Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda1 JEFFERSON COUNTY/CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND STOCK PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE TO: Stock Plan Subcommittee FROM: Emma Bolin, AICP, Director City of Port Townsend, Planning and Community Development Director Brent A. Butler, AICP, Jefferson County, Chief Strategy Officer DATE: December 13, 2023 RE: Stock Plan Review and Selection STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The purpose of this meeting is to update the Stock Plan Committee (“SPC”) on the public input received during outreach events that occurred on October 9, 2023 (see Attachment 1 – minutes) and November 8, 2023 (see Attachment 2 – Lunch and Learn Notes). Additionally, staff will present survey and questionnaire results as more fully set forth in the December 13, 2023 Stock Plan PowerPoint (see Attachment 4 – PowerPoint). Other comments are also included for consideration (see Attachment 3 – Comments, Questionnaires & E-mails) After reviewing information from the events, and considering findings, survey and questionnaires as summarized in the PowerPoint, staff requests that the SPC select eight plans. BACKGROUND: Stock plans are used as an innovative tool to reduce permitting timelines, cost, and noncompliance with local state and federal regulations. They can be used for a primary house, accessory dwelling unit, or multifamily structure. Currently many jurisdictions throughout western Washington authorize stock plans. Some of these municipalities limit stock plans to accessory dwellings while others allow them for other housing types. ANALYSIS: As documented by the UW Center for Real Estate, (see, https://wcrer.be.uw.edu/archived- reports/), every other county other than San Juan Island County is more affordable than Jefferson County, and few cities are less affordable than the City of Port Townsend. Some of the more affordable communities already offering stock plans include, among others: 1) City of Port Angeles (see, https://cityofpa.us/1306/Permit-Ready-Plans), 2) Cities of Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, (see, https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/departments/community-planning-and-economic- development/community-planning/comprehensive-plan-home/lacey-olympia- tumwater-joint-plans) and 2 3) City of Seattle, (see, https://aduniverse-seattlecitygis.hub.arcgis.com/) 4) City of Renton, (see, https://www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/community_and_economic_development/permit_r eady_a_d_u_program) While Clallam County previously offered pre-approved (stock) plans during Clallam County Director of Community Development Mary Ellen Winborn’s tenure, they are no longer available (see, https://www.myclallamcounty.com/2020/05/29/county-official-offers-400-pre- approved-house-design-inspections-included/); staff is unaware of any other county currently offering such plans. According to recent data documenting that there is only one other county among the Washington’s 39 counties where housing is less affordable (see, Housing-Market- Snapshot-Q3-2023.pdf (uw.edu)), staff would argue that providing plans that reduce cost through DIY opportunities, and streamlined design review is uniquely relevant for Jefferson County, its only incorporated city - City of Port Townsend, and the proposed Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. Missing Middle Housing The Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area and the City of Port Townsend would benefit from missing middle housing designs, which are duplexes, triplexes and other multifamily dwelling units whose scale and form fit uniquely well within the fabric of communities largely consisting of single-family homes. Cost considerations Three cost categories include: 1) plan set, 2) plan engineering, 3) hourly support. Applicants could purchase plan sets without the required engineering, and retain an engineer to do this for a fee. This fee would be separate and apart from the cost to purchase the plan set. As part of this call for projects, we envision that the plan sets include engineering. For areas within the county where significant snow is more likely or where winds are stronger, there would likely be additional site design costs. For example, the design standards for most of Jefferson County require consideration of a 25-pound snow load and 110 miles per hour wind. However, if the design is in Brinnon and points south, the snow design standard requires 30lbs; alternatively, if the structure is located on the pacific coast, the required wind design increases to 130 mph. Since, it’s a goal that many of these plans be do it yourself (DIY) ready, we also request the firms to provide opportunities for support, such as an architect available for an hourly fee. While site specific land use review is still required as some areas may have critical areas or other development constraints unique to the