HomeMy WebLinkAboutPTEV PUD A-0 Staff Recommendations for HEPort Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 1 of 75 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND Development Services Department 250 Madison Street, Suite 3 (360) 379-5095 FAX (360) 344-4619 ________________________________
_____________________________________________ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT (DSD) STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PORT TOWNSEND HEARING EXAMINER Re: Open Record Public Hearing
on the Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Binding Site Plan (BSP) known as Port Townsend EcoVillage. File No: LUP08-063 Hearing Date: July 8, 2009 @5:30 PM Staff Report Date:
June 30, 2009 Applicants: Kees and Helen Kolff Port Townsend EcoVillage 510 35th Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 DSD Staff Contact: Suzanne Wassmer, Land Use Development Specialist (360)
385-0644 EXHIBITS Exhibit A – Preliminary PUD Site Plan, Revised, dated May 28, 2009 (A-1) and Narrative Summary, revised June 9, 2009 (A-2); Exhibit B – Preliminary BSP map, Sheets
1 – 3 of revised copy submitted June 11, 2009 (B-1) and Statutory Warranty Deed for? the “north parcel”(B-2) submitted May 19, 2009; Exhibit C – City generated maps: Aerial (C-1), Zoning
(C-2) and Critical Areas (C-3); Exhibit D – Occupancy Lease (D-1) with Appendices: Legal Structure and Documents (D-2), Residential Guidelines (D-3), Assessments (D-4), Limited Equity
Formula (D-5); Exhibit E – 2004 Pre-Application Staff Response and Departure Matrix (E-1); 2004 Special Event Permit (E-2);2007 Customer Assistance Meeting application (E-3); January
31, 2007 letter from City Engineer regarding infrastructure requirements (E-4); 2007 Waiver Request (E-5) and letter from Public Works Director (E-6); 2007 Building permits for 335 37th
Street “Ruth’s House”(E-7) and accessory
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 2 of 75 “shop” structure (E-8); Exhibit F – SEPA MDNS and Exhibits A through U (Referred to as SEPA Exhibits); Exhibit G – Summary of Staff
Hours and Fees (G-1) and Receipt (G-2); Exhibit H – Certificate of May 19 SEPA MDNS Posting (H-1) and Mailing (H-2), and Certificate of June 23 Mailing (H-3) and Posting (H-4); Exhibit
I – Public Comment Letters from DOE (I-1) and others (I-2 through I-4) during SEPA MDNS comment period which ended June 4, 2009; Exhibit J – Map of west side of property with adjacent
Yesberger property; Exhibit K – Alternative Tree Conservation and Landscaping Plan dated May 10, 2009 (K-1), with map received June 11, 2009 (K-2) and notes received June 8, 2009 (K-3);
Exhibit L – Revised Water and Wastewater Utilities Plan dated June 15, 2009 (L-1) and Potential Wastewater (L-2) and Potable Water (L-3) plans dated June 15, 2009; Exhibit M – Table
#1 and Table #2, Matrices of Requests From the Port Townsend Municipal Code, revised June 9, 2009 (M-1) and Table #3 and #4, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses in R-II zone (M-2);
Exhibit N – Public Benefit Analysis dated May 15, 2008; Exhibit O – February 19, 2009 email from Kees Kolff regarding Passive Houses; Exhibit P – ADA Vehicle Parking Information, American
National Standard ICC/ANSI, 2003; Exhibit Q – Memo to the City regarding the Learning Center, dated June 30, 2009. DOCUMENTS/REFERENCES: City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan (1996)
City of Port Townsend Zoning Ordinance – Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) Title 17 City of Port Townsend Land Division Ordinance -PTMC Title 18 City of Port Townsend Critical Areas
Ordinance – Chapter 19.05 City of Port Townsend Tree Conservation Ordinance – Chapter 19.06 City of Port Townsend Zoning and Critical Area Maps City of Port Townsend Engineering Design
Standards (1997) SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION Proposal: The applicants, Kees and Helen Kolff, seek Planned Unit Development and Binding Site Plan preliminary approval to
expand “Port Port Townsend EcoVillage” which they founded in 2003. The applicants propose to add 24 dwelling units over time to the three (3) existing dwelling units currently found
on the site to house approximately 44 adults and any number of children who would share land, facilities and resources in common ownership. The proposed project is approximately 7.7
acres in size, and is comprised of a North and a South Parcel divided by a City-owned 16.5-foot strip of property (Preliminary PUD Site Plan Exhibit A-1). Page 1 of the Narrative Summary
(Exhibit A-2) describes the PUD as: “A demonstration project that will strive to provide more affordable housing and sustainable lifestyles on slightly over 4 acres in the geographical
center of Port Townsend. Our Vision: Port Townsend EcoVillage is a community of people dedicated to living in harmony with each other and with the earth, exploring together ways to live
more sustainably. We will strive for
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 3 of 75 affordability and sustainability through a combination of practices which will include: low impact development methods, conservation
and re-use of water and waste, building with natural and local materials when possible, prioritizing use of people-powered and alternative transportation, using electricity produced
on-site as well as passive solar energy, organic agriculture, and other permaculture principles and strategies.” Port Townsend EcoVillage (PTEV) does not seek to replat the existing
lots within the City of Port Townsend. The North Parcel includes a single-family residence and shop building. The South Parcel includes a residence and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
as well as mature trees and several accessory buildings on the westerly portion. The applicants live in the ADU, and seven adults and two children currently live in the two single-family
residences. 21 additional dwellings are proposed on the easterly portion of the South Parcel around the garden area with 3 additional dwellings proposed in the center of the North Parcel.
