COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 501 North Anderson Street, Ellensburg WA 98926 MINUTES OF ELLENSBURG CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Date and Time: Place of Meeting: Present: Absent: Others Present: Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2018 at 5:45 p.m. City Council Chambers, Ellensburg City Hall Gretchen Thatcher, Fred Padjen, Ed Harrell, George Bottcher, Gayl Curtiss, Beverly Heckart John Renkema Community Development Director Kirsten Sackett, Senior Planner Angela San Filippo, City Council liaison Nancy Goodloe, and three members of the public 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Thatcher called the meeting to order at 5:46 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Heckart made a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner Curtiss seconded. The motion to approve the agenda passed with all in favor. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Heckart made proposed some changes in punctuation moved to approve the minutes of September 13, 2018 as amended. Commissioner Harrell seconded. The motion passed with all in favor. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Public hearing on revisions to Ellensburg City Code Chapter 15.540.040 Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards LEGISLATIVE Chairwoman Thatcher introduced the revisions to Ellensburg City Code Chapter 15.540.040 Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards (ADU), and opened the public hearing. Senior Planner San Filippo presented the staff report. She said the Planning Commission previously held four work sessions at regularly scheduled meetings. To inform the Planning Commission s recommendations, City staff interviewed seven members of the public that have permitted and/or constructed ADUs in the City of Ellensburg. The interview summary was presented as an attachment to the agenda report. The Planning Commission recommendation is to revise the City s ADU standards to allow for more flexibility in the sizing of ADUs, ensure architectural design consistency, and remove the privacy fencing requirement. The Planning Commission s proposed revisions to the City s ADU standards are included in the draft ordinance. September 27, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1
San Filippo said that the procedures and criteria for Land Development Code (LDC) amendments are outlined in ECC 15.250.100 and include the following requirements: 1. The amendment is in accordance with the comprehensive plan; and 2. The amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare; and 3. The amendment is not contrary to the best interest of the citizens and property owners of the city. San Filippo stated that staff finds the proposed amendments to the ADU standards to be in keeping with the decision criteria. She explained that ADUs support many of the housing goals and policies in the City s Comprehensive Plan. Increasing the production of a more affordable rental housing option that fits within the scale of existing single-family neighborhoods, supports Goal H-1 which strives to protect and strengthen the vitality of existing neighborhoods. Production of ADUs can also help the City adapt housing stock to accommodate residential growth and provide affordable housing options, in support of Comprehensive Plan Goal H-2. San Filippo stated that there is an action item in the housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for allowing for a wider variety of housing by reviewing and identifying barriers to the development of ADUs, along with other housing types. San Filippo said that the proposed amendment had been advertised, and two written comments had been received. She provided a summary of the comments which were included as attachments to the agenda report. Chairwoman Thatcher opened the floor to the public. Brian Finn said his family had purchased a home that already had an ADU that did not receive a building permit. He noted that he found the architectural consistency requirements to be difficult to maintain. He said he was speaking for himself as well as another builder who could not be in attendance. He feels that the architectural consistency standards can be contrary to the character of the neighborhood when an ADU has to be built to match an out of date building. Joanne Hilleman, stated she owns three rental properties in the city of Ellensburg. She said she built one of the first ADUs under the 2013 code. She wanted to thank the Commission for the ADU code, as she finds it to be helpful in meeting the housing needs of the community. She also wanted to thank San Filippo for the opportunity to share her ideas with the Commission. She presented some of the positive aspects of the proposed revisions. She thinks removal of the privacy fence requirement is great, as many ADUs are on a second story. She also appreciates the 500 square foot exception as very small primary homes can t build homes that are cost effective. She is very supportive of those two changes. Regarding the architectural consistency, the house that she built with an accompanying ADU is older with gray walls, and she wanted to make the ADU a more appropriate color and design. She feels it can become onerous trying to match the style of the main house. She does want the ADU to be functional in arrangement. She is planning to build one or two more ADUs in the future. She thinks the fees are disproportionate for ADUs. For instance the park impact fee, and the separate water meter was very expensive. Two years ago it was a flat $6000 to add another water meter. Some of the permitting fees make it less cost effective for someone to build small, September 27, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
and she knows that there is a need in this town for 1 and 2 bedroom units. Regarding parking, the extra parking space can be onerous. For instance one of her rental homes has RPZ parking, but once she added the ADU, she had to provide three parking spaces, after previously having none. She recommended that RPZ parking count towards the required off-street parking spaces. Jim Sikes stated he has a rental and a home property. He would like to either modify his rental, or build an ADU above his garage. He is just interested in knowing what the possibilities are. Chairwoman Thatcher asked if staff had anything to add; staff indicated they did not. Ms. Hilleman got back up and said a friend who built an ADU on a property did not have sidewalks. He was told that he would have to put in sidewalks, which would have been very onerous for such a small development. He was able to get a deferral of the sidewalk improvements. Thatcher asked if the Commission had any questions of staff or the public. Curtiss asked for clarification on the staff report. San Filippo said the staff recommendation is to keep the floor area ratio rather than change it to the footprint for detached ADUs. Padjen asked why the design standards include detached rather than just the attached ADUs. San Filippo said that the recommendation of the Planning Commission was to have the architectural consistency requirements apply to both attached and detached ADUs. Curtiss asked members of the audience to comment on the architectural design consistency requirements and the intention of the requirements to maintain neighborhood character. Hillemann said she has mixed feelings regarding the requirements and understands both sides. That said, her hope is that applicants working with existing buildings are given more leniency with regard to architectural changes to the building. Brian Finn said his he owns a cinderblock house built in 1939 