site, e.g., higher snow amounts or wind loads, the availability of stock plans will provide many benefits, including: • Expedite delivery of housing by eliminating the need for review and approval of the initial plan set • Architect is available to assist the homeowners/builder for an hourly rate • Reduced design costs 3 • Designs may be more appealing and offer cost competitive options to manufactured structures • Pre-packaged designs are guaranteed to meet local and state building codes • Applicant saves on the jurisdiction’s Plan Review fees since the structural plans are already approved • Reduced design costs. New structural single family designs average 8-12% of the total valuation of the construction cost. At an average of $300/sq ft of building cost for average grade construction, project valuations for these designs range from $86,400- $450,000. Typical design costs on a per project basis would therefore range between $8,600 and $45,000. However, this program enables the designer to skip several steps and lower costs on their designs similar to cheaper pre-designed plans available on the internet. Multifamily designs are typically more expensive; therefore, reduced plan costs may encourage more infill development within the Tri-Area where sewer is planned. Call for projects After an initial call for projects (see, Stock Plan Submittals for Selection: | Jefferson County, WA), the city and county extended the submission date. Upon review of those submitted plans, the Joint City/County Stock Plan Committee (“Committee”) supplemented the existing plans selected previously by three county planning commissioners with new locally designed plans. As a result of the successful call for plans, the City/County recommend that the committee evaluate the 34 plans submitted, and forward eight for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. The overall list now includes 31 new submittals from three western Washington architects/design professionals including GreenPOD (5 plans), Cascadia (11 plans), and Ross Chapin (15 plans). Currently, the 34 different plan sets all meet different needs, all of which can be reviewed online. Collectively, these plans when included with those selected previously, as discussed below, will be more than what can be funded. The designs range from 288-1500 square feet. The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) specifically requested information about numbers of individuals interested in the plans prior to selecting some for funding. FISCAL IMPACT: The BoCC would need to allocated funds for plan review. RECOMMENDATION: After accepting public testimony and considering the preferences summarized in the survey and questionnaire in the presentation, staff requests discussion and deliberation among SPC members, and the selection of eight plans meeting specified criteria such as affordability, accessibility, and appropriate for families. Given the need for missing middle housing, staff would recommend consideration of at least one plan set that meets the needs for multifamily housing for both the City of Port Townsend and the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. 4 ATTACHMENT 1 – October 9, 2023 minutes CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND/JEFFERSON COUNTY MINUTES OF THE JOINT JEFERSON COUNTY AND CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION PRE-APPROVED STOCK PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Friday October 6, 2023 OPEN HOUSE CALL TO ORDER- 10:45 am ROLL CALL Jefferson County Planning Commissioners subcommittee: Matt Sircely and Kevin Coker City of Port Townsend Planning Commissioners subcommittee: Neil Nelson PUBLIC COMMENT DUNCAN KELLOGG: Spoke about shed remodels and difficulty of obtaining WA Department of Labor & Industries permits. Expressed appreciation for the group to improve workforce housing. KELLEN LYNCH: Recommended using Seattle and Lacey programs as example. Stated that affordability is important. The market for these plans might be for a second ADU. There may be future opportunities to require permanently affordable housing. ANNE RAAB: She is one of the submitting designers. With three units you can share a heating system. Site design means modular is not a one size fits all. She tries to build flexibility into her designs. ERIC JONES: Stated that the primary goal of the program and audience should be identified. BEN WILSON: Stated that not all the same information is available on each of the plans such as pricing. 