Proposed buildings on the North Parcel include greenhouses, a bath/laundry facility, three additional residences, future animal shelters, a concession stand, and a learning center. The
location of proposed buildings on Exhibit A is approximate. As shown on the Preliminary Binding Site Plan (Exhibit B-1), residences would be built within Personal Residential Areas C,
D and E. Originally, the applicants submitted the PUD and BSP for residences on Parcel A for Tala’s Short Plat, the south 4.14 acre parcel only. For reasons stated below in Finding 4,
staff asked and the applicants agreed that both the SEPA and PUD need to include the 3.5 acre Tax #33, the north parcel also owned by the applicants (Exhibit B-2). Location: Port Townsend
EcoVillage (PTEV) is located west of San Juan Avenue between 35th and 37th Streets (Exhibits C-1 through C-3). The subject property consists of two parcels more fully described as: Parcel
Number 973-200-702, Parcel A of Tala’s Place Short Plat and Parcel Number 001-031-005, S3 T30 R1W Tax 33 less Right-of-Way. Both parcels are located within Section 3, Qtr. Section NE1/4
Township 30 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian in the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington. In this document, Parcel A of Tala’s Short Plat is referred to as “the
South Parcel” and Tax #33 is referred to as “the North Parcel”. Ownership: The Kolffs currently own the property, but over time would sell it to Port Townsend Ecovillage (PTEV). The
group has had different ideas about how most of the land and common buildings would remain in common ownership, and have decided on PTEV to be structured as a Limited Equity Cooperative.
In PTEV individual members would own shares of stock in the corporation. This share ownership will entitle members to a 99-year Occupancy Lease on a dwelling and “a voice in cooperate
governance”. See Exhibits D-1 through D-5. Infrastructure Requirements: The applicants have proposed phased development. As outlined in the SEPA Mitigations (Exhibit F), infrastructure
improvements and easements proposed include the following: loop and connect the water main from 35th Street to 37th Street; extend and connect to the existing sewer main in the City-owned
strip; connect each dwelling unit to City sewer and water; receive permits from Jefferson County Public Health for composting toilets and greywater systems; provide non-motorized trails
on the South, and easements plus
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 4 of 75 trails on the West and East (Haines Street) sides of the properties; extend 35th Street approximately one block West and provide a
fire truck turnaround and stormwater management facilities on-site and within the rights-of-way. 37th Street would include a 10-foot right-of-way dedication, trail, stormwater management,
parking, and paved roadway to be established prior to any one of the following: issuance of the 21st new residential building permit anywhere on the property, or the second new North
Parcel residential building permit or any North Parcel commercial building permit. Alternative housing and energy systems are proposed. Walking paths and trails would be incorporated
into the development, along with provisions for on-site parking and stormwater management. Additional Permits/Approvals Required: Clearing and Grading Permit(s), Building Permits, Street
Development Permits, Jefferson County Environmental Health Permits for Septic (for existing ADU) and any composting toilet or greywater system not contained within a dwelling and its
connection to City sewer and water. Recommended Decision: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary BSP and PUD, subject to the recommended conditions stipulated below. PROPOSED FINDINGS
OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PORT TOWNSEND HEARINGS EXAMINER The following section constitutes the DSD staff findings and conclusions regarding the application’s consistency
with the City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Following these findings and conclusions are a series of conditions recommended for consideration by the Hearing
