter of voluntary changes, i.e. the list of items the City believes require clarification in the documentation. The DO E will write the list of 8 or 12 mandatory changes for the Shoreline Program. He said it is time for this process to be completed and for the City to move on. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2006 Page 7 of8 Mr. Sepler said that in the event that the DOE's SMP final letter is still not available, he will place the issue of number of bedrooms as a measure of density on the agenda. He said that the original proponents of that approach had asked to be notified of the meeting, and plarmed to attend. IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) X. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer moved to adjourn and Mr. Emery seconded, with all in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:07 PM. / / {:/... ~/ /dJ~L Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2006 Page 8 of8