5 NEW BUSINESS City Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin presented a Powerpoint on the pre-approved stock plan project including project schedule, preliminary public feedback forms and public favorite plans, possible project goals, and questions about how to evaluate plans to select which ones would be recommended for plan review funding. Commissioners then discussed plan differentiation. Kitchen and bathroom can be the most expensive part of the home, but smaller plans don’t always cut cost. Accessibility and aging in place along with affordability and flexibility were top issues rising to the top. Two bedrooms are important and could achieve more affordability. More windows are expensive. Decks are pricier than patios. Compact designs reduce foundation costs, but only able-bodied people can use an upper floor. Commissioner Coker indicated that the Wildland Urban Interface and 2021 Washington State Energy Code could have an impact on cost. About 8% of building costs are for construction, 91% are operations and building maintenance, and 1% is demolition at the end of its life cycle. County Chief Strategy Officer, Brent Butler, talked about future outreach, and announced that he was hosting a Lunch and Learn at the end of the month focused on employee participation and feedback on the stock plans. He mentioned that internet connectivity is problematic in the County. Discussion resumed about roof types, complexity of building corners and affordability. Foundation types such as helical screws and diamond piers can reduce foundation costs and tree elimination pressure. A local architect noted that the stock plan program cannot solve every person’s custom design wishes. All designs need to be rectangular, have simple shed roofs, and come in different sizes so that users can estimate costs and compare apples to apples. Discussion continued on how to calculate affordability. Do-it-yourself ability is a factor; however, if an owner/builder cannot keep up with a schedule, then it affects sub- contractor availability. Commissioner Coker asked which Seattle/Lacey/Renton preapproved stock plans are selected and used mor. Brent Butler responded that it depended on if the designer promoted the plans more. The Commissioners agreed to use the current plan solicitation, work on listing plans for comparison with thumbnail images, evaluate based on selection criteria, and ask 6 architects to fill in missing information on pricing and costs. The County will be more experienced in stock plans after learning how they are used in this Building code cycle. The emphasis now is to get some plans available soon. The Commissioners then discussed the need to provide ample time for finalist plan engineering. With the spring building season and the new building code, engineers are likely to be at least a month out for scheduling. People using the program stand to gain some benefit in design/permit cost and time. The hard work is selecting and designing the building site. There is a need for more public input and another meeting in the evening within the county such as the County Library or Tri-Area Community Center so that workers and county residents could more easily attend. SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT TERRY SMITH: Stated as a realtor she observes buyers wanting common features. It’s hard to know your budget and its more difficult now to develop lots. With leased land, if a bank will finance, the interest rate could be higher. ERIC JONES: Stated that multiuse of space is very important for families in small spaces. JEANNETTE MCKAGUE: What are the range of incomes supported by these plans for the Comprehensive Plan update? ADJOURN 7 ATTACHMENT 2 – November 8, 2023 Lunch and Learn Notes DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us DATE: December 13, 2023 FROM: Brent A. Butler, AICP Chief Strategy Officer TO: Joint City of Port Townsend/Jefferson County Stock Plan Committee Jefferson County’s Planning Commission Stock Plan Subcommittee RE: December 8, 2023 Lunch and Learn Overview ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) and Debbie Fountain, the Financial Operations Coordinator (FOC), provided a brief overview of how they purchased their first homes in Jefferson County, using a lot loan (bank financing) and down-payment assistance programs (Farmers Home Administration) respectively. The presenter(s) shared how the financing they used have been replaced but still exist in other forms; the following key points were shared. 1. CSO (Brent) shared how the lot loan he obtained is offered again, after a pause, and that you should check the terms as each lot loan will have different components. a. Revised Code of Washington § 36.01. 130 prohibits stabilizing rents, as it states that ‘controls on rent for residential structures – [are] prohibited” and that there are notable exceptions. Consequently, rental ownership comes with few guarantees that the rent will not become unaffordable over time for those with fixed incomes. b. CSO requested staff to fill out their preference by using the questionnaire resulted in only one submission from Sacha Coker. 