HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda Packet 2022-12-14
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Hybrid Meeting – In-Person and Virtual
City Council Chambers: 321 East 5th Street, Port Angeles, WA 98362
Attend Virtual Meeting Here: https://www.cityofpa.us/984/Live-Virtual-Meetings
December 14, 2022
6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the October 26, 2022 Regular Meeting
V. DISCUSSION
1. Housing for All Code Amendment Process
Continuation of the Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMC) update process. Review
and discussion of the November 9, 2022 Staff Memorandum identifying and
categorizing recommended changes to the PAMC.
VI. STAFF UPDATES
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 1 of 18
Minutes from Previous
Meeting
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 2 of 18
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Virtual Meeting
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
October 26, 2022 6:00 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Stanley opened the regular meeting at 6:05 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Richie Ahuja, Tammy Dziadek, Andrew Schwab (Vice Chair),
Marolee Smith, Benjamin Stanley (Chair)
Commissioners Absent: Colin Young - excused
City Staff Present: Ben Braudrick (Senior Planner)
Holden Fleming (Housing Coordinator)
Norman Gollub (Interim Director of Community and Economic
Development)
Zach Trevino (Assistant Planner)
Public Present: Annie O’Rourke
James Taylor
John Worthington
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Stanley opened the meeting to public comment.
John Worthington provided comment related to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He expressed
concern with a contract the City signed with ICLEI, which he considers illegal and opposes. He
stated that the Comprehensive Plan was influenced by the World Economic Forum and
international government, which defeats the purpose of having a Planning Commission. He also
suggested that the Puget Sound region should invest in manufacturing more goods locally instead
of importing so many by ship.
Chair Stanley closed the meeting to public comment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved to approve the minutes from the September 28, 2022 regular meeting
of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (5-0).
ACTION ITEMS
1. Façade Grant No. 22-03
Peninsula Housing Authority: Lee Plaza and Annex Renovation, 108 West 1st Street
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 3 of 18
Planning Commission Minutes
October 26, 2022
Page 2
Vice Chair Schwab recused himself from this action item due to his business establishment being
located in the building under consideration.
Planner Braudrick introduced the item, providing an overview of the applicant’s request for a
façade grant to fund façade improvements on two buildings.
Following staff’s presentation of the proposal, the following questions were received from
Commissioners:
• Commissioner Smith asked about the purpose of the budget item allocated to electrical
improvements. Annie O’Rourke of the Peninsula Housing Authority responded that it
relates to new lighting proposed on the building façade.
• Commissioner Smith asked about proposed signage. Annie O’Rourke explained that a
sign will be placed along the front edge of the existing building entrance canopy.
• Chair Stanley asked whether there are any underlying issues with the building or structural
renovations that the grant is intended to fund. Annie O’Rourke stated that the goal is to
incorporate durable products with structural rigidity into the improvements to ensure
longevity and ease of maintenance.
Annie O’Rourke expressed concern about condition #3 in the Staff Report, which Planner
Braudrick acknowledged is unnecessary.
MOTION: Commissioner Smith moved to approve Façade Grant No. 22-03 as presented,
subject to all conditions recommended by staff except condition #3 in the Staff Report. The
motion was seconded and passed by unanimous consent (5-0).
Vice Chair Schwab returned to the meeting following consideration of Action Item #1.
2. Public Hearing: Climate Resiliency Implementation Plan
Chair Stanley opened the public hearing to public comment.
Planner Braudrick introduced the Climate Resiliency Implementation Plan (CRIP) by providing
history of the climate planning process leading up to the draft being considered.
John Worthington provided comment, explaining that he lives in Sequim but is affected by local
and regional policies. In his comment, he raised the following points:
• He asked the Planning Commission to end the ICLEI contracts and the agreement with
Cascadia Consulting Group, due to too much international influence.
• Emissions from ships are 260 times the amount of emissions from the world’s automobile
fleet, but the policies subjecting people to emissions cannot be appealed.
• The emissions and climate impact from shipping affect all people, but people have no
recourse over international agreements or the NGOs that make international policy.
• Port Angeles receives approximately 80% of its goods by truck from Seattle, but the
residents do not have the opportunity to have the ships unload goods in the Port of Port
Angeles on their way to Seattle or Tacoma to reduce overall emissions.
• Serving an international community is treason since hundreds of cities have opted out of
American sovereignty and into an international sovereignty.