and does not think property owners should be beholden to building ADUs in outdated styles. His future plans are to tear down the primary home, and then a proposed new home would not match the ADU. This opens up a huge gray area, which could provide huge headaches for the homeowners and the city in the future. Heckart asked Director Sackett how staff would respond to challenges with architectural consistency. Sackett responded that it has to be reviewed on a case by case basis but that the architectural consistency requirements can be subjective depending on the reviewer. Hillemann asked for clarification on footprint versus floor area. She asked if the existing garage is counted towards the footprint. Heckart asked how staff would respond; Sackett responded that the square footage of the garage is not usually calculated into the primary dwelling unit when determining how large the ADU can be. Hillemann said changing the code to read footprint would be more restrictive and she doesn t think it should be changed. Curtiss asked whether the applicant could ask for a waiver. Staff displayed city code and explained that a departure would not be allowed for this specific requirement. Chairwoman Thatcher closed the public hearing, and opened it up to commissioner deliberation. Padjen said that after hearing the discussion from the audience, he would like to withdraw the September 27, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
proposal to change the terminology from floor area to footprint. Thatcher agreed. Harrell said this whole discussion brings us back to the design standards and open space requirements that are already in the code. Padjen made a motion that ADUs be determined by the floor area of the primary dwelling unit rather than the footprint. Bottcher seconded. All in favor; motion passed. Bottcher made a motion to eliminate line item 6, which states the ADU must be architecturally consistent with the primary dwelling. Heckart said she is going to vote against the motion. Thatcher asked for a second. Padjen seconded. Harrell said the design standards cover most aspects of building and if the architecturally consistency requirement is removed the ADU still has to follow design standards. Bottcher said that it creates more problems than it solves, and that it is unnecessary. He feels that most people constructing an ADU want their place to look nice and the requirement would not allow people to express themselves; he doesn t think it will open the flood gates to having poorly designed ADUs. Curtiss was concerned about ADUs being built in historic areas are in keeping with the historic character. Discussion ensued on this topic. Thatcher re-opened the public hearing so staff could provide a response. Director Sackett stated that any new construction in the historic district would undergo review by the Landmarks and Design Commission. Thatcher closed the public hearing and asked for a vote on the motion to remove the architectural design consistency requirement. Those in favor included Harrell, Padjen, Bottcher, and Curtiss. Those opposed included Heckart and Thatcher. Motion carries 4 to 2. Curtiss said at a recent affordable housing meeting with Mayor Tabb and legislative and local government representatives she heard discussion on the high cost of parking and the impact on affordability. Many jurisdictions are removing parking requirements to help address affordability. Curtiss made a motion to remove the one extra off-street parking requirement for ADUs. Padjen seconded. Bottcher said he is on the fence; he wants to encourage ADUs, but he also feels the onus is on the property owner to provide parking. Curtiss said there is still the parking requirement for the principal structure. Padjen thinks the homeowner should be able to decide how much parking they are going to spend money on. Harrell said that if parking is on the street, then the City is paying for it. Padjen disagreed, as the street is already there. Harrell said the street wasn t built to be a parking lot. Heckart said there are some people who are altruistic and will provide parking spaces, and there are others who are not and will not provide the parking space if they are not required to do so. Bottcher said there are positive aspects of providing off-street parking. Additional discussion ensued. Heckart said that we are using the ADUs as a solution to the housing problem, and it is not the entire solution. Padjen said the ADUs will only provide an increase in rental income. Bottcher said that ADUs have the potential to make the lives of families a little more pleasant. Curtiss responded that the parking required for ADUs would not have a large impact on the parking problem in the City, but it could have a major impact on the cost and feasibility for a property owner to build an ADU. She said she is trying to remove as many barriers to ADUs as possible. September 27, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
Thatcher called for a vote on the motion to remove the additional off-street parking requirement for an ADU. Those in favor included Curtiss and Padjen. Those against included Bottcher, Thatcher, Harrell, and Heckart. Motion failed 4 to 2. Bottcher made a motion to approve the revisions to the ADU standards as presented and further amended by the commission. Harrell seconded. All in favor; motion passed. San Filippo said this will go before City Council on October 15 at 7 pm in the Council Chambers. 5. OLD BUSINESS a. Continue zoning district work session San Filippo said that based on what she heard during the ADU discussion, she wanted to take the conversation back to the allowable uses in the residential zones. She said she had also pulled together some information about the gateway streets and Dolarway Road. The information is from the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Code, and future land use designations from the current Comprehensive Plan. San Filippo then pulled out the large residential use table. Discussion was held on the duplex standards. Sackett presented an example of an existing duplex on an R-S zoned property. The owner wants to tear down the duplex that is in great disrepair and build a new duplex. ECC 15.310 allows a duplex in R-S, however based on the size of the lot the density requirements in ECC 15.320 do not allow for two dwellings. There was a suggestion to allow mobile home parks within the R-L zone. Thatcher was opposed because those areas are supposed to be less populated. After further discussion, the Commission agreed they would like to make MHPs allowable in R-S and R-L as a conditional use. San Filippo returned the discussion to duplexes in R-S and R-L, where duplexes are already allowed, but the maximum density requirements makes them infeasible in most areas. The Commission agreed they would like to allow duplexes and find a way to make the density work. Discussion ensued regarding the difference between townhouses and multifamily. The Commission wanted to consider three-plexes separately in the use table and allow them in the same place as duplexes. Additional discussion occurred regarding affordable housing. San Filippo handed out the gateway summary information and said we would come back to the nonresidential use discussion at the next meeting. 6. CITIZEN COMMENT 7. STAFF UPDATE/DISCUSSION ITEMS 8. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held on October 11, and will be dedicated to the zoning discussion. 9. ADJOURNMENT Heckart made a motion to adjourn. Padjen seconded. All in favor; motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm September 27, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5