2. FOC (Debbie) shared how her program was affordable, and enabled her to have a home constructed, enabling her to move in as the first owner. Most importantly, similar programs still exist (for more information, please go: https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs- services/single-family-housing-programs 3. Jefferson County Treasurer Stacie Prada shared that information regarding First-Time Homebuyer eligibility linked to the First Federal website that has a lot of links that might be good to consider and search for source information at USDA or other websites, including a. USDA for income eligibility on this website that might be handy to have ready to share with others. It’s interesting to look at our wage tables and see who might qualify depending on number of people in the home and number working. https://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/eligibility/incomeEligibilityAction.do? pageAction=state b. 7 Steps for First-time Homebuyers c. Who is Considered a First-Time Homebuyer in Washington? First- time home buyers are eligible to receive many financial advantages, and you might not realize that you could qualify for a loan assistance program DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us based on that status. In Washington, a first-time homebuyer is classified as any individual who has not owned and occupied a primary residence during the previous three years. d. Other conditions include: If you've owned a home, but your spouse has not, then you can purchase a place together as first-time homebuyers. i. A single parent who has only owned a home with a former spouse while married. ii. A displaced homemaker who has only owned a home with a spouse. iii. An individual who has only owned a principal residence not permanently affixed to a permanent foundation in accordance with applicable regulations. iv. An individual who has only owned a property that was not in compliance with state, local, or model building codes—and that cannot be brought into compliance for less than the cost of constructing a permanent structure. v. Once you and your lender have found the description that defines you, there are still a few steps to make sure you qualify for first- time homebuyer down payment assistance programs and determine what loan works best for you. 8 ATTACHMENT 3 – Comments, Questionnaires & E-mails DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Preapproved Plan Preferences 1) Would you be interested in purchasing preapproved plans for a dwelling unit? _________________________________________________________________________________ 2) What features are most important to you? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 3) Is the property located in the City of Port Townsend (PT) or in unincorporated Jefferson County? If so, generally, where is it (address not required)? For those outside of the city – what district or community? For City residents: what neighborhood or address? _________________________________________________________________________________ 4) Which of the plans on the website (https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1645/Stock-Plan- Submittals-for-Selection) appeal most to you? Please write the name of the plan(s)? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 5) Why do the plans you selected interest you the most? Please identify features. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 6) Why are you interested? An additional dwelling for you or family, for rental income or? _________________________________________________________________________________ 7) Would you construct the selected plans yourself and when? ________________________________________________________________________________ Helpful hints If interested in low construction costs consider…. Hint 1 - Simple square rectangular plans Hint 2 - Shed roofs Hint 3 – Single wall with plumbing Size Maximums for Accessory Dwelling 800 square feet limit in Port Townsend Less than 1,250 for outside the city (Jefferson County) Just google three words to find the plans: 1) Jefferson County, 2) WA and 3) Stock Plans Do you desire accessible features for limited mobility users? Universal Access/ Aging in Place DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Preapproved Plan Preferences 1) Would you be interested in purchasing preapproved plans for a dwelling unit? _________________________________________________________________________________ 2) What features are most important to you? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 3) Is the property located in the City of Port Townsend (PT) or in unincorporated Jefferson County? If so, generally, where is it (address not required)? For those outside of the city – what district or community? For City residents: what neighborhood or address? _________________________________________________________________________________ 4) Which of the plans on the website (https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1645/Stock-Plan- Submittals-for-Selection) appeal most to you? Please write the name of the plan(s)? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 5) Why do the plans you selected interest you the most? Please identify features. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 6) Why are you interested? An additional dwelling for you or family, for rental income or? _________________________________________________________________________________ 7) Would you construct the selected plans yourself and when? ________________________________________________________________________________ Helpful hints If interested in low construction costs consider…. Hint 1 - Simple square rectangular plans Hint 2 - Shed roofs Hint 3 – Single wall with plumbing Size Maximums for Accessory Dwelling 800 square feet limit in Port Townsend Less than 1,250 for outside the city (Jefferson County) Just google three words to find the plans: 1) Jefferson County, 2) WA and 3) Stock Plans Do you desire accessible features for limited mobility users? Universal Access/ Aging in Place 1 Brent Butler From:peter west <peter-west@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 11, 2023 8:08 AM To:Brent Butler Subject:PRADUs ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Mr. Butler, Firstly, congratulations on the visionary and ground-breaking work to bring permit ready structures to our county and city. I only discovered the work you and your colleagues have been doing very recently. You may already have made your final choices of what plans to include so my feedback may be too late, but I just wanted to add a comment about the quality of the architect and their reputation in the community. I've worked with three of the architects on this list and I would like to express support for the work of Lily Queen of Cascadia Design. I have found her to be very responsive and professional and very easy to work with. It seems to me that in most cases a plan purchaser will have to have to have at least some contact with the architect to bring their project to life and my experience would suggest that plan purchasers would have a very good experience with Lily. It seems to me that it is not just about the quality of the plan design although that is the biggest factor, but also about the level of support and clarity of communication that a purchaser can anticipate after the sale. Anyway, just a thought. Once again I am very impressed with the willingness of the county and city to move in this direction. best wishes, Peter West From: Lily Queen <lily@cascadiahomedesign.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:37 PM To: CityCouncil; David Faber; Emma Bolin Subject: Stock Plan feedback CAUTION: External Email Dear City Council, Mayor Faber and City Staff, I’m writing to share some feedback from a local designer’s perspective after watching a replay of the City Council meeting where stock plans were recently discussed. Full transparency and disclosure, I own Cascadia Home Design and submitted six plans under 800 sq ft (the City’s maximum for a detached ADU) and 5 plans between 800-1250 sq ft (up to the County’s maximum detached ADU size or suitable as a modest SFR). While I would be honored to have a plan or two of mine selected, my main goal is to see this project succeed AND have it contribute to affordable housing options for our community. On the topic of costs of plans, I would gladly volunteer the cost of the plans up front which I plan on being between $800-$1500 depending on the size of the plan. In addition, there would be fees associated with site plans, feasibility and energy codes but I would estimate the cost for those services to be between $1000-$2500. This puts the cost of a stock plan FAR below what a traditional architectural firm would charge. As a cost comparison example, 10-20% of a $350,000 project would be $35,000-$70,000. My goal with drafting stock plans is not to make a significant profit but to hopefully recoup the time put into drafting the plans by selling them multiple times. I can’t speak for the other designers or architects that submitted plans but I imagine their thinking would be along the same lines. Something to keep in mind for how stock plans can be a piece of the affordable housing puzzle would be selecting plans that are as simple to build as possible. Simplicity of design typically equals cost reduction when building which equals more affordable construction. As my design mentor used to say, “There are three ways to make a house cheaper: make it smaller, make it simpler and choose less expensive finishes.” While there are some designs that may be appealing from an aesthetic standpoint with things like bumpouts, rooflines, multiple stories, trim details, etc; all of these add to the cost of building. This may be obvious but I hope it can be kept in mind when doing outreach about stock plan selection and there are ways to make plans simple but also nice to look at. :) When it comes to getting feedback on the plans, I’m curious how the City and the County will also be contributing to doing outreach in the community, other than relying on Housing Solutions Network. Will there be a newsletter? Information on the main page of the website? Announcements in