Chair Stanley closed the public hearing to public comment.
Following the public comment period, the commission discussed the item, making observations
and suggestions, including the following:
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 4 of 18
Planning Commission Minutes
October 26, 2022
Page 3
• Chair Stanley clarified that the CRIP is an optional document for the City and does not
have the force of law. A global international government with political power would be
helpful in enabling the tracking of shipping emissions.
• Commissioner Smith stated that, due to declining tree canopy, an updated Tree Gap
Assessment is needed. The City should have a goal of 40% tree canopy coverage. A
Community Forester, as referenced in the Port Angeles Municipal Code, and a Tree Board
to work on urban forestry issues under the supervision of the Planning Commission are
necessary. The Tree City USA designation is meaningless without concrete action. The
CRIP should be addressing climate hazards, such as fire, that the Olympic Peninsula faces.
• Chair Stanley noted that some action items in the CRIP address the transit system, but it
would be ideal to increase Clallam Transit bus capacity to accommodate more bicycles.
This and other priorities should be discussed by the Commission soon as part of the larger
implementation discussion.
• Commissioner Smith recommended that a chain of command for disaster response among
City departments be codified. Chair Stanley responded by stating that a hazard mitigation
plan is a separate tool from a climate action plan. Commissioner Smith responded that
they need to be integrated into a single plan.
The Commission further discussed the draft plan, timing, and staff’s recommendation. Several
Commissioners expressed an intent to submit written comments on the draft.
Planner Braudrick confirmed that comment provided by the Climate Action Subcommittee
members will be incorporated into the record and final document.
MOTION: Chair Stanley moved to recommend approval of the Climate Resiliency Plan
Implementation Plan to the City Council. The motion was seconded and passed by a roll call
vote (5-0).
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Building Residential Capacity - Code Amendment Process
2. Continued discussion of proposed changes to Port Angeles Municipal Code Title 17
Planner Braudrick introduced the items, providing context for the discussion and an overview of
staff’s memorandum. He explained how the suggestions considered in the memorandum will be
incorporated into the larger Building Residential Capacity code amendment process.
The Commission’s discussion of the memorandum included the following observations:
• Commissioner Smith believes the memorandum should be presented to the City Council.
A joint meeting between the Commission and City Council would be helpful in making
progress. Planner Braudrick noted that a public workshop and hearings are forthcoming
as part of the process leading to a final City Council decision in March.
• Chair Stanley advocated for changing the minimum residential lot size to allow for 1,750
square foot lots.
• Commissioner Dziadek asked that staff choose the venue for the upcoming workshop to
ensure ease of access for all attendees.
Planner Fleming mentioned some of the barriers the City is facing to the production of more multi-
family affordable housing.
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 5 of 18
Planning Commission Minutes
October 26, 2022
Page 4
Following the discussion, staff confirmed that the code amendment process would continue to
move forward and will be discussed again at forthcoming meetings.
STAFF UPDATES
City staff provided several updates to the Commission, as follows:
• The City has been selected by the Washington Department of Commerce as one of th ree
communities in the State to participate in the Department’s Climate Pilot Program. The
program will aid the City in integrating climate action planning and the Climate Resiliency
Plan into the Comprehensive Plan during the next update in June of 2023. The result will be a
plan that incorporates climate action throughout, rather than limiting it to a single element.
• The Planning Division attended the Annual WA-APA Conference in Vancouver, WA. The
conference focused on housing and provided many useful tools for staff to use.
• Planner Fleming has been participating in Housing Solution Committee meetings, which are
open to the Commissioners if they want to attend. The next meeting will be held on November
4th on Zoom.
• Staff can ask the City’s communications team if it is possible to add an event-tracking calendar
for use by the Planning Commission to keep the Commissioners updated on opportunities to
attend relevant meetings.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
• Commissioner Ahuja provided a list of reports that will be released in anticipation of the
2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which he plans on attending. He will
send links to these reports to staff through an email.
• Commissioner Dziadek recommended Strong Towns as a useful educational resource and
provided a description of their mission.
• Chair Stanley expressed support for the establishment of an outreach team to reach out to
the community and discourage tree removal in the City.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Stanley moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously (5-0).
The meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
Zach Trevino, Secretary Ben Stanley, Chair
MINUTES PREPARED BY: Zach Trevino, Secretary
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 6 of 18
Discussion Items
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 7 of 18
`
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
November 9, 2022
Port Angeles Planning Commission
Planning Division Staff
Housing for All Code Update: List of Staff Proposed Amendments to Title 17
Planning Division Staff has taken the opportunity to review the entirety of Title 17 of the Port Angeles
Municipal Code (PAMC) in order to assist the Planning Commission in addressing proposed amendments
to the PAMC. This will continue the statewide effort to Build Residential Capacity (BRC) prior to the April 1,
2023 deadline established by RCW 36.70A.600. The proposed changes are provided individually within six
categories, each of which is described below. These categories define either how the existing code serves
as a barrier to housing development or how it serves as an opportunity to provide greater development
flexibility, increase housing density, decrease unnecessary financial burden of existing and developed
housing, or ensure housing for all community members.
Each of the categories below is associated with a color. The individual suggested code changes in the final
section of this memorandum are coded to one or more of the following categories using these color
designations.
1.Code as a Barrier to Affordable Housing Development
A major focus of this code revision exercise is to identify where the City’s zoning and building code
continues to act as a barrier to the development of affordable and attainable housing. Changes
identified under this criterion have been identified as barriers. The goal is to remove these barriers from
code while ensuring consistency in regulations remains across individual Titles and Sections.
2.Increasing Flexibility in Zoning Code Provisions
Since 2017 the City of Port Angeles has continued to provide more flexibility in residential uses allowed
in residentially focused zones and commercially mixed-use focused zones. This flexibility includes the
use itself (whether now allowed outright or by condition) and how the use performs on the site through
design standards and dimensional standards such as setback, height, and bulk (how development
interacts with adjacent property and the street). Examples of this include allowing duplexes by right and
accessory dwelling units as an accessory use in every residentially focused zone, and reducing lot size
requirements in certain zones.
3.Increasing Housing Density Availability
Housing density has historically been the most significant control segregating districts of residential
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 8 of 18
Page 2
development. Increasing housing density allows for more affordable and equitable housing availability
across the community. Zoning is a tool to ensure incompatible uses do not create undue nuisance,
burdens, or health impacts to surrounding property owners. Best available science and practice has
recently shown that this frame of thought has created a pattern of development across the United
States inhibiting affordable residential development, especially “missing-middle” housing that has the
ability to easily integrate into historically low-density residential development. The BRC is especially
framed to provide a means to develop missing middle housing and integrate housing density as infill
development into existing low density residential zones.
4.Reducing the Potential Cost of Development
Development cost includes more than the cost of labor and materials. Cost can also be attributed to
the amount of time the development process takes to navigate from property acquisition to an
occupiable structure; the required infrastructural improvements required to ensure adequate services
and safe occupancy; and restrictive design standards imposed by municipal codes. Municipal codes
should not impose a barrier that drives housing costs up in order to cover the cost of development.
Streamlining permitting, imposing infrastructural alternatives, and strategically relaxing some design
standards are all some ways that municipal codes can assist in reducing housing costs.
5.Ensuring Housing Equity and Availability
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, housing is a human right. In order to
appropriately ensure housing for all members of the community, municipal code should adequately
address the needs of everyone. Best available science and practice has recognized the faults in requiring
strict segregation of certain housing types that can otherwise be reasonably located adjacent to each
other. All community members deserve to have access to housing that meets their specific needs at
any and all stages in their life. Successfully employed municipal code should act as the framework
providing diverse housing construction to support and encourage the realization of this right for
everyone.
6.Enabling Local Property Development Through Self Reliance
By amending Title 17 PAMC to be more easily read and interpreted, local property owners will more
readily understand development requirements and make informed choices to maximize the use of their
property.
Staff Code Changes (In No Particular Order)
•Reevaluate and revise each residential zone’s purpose statement to reflect the changes provided in
the BRC process.
•Replace “single-family” with “single-household” to provide inclusivity and equity in Title 17.
•Reestablish consistency among all zone titles (e.g., “RS-7” replaced with “R7”).
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 9 of 18
Page 3
•Codify pre-application requests with a firm timeline and deliverable date.
•Create Maximum lot sizes in R11 and R9 zones to prevent large lot subdivisions or require a
restriction on the plat requiring future subdivision to be at a minimum density.
•Allow a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be constructed accessory to a duplex on one lot
in all residential zones where duplexes are allowed by right.
