Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/02/2015 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles,Washington 98362 November 2,2015 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hunter opened the regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: David Miller, Brian Hunter,Nancy Powers, Chad Aubin Members Absent: Duane Morris, two vacancies Staff Present: Nathan West, Scott Johns, Ben Braudrick, Heidi Greenwood Public Present: John Ralston PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Hunter led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Hunter asked Staff if there were any minutes available to approve. Associate Planner Scott Johns stated that the minutes for October 14, 2015 were not yet available and should be approved at the next meeting. Chair Hunter agreed. PUBLIC HEARING: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT—MCA 15-01-City of Port An,2eles,321 East 5th Street: Amendments to the zoning Code, PAMC Title 17, including minor amendments for clarification and ease of understanding, addition of new definitions, reduction of rear setback dimension for Accessory Residential Units, introduction of a new section title, Cottage Housing Development Overlay. City Associate Planner Scott Johns presented the staff report in support of recommending the approval of the proposed actions. He stated that minor grammatical and formatting changes to the code would be dealt with in an administrative manner, and detailed the proposed changes staff had recommended to PAMC Title 17 Zoning. Commissioner Powers asked what the smallest size the city would allow for the Cottage Housing Overlay. Associate Planner Johns replied that 20 units on a typical block at 6.22 units per acre. The purpose of the zone is to create an increased amount of open space, increased community through adjacency, community parking, common/game rooms, laundry facilities, and the possibility of a community garden. Commissioner Powers felt that 20 units clustered on one block might be overwhelming. Commissioner Miller added that according to how the code had been drafted, that 25% of the land use had to remain open space. The requirement that there must be 10 feet between structures would also have an impact on how many units could be placed on the parcel. Associate Planner Johns added that house size will affect the overall impacts of density as well. y}. Planning Commission Minutes November 2,2015 Page 2 Commissioner Powers asked if this had been adopted in other municipalities. Associate Planner Johns replied that small housing is a movement that is increasing in popularity, and there are several municipalities in the state that have adopted similar code, but did not reference one in particular. Commissioner Miller asked about the denomination "Cluster Housing Overlay". Associate Planner Johns replied that the name had changed to Cottage Housing Development overlay and not all changes had been caught. Chair Hunter asked about 21,000 square foot minimum size for the Overlay Zone. Associate Planner Johns replied that it mirrored other Overlay Zones that were already a part of the code, specifically the Infill Overlay Zone. Chair Hunter pointed out that the second sentence of 17.19.170 should read"ensure". Director West agreed that"ensure"would be the correct term. Chair Hunter asked about the omission of 17.17.140 A-F. Associate Planner Johns replied that those are subsections that he didn't print out because there were no changes. In reference to those previous sections, Chair Hunter inquired about the specific language that allowed for an extension, and what the basis and process of that action would be. Associate Planner Johns stated that permit extensions are allowed for up to a year if, for some reason or another, there are financial difficulties, permit approval issues, or staff has not seen this type of use before. In that case, staff has the ability to recommend that the permit be initially allowed for a year so that in a year's time any issues could be resolved. Accessory residential units are not usually granted a year because the issues are known and significant investment might have been made by the owner. Chair Hunter asked about a sentence in the "17.37.080 - Modification after final approval" directly related to CED staff approval of ordinance amendments. Director Nathan West stated that when Council approved the Hearings Examiner process, it eliminated final approval from going back through a public hearing process when other members of the public are asking for changes before the final approval process. The perception of Council was that it would be better for staff to verify that Council's original conditions of approval were met by those doing the subdivision. Once those conditions were verified as being met, the City would have administrative authority to sign off on that subdivision without needing to again go before the City Council in a public hearing. Chair Hunter asked if the Hearings Examiner decision is appealable. Director West explained that the hearings examiner decision is appealable to the superior courts. Some jurisdictions, such as Clallam County, have moved the appeal process to the County Commissioners, but that this process has the potential of nullifying a fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision. Chair Hunter wondered whether the city would oversee a neighborhood meeting. Associate Planner Johns replied that it is not usual for the city to attend meetings because it might change the outcome of the meetings intended purpose. It is up to the applicant how they want to proceed. Chair Hunter asked why loft was chosen as a setback requirement for Accessory residential units. Director West answered that ten feet is consistent with other setbacks in code, and is consistent with many of the existing applicable structures in the City that are at present nonconforming. It would allow more opportunity for infill development using existing structures Planning Commission muuission Minutes November 2,2015 Page 3 and the reconstruction of any structures that were lost due to unforeseen circumstances such as fire. Chair Hunter asked if the 50% size for an ARU is acceptable when the average US house size is nearing 3000 square feet. There is always a difficulty with the concept of accessory and what the intent of the Cottage Development Overlay. He also mentioned that there is no maximum size mentioned in the code. There is no part of the code which regulates the appearance of the housing in the overlay zone in the context of the entire neighborhood. Associate Planner Johns responded that he agreed that this is the case. Staff had looked into sizes of accessory units. For instance, if there were a situation where someone had created a standalone home of 500 square feet, and they wanted to construct an accessory residence, it could be difficult to inhabit a 250 square foot or less home. There may be opportunity to change the code to address at what point the size of the accessory unit could be upwards of 60-100% of the primary residence size. Commissioner Miller asked if an analysis had been done to find how many structures there are outside the limits of being currently allowed to house an ARU. Director West replied that preliminary analysis has been done—and more could definitely be done—but that at this point, there's a possibility that an estimated 4111 accessory structures fall within the rear 1/3 of the property and current 20 foot setback. The new code would open up the possibility of an approximate total 