the newspaper? My hope is that it won’t only fall to the hardworking folks at HSN to handle all the outreach. Code changes and updates were also discussed and I wanted to be sure to point out that there is an option for “prescriptive engineering” which follows a set path for strengthening a building when designed in a straightforward way so that it can be built without having to be stamped by a structural engineer. I kept these standards in mind when putting together my stock plan designs and it seems to me it would be the most cost effective way of avoiding having to have plans re-engineered every 2-3 years. The most significant code changes happen regarding the State energy codes and not necessarily significant changes to the structural codes themselves. There is a prescriptive path to meet the energy code requirements as well and these changes do not affect the overall structure, floor plan or design. Once again, my hope in sharing this information is not to convince you to choose my plans but to give more context when it comes to designs and cost as well as sharing my perspective as a designer and how I see this project succeeding. Whether my plans are chosen or not, my hope is that the stock plans selected are simple, can be built in a cost effective way and save people money when building that can then be passed along in the form of housing that is attainable for our community. Thank you for your time! Lily Lily Queen She/Her 206.795.8082 www.cascadiahomedesign.com 9 ATTACHMENT 4 - PowerPoint Joint Planning Commission Pre-Approved Stock Plan Subcommittee December 13, 2024 – Tri-Areas Community Center Project Process October: Convened City/County Joint Committee Gather public input throughout process December 2024 WE ARE HERE: Evaluate public input, rank plans, recommendation to County Commissioners to fund plan review January 2024: Structural review of final selected plans – subsidized by government March 2024: Plans available for use *Plans not selected can still be used with regular permit fees. Feedback Form Highlights •Interest: If we purchased an adjacent City lot; place ADU next to home. ADU rental income, possibility to downsize. 600-1000 sq ft ideal. Need space for washer/dryer, larger sizes 1500-1800 sq ft. I want to start with an ADU to live in while I build my house. •Features: affordability, ease of construction e.g. modular, manufactured, green building. Narrow footprint for tree preservation. Able to become a single-family home in future with boundary adjustment. Efficient design, small spaces that “lives large,” plenty of windows, beautiful design. Self-build. •3 City residents completed the form; 1 county resident •Timing until ready to apply: several years Feedback highlights •Interest: Older Adult needs in Brinnon, 1) storage space , 2) large Kitchens 3) shop space, 4) second bedroom, 5) no stairs, 6) accessible, 7) ADU, for income, visiting family members, or caregiver. •young families --> from the voice of an older adult. Rural young families need at least two bedrooms and some more, depending on how many children they have, and likely would want two bathrooms as well. Stairs wouldn't be a problem, but most wouldn't care so much about accessibility. Again, shop space and space for multiple vehicles would be desired. All of these considerations work against the idea that such housing can be affordable. There are many semi- modular or prefabricated building options out there and I don't see why the county isn't considering any of these types of plans for more conventionally-sized dwellings. People wanting to use stock plans available from many sources that comply with standard building codes should be able to have at least some of the permitting costs associated with one-off building reduced. Similarly, those that want to update or upgrade their existing dwelling should also be able to have reduced permitting costs. •Features: Various – older adults (see interest above) •Locations: 1 Brinnon resident Public Plan Favorites Overview •Context dependent. People are considering on-site ADU’s as well as buying a new lot to downsize. •People who downsize typically desire single story. •More bedrooms or accommodations for larger beds are desired. Public Survey Results – 42 Responses Public Survey Results – 42 Responses •Most respondents preferred a shed or flat roof. An equal amount were not picky. •Most people are not picky about hallways. Nearly a quarter want to minimize hallways either for costs or design interest. Less than a quarter need hallways because of property constraints. Public Survey Results – 42 Responses Public Survey Results – 42 Responses Top Plans Selected by Committee •Artisan Group- Flexible ADU •600 sq ft •1 bedroom, 1 bath •Compatible with gable, hip, or shed roof truss. Siding choice. •High estimate is $150,000 to construct •$1,000 plan price; $88-148 hourly fee •Committee Votes: 3 out of 4 “Affordable, simple classic form; could fit into urban or rural setting.” •Public