The Planning Commission meeting on April 11 took more than two hours, and the commission may return to meeting twice a month. Chair Susan Harman has pursued an active agenda to tackle long-standing problems, and topics on the table for the near future will require longer commission meetings. Harman has also encouraged an ambitious schedule of monthly workshops to provide an opportunity to address complicated subjects in a more casual setting.
This meeting included two public hearings, which lead to a zoning variance and the revocation of a conditional-use permit.
Recent applications have raised the question of building on small lots. City codes call for minimum lot sizes. In recent meetings, commissioners have wrestled with questions of setbacks, building density, and emergency services while they considered allowing a new home on a small lot.
Last week, Harman asked about adopting a formula for floor-area to lot size. Instead of a minimum lot size, the commission could use the formula to say what size building could go on a lot. Applicants could use that figure in designing a project before even approaching the commission for approval. The plan would still require more discussion on including space for a garage or parking pad. Harman noted that city council would have to approve changes to city codes.
The floor-area discussion led to a question about minimum size for a dwelling. Although some “tiny houses” have as little as 200 square feet of floor space, commissioners agreed that 500 square feet would make a more practical minimum, to allow for a living area, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. Commissioners did not make any decisions, and a workshop may be scheduled. City Historic Preservation Officer Kyle Palmer will provide research from other cities.
Although revisions to these city codes might allow houses on more lots, commissioner Peter Graham cautioned against letting too many small houses overwhelm city services. He explained that four small houses on a lot might have the same square footage as one large house, but they would place more of a load on water and sewer systems.
The discussion segued into the possibility of the city requiring annual inspections of rental housing, whether for short or long term. Code Enforcement Officer and Building Inspector Jacob Coburn will be invited to the May 9 meeting to discuss the topic. Harman said she would like to see city council adopt a bill of rights for long-term renters. That could require fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, water testing, and more.
Palmer said the fire marshal would like to see these policies in place, and city council has already discussed the issue of inspections.
In other business:
- During public comments, Bill King and John Rankine took issue with statements made by commissioner Tom Buford at the March 14 meeting. King and Rankine are co-owners of an apartment building at 1 Washington St., which had burned. In March, Buford offered several complaints about procedures surrounding the repairs to the property, including the suggestion that the owners began repair work before obtaining permits. He also suggested that more than 50 percent of the building was destroyed by the fire, which would have voided the property’s status as a legal non-conforming apartment building.
King objected to the “innuendo,” and said the commission should have approached the owners rather than spreading misinformation across the commission table. He said the building was only 30 percent destroyed, and he obtained all necessary permits with “no special treatment.”
Commission procedures prevented Buford from responding during the public comments period. During commissioner comments, he explained that he had been at a council meeting when the topic came up. King and Rankine did not attend that meeting, but others were allowed to comment on the property, and he heard those objections raised.
- The above discussion raised the question of how a property’s legal non-conforming status could be revoked. Palmer said he could not find any guidelines, and no one could remember a case when this had happened. The commission voted to ask city council for clarification on the procedure, especially in determining if city council or the planning commission would have the primary responsibility.
- Commissioner Tom Buford said a revised tree ordinance was almost ready for submission to city council when Covid interrupted the process. He proposed reviewing the revised ordinance. Language will be added to exempt city parks from the provisions of the tree ordinance.
- A workshop is tentatively scheduled for 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9. The workshop will focus on residential incentives, to help those offering long-term rental property instead of short-term tourist lodging. Commissioner Meghan Morris raised the issue at the March meeting. She discussed inviting the mayor’s economic task force, because “they’ve already done a lot of work” on studying the need for rental properties. Morris said the residential incentive program can also help property owners identify the best tenants.
- Commissioners have studied various application forms offered for such procedures as applying for a Conditional Use Permit or requesting a variance. Some redundant or unnecessary language will be eliminated from the applications. Harman suggested adding a section for the signatures of department heads to ensure that an application coming before the commission has already been reviewed by Public Works, police, and fire officials. Commissioners will see drafts of updated applications at the May 9 meeting.
- Commissioner Ann Tandy-Sallee was absent from this meeting and had planned to report on defining the term “unit” as it pertains to tourist lodging. That was postponed pending her return.
- Harman noted a “heavy agenda” for the May 9 meeting. Topics will include more on floor-area ratio, parking, and a draft of a tree ordinance. Commissioners will have drafts of updated application forms, and they will consider inspections for short- and long-term rentals. They will also decide on a possible return to twice-monthly meetings.