Examiner. Any of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations may be adopted, rejected, or modified by the Hearing Examiner based on testimony or evidence presented during the course
of review. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Procedural: 1. Planned Unit Development Purpose. To modify traditional development standards, the applicant is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) as provided for in Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) Chapter 17.32. The purpose of the PUD chapter is to allow more innovative ways of designing development and enabling applicants
to take advantage of incentives, including flexible zoning standards, modification of the city’s engineering design standards, and bonus densities in appropriate circumstances, in exchange
for public benefits. 2. Application Processing. All PUD applications must be processed with either an application for short subdivision, full subdivision, or binding site plan (PTMC
17.32.020.C). In this instance, the applicant desires to use existing parcels without
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 5 of 75 further subdivision; therefore use of a Binding Site Plan is most appropriate. Review and preliminary approval of all PUD requests,
including the associated subdivision application, is determined as part of the Type III review process described below. 3. Application Review. Pursuant to PTMC 20.01, Type III permit
applications are reviewed and processed by DSD staff, which prepares a recommendation to the Port Townsend Hearing Examiner. Following an open-record public hearing, the Hearing Examiner
issues a written decision on the matter. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner on Type III permit applications are final, unless appealed to the City Council. Final approval for each phase
of a Type III PUD application is accomplished via City Council Resolution, including final approval of a Planned Unit Development Agreement (PUDA). B. Substantive: 4. a. Proposal Background.
The applicants founded Port Townsend EcoVillage in December, 2003 and have been in contact with the City since September, 2004 regarding developing the land into an intentional community.
Currently the applicants have built all of the dwellings allowed on the property without further subdivision: an existing house and ADU with accessory structures on the South Parcel,
and a house and accessory shop structure on the North Parcel. The table below chronicles some of the dates of the submittals, meetings and correspondence between the Kees Kolff and City
staff, particularly prior to 2009. Events in 2009 continue in the descriptions below the table. Date Event 9/3/04 Received Pre-application LUP04-116 from Kees Kolff (abbreviated to KK
below) with many of the same ideas submitted four years later. Current DSD Director Rick Sepler (then owner of Madrona Planning and a Contract Planner for the City) outlined the City
response in an October 15, 2005 letter and matrix (Exhibit E-1). 9/20/04 City Police Department received Special Event permit application for a Permaculture Design Course to be held
on the property from October 1 – 10, 2004 (Exhibit E-2). 1/19/07 City received PUD Draft #18 as a Customer Assistance Meeting (CAM07-008) to discuss the PUD on 7.5 acres (Exhibit E-3).
1/31/07 CAM07-008 meeting held; date of memo from City Engineer Dave Peterson to then DSD Director Leonard Yarberry (LY) regarding infrastructure (Exhibit E-4). 2/15/07 LY sent letter
by email to KK responding to his questions. 2/22/07 KK responded to LY 2/15/07 letter asking for more clarification. 3/9/07 LY sent KK responses.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 6 of 75 Date Event 6/26/07 City received CAM07-067 for PT Ecovillage (Draft #19) on Parcel A of Tala’s Short Plat and separate CAM07-068 for
a fourplex and ADU on Tax #33. CAM07-068 states “plans drastically reduced due to spiraling infrastructure costs and City requirements.” 7/5/07 CAM proposals discussed in City Development
Review meeting. For CAM07-068, public works requirement was still to pave 37th Street to T-8 standards. 7/9/07 KK sent letter asking for further clarifications, and written summary.