Survey: Top Vote @ 19% Top Plans Selected by Committee •Cascadia - Tomato •1008 sq ft •2 bedrooms, 1 bath •9-foot ceiling; includes laundry. Very similar to Raspberry design. •Features a hallway. •$800-1500 for plans •Committee Votes: 3 out of 4 “simple, easy to build.” “good design for project goals. Modular capability is a bonus. Utility room may not be necessary, perhaps possible to refuce the walls, open inside in some way.” •Public Survey: 2ND most popular @ 16% Top Plans Selected by Committee •Ross Chapin - Hilltop •828 or 1015 sq ft •2 bedrooms, 1 bath; Version A has 1 bedrooms, 1.25 bath. •High estimate is $355,250 to construct •First Survey Preference •Committee Votes: 1 out of 4 “Classic cottage form. Versions 4 and 5 offer flexibility and appear affordable.” •Public Survey: 3rd most popular @ 15% Top Plans Selected by Committee •Green Pod - Freedom •581 sq ft •1 bedroom, 1 bath •$80,000 to construct •Committee Votes: 2 out of 4 “Simple, easy to build.” “Deck is extra. Simple, accessible and affordable. Modular use potential.” •Public Votes: 4TH Place @ 12% Top Plans Selected by Committee •Green Pod – Care pod •320 sq ft •1 bedroom, 1 bath •Committee Votes: 2 out of 4 “Simple, easy to build.” “Good design, small, adaptable. Accessible. Great potential for modular use.” •Public Vote:5th place @ 10% Top Plans Selected by Committee •Urban Cottage Prefab & Wood Studio •288-576 sq ft •1 or 2 bedrooms, 1 bath •288sf = $350/sf = $101,000; 432sf 1 bed $315/sf=$136,000; 576 sf Two bed=$292/sf = $170,000 •Meets affordable, accessible, flexible requirements •$900 for plans, $100 hourly fee •Committee Votes: 3 out of 4 •“Modular, adaptable, simple, accessible, meets all of our criteria” Committee Member •Public Votes: 6TH Place @ 7% Top Plans Selected by Committee •Ross Chapin - Willows •806 sq ft •2 bedrooms, 1 bath •High estimate is $282,100 to construct •Accessible, affordable •First Survey: preference •Committee Votes: 1 out of 4 “good, efficient plan, appears affordable.” •Public Vote: 7th place @ 6% Top Plans Selected by Committee •Green Pod – Brandonwood •447 sq ft •1 bedroom, 1 bath •Committee Votes: 1 out of 4 “Simple, easy to build.” “Nice design, beautiful. Yet too much glass.” •Public Vote:Least favorite with 3% Top Plans Selected by Committee •Ross Chapin “Brightside” •784 sq ft •2 bedroom, 1.25 bath •First survey preference •Committee Vote: 1 out of 4 •“Less accessible. Efficient Design, few hallways. Good for family with efficiency of the heating and smaller footprint, foundation expense. Could possess modular capability if the roof size doubled with adjoining walls separating a duplex” •Was not available for public vote Top Plans Selected by Committee •Cascadia “Apple” •1092 sq ft •2 bedrooms, 1 bath •Committee Comments favorable : 1 out of 4 •“Roof could be more simple. Tomato better achieves goals.” •Was not available for public vote Top Plans Selected by Committee •Cascadia “Zucchini” •1164 sq ft •2 bedrooms, 2 bath •First survey preference •Committee comments: 1 out of 4 favorable •“Roof could be more accessible. Tomato better achieves goals.” •Was not available for public vote Top Plans Selected by Committee •Ross Chapin “Cabo” and “Cabo Loft” •544 with loft, 744 sq ft without loft •1 bedroom, 1 bath •Committee comments: 3 out of 4 favorable •“Simple, can be built to be accessible.” “Could have better access.” Loft version could have closet removal option making living room another bedroom, open seating space by kitchen, storage or bed in loft.” •Was not available for public vote Top Plans Selected by Committee •Cascadia “Blackberry” •432 sq ft •1 bedroom, 1 bath •First survey preference •Committee Comments:3 out of 4 favorable •“If roof changes to simple gable,” “perhaps without porch and extra roof complexity.” “Hip roof is more expensive” •Was not available for public vote Top Plans Selected by Committee •Cascadia “Basil” •660 sq ft •1 bedroom, 1 bath •Committee Comments: 2 out of 4 favorable •“fits project goals, would be better with kitchen by the bathroom, perhaps open up the walls and create openness inside” •Was not available for public vote City of Port Angeles Stock Plan Program •https://cityofpa.us/1306/Permit-Ready-Plans •License and engineering is exclusive for Port Angeles applicants. •Unknown: Can the license be extended or purchased by other jurisdictions? •2021 Codes used. Port Angeles is in Seismic Zone E. Motion for tonight •Motion to approve final recommendation for the committee’s preferred plans not to exceed 8. Final 8 Plans 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Committee Votes Favorable Comments Public Vote Middle Housing •Are there any duplexes that should be recommended as a “wild card” that could be funded by a middle housing grant? (Middle Housing defined by the state as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, sixplexes, cottage housing, courtyard apartments, and townhouses. ADU’s are not considered middle housing per state law).