•Eliminate bedroom requirements for ADUs.
•Creation of temporary housing section of Title 17 with design standards and timelines that also
addresses RVs.
•Allow for alley/street lot subdivision in areas on property with appropriate existing or updated street
standards.
•Define “apartment” and add as a permitted use in all commercial zones.
•Add corresponding definitions in multiple logical places to ensure people find term they are looking
for. E.g. SEE ______
•Identify inconsistency between PAMC titles.
•Exempt apartments above businesses from residential density requirements.
•Refine use charts and lists to avoid conflicts.
•Allow “preexisting single-household dwelling” as an allowed use in all zones.
•Create a disincentive fee for large single-household dwellings above a certain square footage and
use that fee for multi-family market subsidy.
•Enable a City-led development authority/land bank (i.e. Transfer of Development Rights).
•Define “public” in Title 17 so use of terms such as “public buildings” in Section 17.22.110 are clear
and consistently applied.
•Allow 1 dwelling unit per 1,750 sf of land area in the R7 zone.
•Modify Form Based Codes
o Reevaluate landscaped block frontage standards to require minimum frontage distances.
o Parking standards – sequential spaces and landscaping. Location of parking.
o Allow deviations from design standards for existing historically significant structures.
•Allow for commercial to residential conversion with design considerations – specific to CBD to allow
for residential on ground floor.
•Allow for conversion of accessory structures to housing units in all residential zones regardless of
conformity to zoning standards.
•Remove per unit requirements for cottage housing developments.
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 10 of 18
Page 4
•Allowed dwelling types – if building meets IBC standards per WA state, allow it on any property if
the design meets applicable infill development standards.
•Define and allow “corner shop mixed-use structure” on strategic residential intersections
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 11 of 18
Comments Received
Regarding Proposed
PAMC Changes
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 12 of 18
12/3/2022
Thank you, Senior Planner Ben Braudrick, Assistant Planner Zach Trevino, and Housing Coordinator
Holden Fleming for your creative ideas. I greatly appreciate your flexible approach! Here are my
updated thoughts on the Title 17 Amendments document:
•Our building code needs to proactively help Black people; it’s no accident that few Black
people reside in our community. According to Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor in her book Race for
Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership,
“The quality of life in US society depends on the personal accumulation of wealth, and
home-ownership is the single largest investment that most families make to accrue this
wealth. But when the housing market is fully formed by racial discrimination, there is deep,
abiding inequality. There has not been an instance in the last 100 years when the housing
market has operated fairly, without racial discrimination. From racial zoning to restricted
covenants to LICs to FHA-backed mortgages to the subprime mortgage loan, the US
housing industry has sought to exploit and financially benefit from the public perceptions of
racial difference. This has meant that even when no discernible discrimination is detected,
the fact that Black communities and neighborhoods are perceived as inferior means that
African Americans must rely on an inherently devalued “asset” for maintenance of their
quality of life. This has created a permanent disadvantage. And when home-ownership is
promoted as a key to economic freedom and advancement, this economic inequality is
reinforced, legitimized, and ultimately accepted.”
•Regarding #4 “Reducing the Potential Cost of Development,” please ensure safe and adequate
housing access for people with disabilities. Saving money at the cost of excluding disabled
people from housing would be unacceptable!
•Eliminate parking standards. According to Donald Shoup (4 degrees from Yale in engineering
and economics, teaches at UCLA, chaired UCLA’s Department of Urban Planning and ran the
Institute of Transportation Studies) in Jeff Speck’s book Walkable City, “off-street parking
requirements are a fertility drug for cars.” Consider, instead, residential parking permits [as part
of a parking plan that includes on-street pricing, off-street pricing, in-lieu payments supporting
a collective supply, parking benefit districts, and residential permits where needed (from
Speck’s book)].
•Would it be possible for the City of Port Angeles to encourage Clallam County to adopt your
creative and flexible building code ideas?
•Promotion of “corner shop mixed-use structure” in certain residential intersections would
significantly benefit our community. According to Jeff Speck in his book Walkable City, “The
demand for walkable urbanism already outpaces the supply. This disparity is only going to get
bigger.” Corner shops would likely enhance ‘walkable urbanism’ in Port Angeles.
Unfortunately, according to Front Seat’s https://www.walkscore.com/, Port Angeles ranks
poorly in walk-ability, with a walk score of 40/100 (and a bike score of 35/100).