9/17/07 Received from KK waiver request WVR07-002 for public works to waive the requirements for a paved road on 37th Street for the single-family residence (Exhibit E-5). Public Works
Director Ken Clow granted the waiver request in his October 29, 2007 letter (Exhibit E-6). 9/19/07 Received building permit application BLD07-198 and plans for 337 37th Street, a small
single-family residence on Tax #33 (Exhibit E-7). Building permit BLD07-253 was issued December 12, 2007 as a foundation permit only. The residence received final sign-off on November
6, 2008. 7/8/08 Received Binding Site Plan and Planned Unit Development applications for PT Ecovillage, LUP08-063, for Tala’s Short Plat Parcel A only, along with the SEPA Environmental
Checklist. 8/5/08 Received building permit application BLD08-179 and plans for a “1800 square foot detached post frame structure with no plumbing or electric” on Tax #33 (Exhibit E-8)
as an accessory structure to 337 37th Street. Permit was approved on September 2, 2008. The shop building is still under construction. 8/6/08 Former Assistant Director/Senior Planner
Patricia Iolavera sent Mr. Kolff a letter that the submitted PUD and BSP applications were considered to be incomplete. This letter is included in the SEPA Exhibit (Exhibit F) as SEPA
Exhibit F and states, “we anticipate that your project has the potential to exceed the fees contemplated in the SEPA, BSP and PUD fee structures, and we will track our time and inform
you if it begins begins to trigger charges for staff time beyond the basic fees.”
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 7 of 75 Date Event 12/11/08 The Kolffs resubmitted the BSP, PUD and SEPA applications (See SEPA Exhibits A (Environmental Checklist), C (Preliminary
Plans), D (PUD and BSP applications), G (PUD cover letter), J (Drainage and Erosion Control Report), K (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations and Wind Turbine information), L (Residential
Water Use/Reuse, Composting Toilets and Greywater Systems), M (Tree Conservation Plan) and P (Traffic Study). 12/18/08 Application LUP08-063 was deemed complete. 12/31/08 PUD/BSP/SEPA
Notice published, mailed, and posted on site (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit B). 2009 On May 11, 2009 staff gave Mr. Kolff a summary of staff hours from July 2008 through May 7, 2009 (Exhibit
G-1). On June 11 Mr. Kolff paid the requested amount of $1,500.00 (Exhibit G-2). b. PTEV Website. As part of the SEPA document, staff made copies of various pages from the website for
Port Townsend EcoVillage at http://ptecovillage.org. (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit H). The Site Plan page includes the adjacent 3.5 parcel of land to the north, Tax Parcel 33. The dwelling
at 337 37th Street (Exhibit E-7) and the “shop” building (Exhibit E-8) are mentioned on the Frequently Answered Questions page: “We are a small-town urban ecovillage on 7.5 acres in
Port Townsend… we have completed construction of our first dwelling (a 522 square-foot cottage) and are in the midst of construction of a new 3,600 square foot shop/arts center.” The
page invites the public to business meetings, work parties, tours and provides instructions on how to become Supporting Members, Provisional Members, and LLC Members. The website includes
various topics including “Vision Statement”, “A Brief History of PTEV”, “Residential Guidelines”, and “Dwelling Plans”. The History page states that PTEV has an Advisory Group of over
a dozen members, and the site has been used for a 10-day Permaculture Certification Course in 2004 and 2006, a natural building workshop in 2005, and an annual family camp in 2006 “with
over 100 people participating in activities like extracting honey, face painting, pony rides, music, talent shows and campfires.” In 2006 a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program
was started. The “Dwelling Plans” page states that the construction of the house built on Tax #33 with “structurally insulated panels and an earthen floor made with clay and sand” was
funded by Ruth Ballard. c. Tax Parcel #33 To Be Included. Staff met with Mr. Kolff on March 2, 2009 and stated that as both parcels are involved in the proposal, both must be included
in the SEPA review rather than allowing subsequent environmental review for project phases. After many emails, letters and meetings throughout March, April and the first part of May
(as tallied on Exhibit G-1) a phasing plan was agreed to, and SEPA Mitigation Measures were written and agreed to by the Kolffs (Exhibit F, SEPA Pages 35 through 46).
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 8 of 75 5. Zoning. The subject property is located in the R-II zoning district (Medium Density Single Family). This district accommodates single-family
residences (including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) at a density of up to four dwelling units per 40,000-square-foot area (i.e., 10,000-square-foot minimum lot size, or approximately
four dwelling units within one block of platted land). 6. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses. All of the properties immediately adjacent to the site are zoned R-II, Medium Density Single-Family
and R-III, Medium Density Multi-family (Exhibit C-2). While the R-III blocks west of San Juan Avenue contain single-family residences, the San Juan Commons Apartments and San Juan Villa
Alzheimer’s Facility are located east of San Juan Avenue at 35th Street. Across San Juan Avenue north of 37th Street a portion of a property block is zoned P/OS(B), Public/Mixed Use
due to the presence of a wetland area named “Froggy Bottoms”. Other land uses uses in the vicinity include the P-I Public Infrastructure zone for Blue Heron School several blocks to
the north, and the Rosewind Co-Housing Planned Unit Development to the south. The north portion of Rosewind, approved as a PUD in 1994, abuts 35th Street between Kuhn and Pettygrove
Streets, directly across from the area the applicants propose to build most of the residences. 7. Critical Area Review. No Critical Area review for the project was triggered as the City’s
Critical Area map did not indicate the presence of any critical area on site (Exhibit C-3). The closest mapped critical area is a wetland, delineated in 1992, located approximately one
block northwest of the subject property on property owned by the Yesberger family. Potential critical drainage corridors are mapped within a block southwest and northwest of the property.