6000 ancillary structures being available for accessory dwelling. Commissioner Aubin asked if the intent of the Overlay zone was for a developer to buy a large lot and built/rent housing, or for individual ownership. Associate Planner Johns answered that there is opportunity for both types of development. A binding site plan will allow for equal ownership and participation in the development and maintenance of the property. If there is one owner, that owner would be responsible for those maintenance and development duties, and there could be stipulation of parking requirements. Commissioner Aubin asked if there are areas that have been asked about or inquired upon for this type of development. Associate Planner Johns replied that yes, and the City does not have the tools to facilitate this type of development yet. This overlay is not meant for infill in the city center. It is meant for available larger lot development, with the possibility of redevelopment in already developed areas. Commissioner Aubin inquired about actual operation of horse stables and greenhouses. Associate Planner Johns explained that there are some in operation, and that preexisting nonconforming greenhouses would be allowed. Associate Planner Johns then read comments made by Commissioner Morris in anticipation of not attending the meeting. Commissioner Morris asked if there are any applicants waiting for approval. Associate Planner Johns replied that no, there were not. Commissioner Morris then asked if a developer can apply with the intent of creating a bed and breakfast type of environment. Associate Planner Johns replied that the intent of the code is to allow the conditional uses of the underlying zone. The City has picked out several conditional uses that are residential in nature, such as assisted living and residential care facilities. Commissioner Morris asked if individual units can be sold as in a timeshare concept. Associate Planner Johns responded that, depending on the zone, yes, some could be potentially rented out on a short term basis. Planning Commission Minutes November 2,2015 Page 4 Commissioner Morris asked if there will be garages or covered parking. Associate Planner Johns replied that staff would assume there would be some kind of parking. This could be a shared parking garage or strip. Chair Hunter then opened up the agenda item to comments from the public. John Rolston PO Box 898 Port Angeles Stated concerns that some of the minor code amendments are sometimes by definition "not minor". He encourages the Commission to ask what the changes are and why. He asked if any of the minor amendments have been used previously that when the changes are made the uses will go away. RS-7 Zone, and acre is 43,560 sf, in an RS-11 zone, there should only be allowed four lots because 44,000 is close enough to 43,560. He felt it should read "four or less", not "less than four". He then asked what the minimum size for a PUD was. Associate Planner Johns responded that the minimum is 3.44 acres. Mr. Ralston asked if it could be interpreted that the CHD is similar to the PRD but with the allowance of only 21,000 sf instead of 3.44 acres. Associate Planner Johns responded that, yes, the intent is to allow a clustered neighborhood, with similar flexibilities to the PRD Zone. Associate Planner Johns followed up explaining that 17.12.050, RS-11, states the minimum density allowed is one dwelling unit per each 11,000 square feet, or 3.96 units per acre. This is why it is phrased that specific way. It is more accurate. Commissioner Miller stated that 3.96 is not clear, 3 or less would be clearer because you cannot have .96 units. Associate Planner Scott responded that not all land development happens in whole numbers. The purpose of the change was to remove the statement "at or more than four dwelling units", which is contrary to "less than 3.96". Commissioner Aubin suggested that the word"at" also be removed. Chair Hunter closed the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to discuss the amendments before making a motion. Commissioner Powers remarked that there were a lot of changes made in this amendment, and made a motion that staff should take out the word "minor" in the recommendation to council. Aubin seconded. Discussion ensued: Commissioner Miller asked whether changes were made to resolve existing conditions or circumstances. Director West replied that the ten foot setback for ARU is definitely a change that is being made because of existing conditions. Associate Planner Johns stated that none of the changes besides the ARU setbacks were addressed because of a current conflict or circumstance. Chair Hunter stated that another concern for him is lowering rear the setback for Accessory residential units to ten feet. He stated that he walks in alleys with homes that are already outside the setback requirements. Those setbacks could be allowed to be relaxed even further with specific design standards. He would like to see more than we are seeing tonight, and perhaps the Planning Commission could revisit this in the future. Director West stated that changes to the current documents are available for the Commission to make a motion on. There are other options before the Commission. It is the intent of staff to take forward to council a thoroughly reviewed product. He didn't want any hesitations from Planning Commission Minutes November 2,2015 Page 5 Commission if they felt changes needed to be made. Another option would be accepting the document as presented. A third would be to deny the code references or continuing the public meeting to a future date. The Commission could also move forward in part with certain elements. There shouldn't be reluctance in the Commission's decision-making ability. Chair Hunter state that his one concern was that of the design compatibility within a neighborhood in regards to the Cottage Development Overlay Zone. Director West stated that the only time that staff could make recommendations are during the conditional use process within the accessory residential use permit application. The only other time is through the building permit process, but that those codes deal more in standards not design. Chair Hunter asked for a restatement of the motion. Commissioner Powers restated her motion. Commissioner Aubin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None STAFF REPORTS None REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Powers mentioned that she would like to get a better understanding of what the Planning Commission's duties are in the future, now that a Hearings Examiner would be handling all of the quasi-judicial public hearings. Director West agreed that in a future meeting staff could review the Commission's role, and that in the coming year Commission would be involved in the Comprehensive Plan Update. It will be a two year process that will heavily utilize the Commission. Future code changes will also involve the Commission, as well as Facade Grant applications. The NPDES Phase II permit mandated by the State will involve major code changes and it is expected that the Planning Commission will provide insight into that process. Commissioner Powers asked if there was a possibility, with the current reduced responsibilities, that in a future meeting a reduction to one meeting a month could be discussed. Director West replied that a reduction could be discussed at a later date after By-Laws had been reviewed by staff. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. en Braudrick, Secretary e Mc , Chair PREPARED BY: Ben Braudrick `m �u�,°