•Consider writing building codes for ease of reading by builders and contractors. For example, in
addition to including “definitions in multiple logical places,” consider an alphabetized list of
terms as a glossary at the end (or start) of the building code. Consider, also, an index to the
code, organized meaningfully for builders and contractors.
Sincerely,
Tammy Dziadek
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 13 of 18
`
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 9, 2022
TO: Port Angeles Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Division Staff
RE: BRC-Related Code Update: List of Staff Proposed Amendments to Title 17
Planning Division Staff has taken the opportunity to review the entirety of Title 17 of the Port Angeles
Municipal Code (PAMC) in order to assist the Planning Commission in addressing proposed amendments
to the PAMC. This will continue the statewide effort to Build Residential Capacity (BRC) prior to the April 1,
2023 deadline established by RCW 36.70A.600. The proposed changes are provided individually within six
categories, each of which is described below. These categories define either how the existing code serves
as a barrier to housing development or how it serves as an opportunity to provide greater development
flexibility, increase housing density, decrease unnecessary financial burden of existing and developed
housing, or ensure housing for all community members.
Each of the categories below is associated with a color. The individual suggested code changes in the final
section of this memorandum are coded to one or more of the following categories using these color
designations.
1. Code as a Barrier to Affordable Housing Development
A major focus of this code revision exercise is to identify where the City’s zoning and building code
continues to act as a barrier to the development of affordable and attainable housing. Changes
identified under this criterion have been identified as barriers. The goal is to remove these barriers from
code while ensuring consistency in regulations remains across individual Titles and Sections.
2. Increasing Flexibility in Zoning Code Provisions
Since 2017 the City of Port Angeles has continued to provide more flexibility in residential uses allowed
in residentially focused zones and commercially mixed-use focused zones. This flexibility includes the
use itself (whether now allowed outright or by condition) and how the use performs on the site through
design standards and dimensional standards such as setback, height, and bulk (how development
interacts with adjacent property and the street). Examples of this include allowing duplexes by right and
accessory dwelling units as an accessory use in every residentially focused zone, and reducing lot size
requirements in certain zones.
3. Increasing Housing Density Availability
Housing density has historically been the most significant control segregating districts of residential
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 14 of 18
P a g e 2
development. Increasing housing density allows for more affordable and equitable housing availability
across the community. Zoning is a tool to ensure incompatible uses do not create undue nuisance,
burdens, or health impacts to surrounding property owners. Best available science and practice has
recently shown that this frame of thought has created a pattern of development across the United
States inhibiting affordable residential development, especially “missing-middle” housing that has the
ability to easily integrate into historically low-density residential development. The BRC is especially
framed to provide a means to develop missing middle housing and integrate housing density as infill
development into existing low density residential zones.
4. Reducing the Potential Cost of Development
Development cost includes more than the cost of labor and materials. Cost can also be attributed to
the amount of time the development process takes to navigate from property acquisition to an
occupiable structure; the required infrastructural improvements required to ensure adequate services
and safe occupancy; and restrictive design standards imposed by municipal codes. Municipal codes
should not impose a barrier that drives housing costs up in order to cover the cost of development.
Streamlining permitting, imposing infrastructural alternatives, and strategically relaxing some design
standards are all some ways that municipal codes can assist in reducing housing costs.
5. Ensuring Housing Equity and Availability
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, housing is a human right. In order to
appropriately ensure housing for all members of the community, municipal code should adequately
address the needs of everyone. Best available science and practice has recognized the faults in requiring
strict segregation of certain housing types that can otherwise be reasonably located adjacent to each
other. All community members deserve to have access to housing that meets their specific needs at
any and all stages in their life. Successfully employed municipal code should act as the framework
providing diverse housing construction to support and encourage the realization of this right for
everyone.
6. Enabling Local Property Development Through Self Reliance
By amending Title 17 PAMC to be more easily read and interpreted, local property owners will more
readily understand development requirements and make informed choices to maximize the use of their
property.
Staff Code Changes (In No Particular Order)
· Reevaluate and revise each residential zone’s purpose statement to reflect the changes provided in
the BRC process.
· Replace “single-family” with “single-household” to provide inclusivity and equity in Title 17.
· Reestablish consistency among all zone titles (e.g., “RS-7” replaced with “R7”).