However, these mapped critical areas are far enough from the subject parcels to not be considered in this analysis. 8. Initial Public Notice and SEPA. On December 11, 2008, the preliminary
PUD and BSP materials were submitted (Exhibit F, SEPA Exhibit D) along with a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit A). The project was
not exempt from review under SEPA as the number of dwelling units proposed (24) exceed the SEPA threshold of four dwelling units (per WAC 197-11-800(1).b.(i). Consistent with the requirements
of Section 20.01.160 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC), the subject project was first noticed on December 31, 2008 in three ways: posting on the subject site, publication in
the Jefferson County Leader, and mailing to adjacent property owners (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit B). Said Notice provided an initial 20-day public comment period, which ended on January
20, 2009. The first notice included only the South Parcel, and so was mailed to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the South Parcel. 9. SEPA MDNS Notice. During environmental
review, the North Parcel was added to the proposal. The application provided an additional mailing list for the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of both parcels. That notice
was published in the Leader, mailed
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 9 of 75 and posted at San Juan and 35th, San Juan and 37th, and in front of the property on 35th Street on May 20, with a comment period ending
June 4, 2009 (Exhibit H-1 and H-2). The notice for the Public Hearing on July 8, 2009 was mailed on June 23 and published and posted on June 24 (Exhibit H-3 and H-4). In addition, staff
posted the SEPA MDNS Threshold Determination and Exhibits, and Exhibits for the Preliminary PUD and BSP on the City website. Consistent attempts have been made throughout the process
to notify the public and parties of record. 10. Public Comments Received, First Notice Period. During the first public comment period for SEPA, PUD and BSP applications, 27 comments
were received, mostly in the form of e-mails, and 19 more comments were received after the close of the comment period on January 20 (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit I). More letters were received
after January 20 in part as requested by Kees Kolff, who wrote “Dear Friends of the PTEcoVillage, We just received a copy of the very negative letter sent by one of our neighbors, the
Yesbergers. We need more letters to counteract it” (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit I, Letter #37, bottom of page). Kathy Watkins Yesberger (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit I Public Comment Letter #32)
expressed concern regarding what she considers to be “leapfrog” zoning and housing density, inadequate infrastructure, questionable ownership and excessive vehicles for proposed on-site
parking in a “once historical and beautiful farming valley.” The Yesberger family has owned unplatted property to the west, south and north of the subject property for many years (Exhibit
J, Yesberger property symbolized as a “Y”). Dan Yesberger sold the North Parcel to the Kolffs (Exhibit B-2) and uses much of the adjacent property for cattle grazing. Letter #33 from
Lynn Nadeau states that the Yesbergers “said the same sorts of things about RoseWind Cohousing in 1993, and none of it has come to pass.” 11. Public Comments Received, Second Comment
Period. During the second public comment period (which ended June 4) after issuance of the SEPA MDNS, three comment letters, plus a comment letter from the Department of Ecology, were
received (Exhibit I). In general, all but the one comment letter above expressed support for the proposed development. As the public comments were received during the first and second
comment periods, at the applicant’s request, staff routinely e-mailed all comments received by email and scanned/emailed the handwritten public comment letters to Kees Kolff soon after
being received by the City. On May 4, staff emailed those individuals who did not provide a mailing address and when they responded adding that information to the mailing list for subsequent
mailings. On June 23, staff emailed five individuals who did not respond to the May 4 email a copy of the Public Notice for the July 8 Hearing. 12. Tree Conservation and Landscaping.