Commented [CY1]: This is dead on. I could not have said it
better myself.
Commented [CY2]: I agree that this is important to
increasing housing. Developers need a simple reliable
process to create housing.
Commented [CY3]: Completely agree, If this can include
plans that a land owner can use to build an ADU, that could
be a good incentive.
Commented [CY4]: I like all of the staff recommended
changes. It looks like a lot of thought went into this.
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 15 of 18
P a g e 3
· Codify pre-application requests with a firm timeline and deliverable date.
· Create Maximum lot sizes in R11 and R9 zones to prevent large lot subdivisions or require a
restriction on the plat requiring future subdivision to be at a minimum density.
· Allow a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be constructed accessory to a duplex on one lot
in all residential zones where duplexes are allowed by right.
· Eliminate bedroom requirements for ADUs.
· Creation of temporary housing section of Title 17 with design standards and timelines that also
addresses RVs.
· Allow for alley/street lot subdivision in areas on property with appropriate existing or updated street
standards.
· Define “apartment” and add as a permitted use in all commercial zones.
· Add corresponding definitions in multiple logical places to ensure people find term they are looking
for. E.g. SEE ______
· Identify inconsistency between PAMC titles.
· Exempt apartments above businesses from residential density requirements.
· Refine use charts and lists to avoid conflicts.
· Allow “preexisting single-household dwelling” as an allowed use in all zones.
· Create a disincentive fee for large single-household dwellings above a certain square footage and
use that fee for multi-family market subsidy.
· Enable a City-led development authority/land bank (i.e. Transfer of Development Rights).
· Define “public” in Title 17 so use of terms such as “public buildings” in Section 17.22.110 are clear
and consistently applied.
· Allow 1 dwelling unit per 1,750 sf of land area in the R7 zone.
· Modify Form Based Codes
o Reevaluate landscaped block frontage standards to require minimum frontage distances.
o Parking standards – sequential spaces and landscaping. Location of parking.
o Allow deviations from design standards for existing historically significant structures.
· Allow for commercial to residential conversion with design considerations – specific to CBD to allow
for residential on ground floor.
· Allow for conversion of accessory structures to housing units in all residential zones regardless of
conformity to zoning standards.
· Remove per unit requirements for cottage housing developments.
Commented [CY5]: I suggest finding ways to make parking
more flexible and less burdensome. Parking requirements
are generalized and rarely make sense for individual
locations. Consider parking maximums. Donald Shoup Link
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 16 of 18
P a g e 4
· Allowed dwelling types – if building meets IBC standards per WA state, allow it on any property if
the design meets applicable infill development standards.
· Define and allow “corner shop mixed-use structure” on strategic residential intersections
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 17 of 18
1
Zachary Trevino
From:S. Luxton <sfluxton@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:44 PM
To:Zachary Trevino
Cc:Holden Fleming; Ben Braudrick
Subject:Thoughts on the staff memo on zoning changes
Hi Zach,
Thanks for letting me know about the staff memo on my proposed changes. I reviewed them and here are some key
thoughts.
Most importantly, two duplexes must be allowed a single R7 parcel. Multifamily up to 4 units should be allowed as
well. Four houses should be another option. I agree with the thinking of allowing all these uses at the 1 dwelling unit
per 1750 feet concept.
Since the two duplexes are now MFTE compliant. That is the most effective route to get housing built. They will need to
be on the same parcel however. Multi-family will still be more expensive because of the sprinkler requirement.
Although there is no specific density in the R7, R9, and R11 zones within the code, historically only one home or one
duplex could be built on a parcel irregardless of size, even though this was not specifically codified. This is why we
advocated for years for the 25' R7 lot, because it was a back door route to doubling density. So while the plural uses
continued to be on the permitted use table, multiple duplexes have never been allowed on a single parcel in R7, R9, or
R11. Getting rid of the plural would correct that to how it's actually being regulated by COPA.
However it seems like your solution accomplishes the same increases in uses while making our residential zones and
RMD/RHD zones all alight in their structure. As you say, RMD and RHD use units per acre to manage density, while the
R7, R9 and R11 manage via lot size minimum.
I think your solution is better because it would bring uniformity to all the zones. As long as it expands what can be built
in the same way.
Most important thing is we get more uses in more areas, however that
is accomplished!
It was good to meet with both of you today and put a face to the name.
Thanks,
Steve
December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 18 of 18