The applicants initially submitted a Tree Conservation and Landscaping Plan (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit M-1) for the south parcel only. This plan was revised May 7, 2009 (Exhibit F SEPA
Exhibit M2) as an Alternative Tree Conservation Plan including the north parcel, and further revised May 10, 2009
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 10 of 75 (Exhibit K-1 through K-3). The Port Townsend Municipal Code in Tree Conservation Chapter 19.05 states in Table 19.06.120(D)(1) that
the minimum tree density for R-II zoned property is 40 tree units per 40,000 square feet. With the North Parcel, the applicants have calculated 37 tree units per 40,000 square feet.
To make up the difference, they have proposed an alternative tree conservation plan as allowed in PTMC 19.06.120.C on lots which have “some land uses, such as crop or tree farming or
gardening, small animal husbandry, recreational play fields, etc. which are dependent upon open space and solar access.” See Finding 23, below, for further discussion on their proposed
plan. 13. Roads. Access to the property for 21 of the proposed units would be via a one-block extension of 35th Street into the South Parcel. Three (3) of the proposed units on the North
Parcel would use 37th Street for access. However, as described in the SEPA Mitigations (Exhibit F, Pages 35 through 46) Item 23 states that prior to issuance of the second residential
building permit or any commercial building permit on the North Parcel roadway improvements to 37th Street shall be constructed and 10 feet of land along 37th Street shall be dedicated.
The on-site parking lot on the South Parcel would provide an emergency vehicle turnaround that must meet approval by the Fire Department. Alternative surface treatments for the road
and turnaround are being requested as PUD modifications. This request is analyzed in more detail in Finding 16, below. Initial Public Works comments are summarized in Exhibit F SEPA,
Exhibit O-2). 14. Water and Sewer. Water service for the project would be extended from 35th Street through the proposed parking area into the vacated Oxford Street easement and connect
into the existing water mail and hydrant in 37th Street. Sewer service for the proposed units is sought via the use of composting toilets for all buildings except the clubhouse, which
would have a flush toilet. The use of composting toilets is a PUD modification further analyzed at Finding 23, below. Initial Public Works comments are summarized in Exhibit F SEPA,
Exhibit O-2. The applicant recently provided a Revised Water and Wastewater Utilities Plan and Maps (Exhibits L-1 through L-3); however, Public Works staff will not further analyze the
plans. The details will need to be presented and reviewed through the Street Development Permit process after final PUD approval. 15. Drainage facilities. The applicant submitted a preliminary
engineered drainage plan and report with the PUD submittal (Exhibit F, SEPA, Exhibit J). The plan was prepared in accordance with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
(Ecology 2005). The plan calls for the use of various Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, which are encouraged by the 2005 SMMW Manual. Initial Public Works comments regarding the
Stormwater design are in Exhibit F, SEPA, Exhibit O-1. Final design of the drainage facilities would be submitted with the City Street and Utility Development Permit for review by Public
Works staff. Provisions for drainage facility maintenance would be included in the final recorded PUD Agreement, as stated in Exhibit F SEPA, Mitigation #6.b, Page 39.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 11 of 75 16. Parking. Parking for the 21 proposed units and the existing 2 units on the South Parcel would be provided via an on-site communal
parking area with 28 spaces. This aspect of the proposal is also requested as a PUD modification and is analyzed in more detail in Finding 23 below. C. Analysis of Consistency with Port
Townsend
Municipal Code (PTMC) Chapter 17.32, Planned Unit Developments. Chapter 17.32 of the PTMC describes the procedures and criteria for preliminary approval of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD), and analysis of PTEV’s consistency with these guidelines is discussed below. 17. 17.32.030, Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area for R-II districts is 40,000 square feet. Port
Townsend Ecovillage exceeds this amount, as it includes over 7 acres. 18. 17.32.040, Application Submittal and Contents. Port Townsend Ecovillage was deemed complete as the following
was submitted (most recent versions cited): the PUD application (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit D-D-1); the PUD site plan (Exhibit A-1) prepared by Richard Berg; (Note: staff determined that
a Washington State licensed land surveyor or engineer did not need to prepare the PUD site plan as no lot lines are being changed, and the BSP was prepared by a surveyor as listed below);
a Narrative Statement (Exhibit A-2), Matrices of “requests that are permitted within the Municipal Code Standards” and “requests that vary” (Exhibit M-1), Tables of Uses Permitted Outright
and by Conditional Use (Exhibit M-2), Public Benefit Analysis (Exhibit N), a Binding Site Plan application (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit D-3) and BSP Site Plan (Exhibit B-1) prepared by a
Washington State licensed land surveyor, a conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit K-1), and conceptual infrastructure plans (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit C-1). 19. 17.32.050, Consolidated Applications.
The PUD application is being considered simultaneously with the Binding Site Plan application as noted above in item 18. 20. 17.32.060, Innovative Residential Development. The proposed
project includes a number of non-traditional elements. The most similar PUD to date was the North Beach Housing Collective LLC, LUP07-093, which was approved by Hearings Examiner Phil
Ohlbrechts on January 29, 2008, subject to conditions in the staff report. While that proposal consisted of five residential condominium units, it also included a community features
such as a community garden and common ownership of a workshop, bathhouse, laundry facilities and accessory dwelling unit/guest house. The proposal also requested the City designate it
as a “demonstration project” with clustered parking, pervious paving, rain gardens and composting toilets for the private residences with one flush-type toilet in a common building.
The Hearings Examiner agreed with staff that composting toilets would meet the needs of the project “so long as the building official accepts this as an
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 12 of 75 alternative method of sanitary waste under the International Building Code and all dwellings are constructed with the ability to have
a flush toilet” (page 9 of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision). Chapter 17.32 includes specific guidance on what comprises innovative development. This section of the PTMC is
quoted below in italics, and staff analysis follows each section. 17.32.060.A. Purpose 1. More efficient use can be made of land, energy and resources and more livable development can
be achieved when the designer has flexibility in residential types, placement and density. Such flexibility can be achieved while safeguarding the public interest by review of the proposed
planned unit development plan which shows the type and placement of residential structures. Therefore, the city allows planned residences at varied densities where specified in the appropriate
zones of the city. 2. Upon compliance with this chapter, the use of land may comply with the provisions in this section in lieu of the provisions of the zone where located. 3. It is
intended that innovative residential developments encourage imaginative design to achieve these purposes. Therefore, incentives and flexibility may be allowed such as clustered housing
and bonus densities, lot averaging, zero lot lines, condominium development, and mixed residential types. The city may approve the use of these tools as provided in this section as deemed
reasonable and warranted by the excellence of the resulting design and its benefits to the community. Port Townsend Ecovillage proposes flexibility in residential building types (ranging
from small single-family to duplexes and possibly triplexes and fourplexes), placement (most of the dwellings would be located on the east portion of the South Parcel) and density (some
units may be “clustered” to preserve the forest space on the west portion of the South Parcel and the existing garden space, as well as preserve open space on the North Parcel. The maximum
size of the residential structures and “total personal space” is described in the Residential Guidelines (Exhibit D-3). A house example is provided on their website under the heading
“Dwelling Plans” (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit F). The placement of each residence is approximate, as the applicants do not yet know exactly what type of dwelling would be built in each area.
With up to 27 dwelling units on 7.7 acres, the project at full build-out would have 3.5 dwelling units per acre. This would be less than half the density per acre than typically found
in the R-II zone. R-II allows up to 8 dwelling units per acre, and single-family dwellings are often built in blocks with eight 50-foot by 100-foot lots. The difference with Port Townsend
Ecovillage is the applicants have proposed small houses fairly close together without individual yards or lots. Members would share common spaces and have their own personal spaces.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 13 of 75 17.32.060.B. Techniques. 1. Clustered Housing. When residences are clustered in design groups in a planned unit development with common
open space, the clustered housing may, in lieu of the zone restrictions, be designed with building locations, lot sizes, yards and/or density standards as prescribed on the plat or on
plans for the planned unit development approved by the city. As discussed in section above for 17.32.060A, PTEV has proposed clustering small buildings into groups of four, with some
of the buildings shown as duplexes. Due to the unique nature of PTEV, individuals will not own individual lots. 2. Bonus Density. When a plat, planned unit development, or other instrument
is submitted under this chapter as an innovative development, and is of sufficient excellence in design and planning, a higher density may be allowed therein in accordance with PTMC
17.32.070. Bonus density was not proposed by PTEV. 3. Lot Area Averaging. Lot area may be varied. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, the combined area of all lots and
the private common open space in the planned unit development shall be equal to the density or lot size allowed in the zone where located. The combined area of all lots is less than
the density allowed in the R-II zone. For 27 units with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, 135,000 square feet is required. On 7.7 acres, if one acre is considered to be 40,000
square feet, 308,000 square feet is proposed on Tala’s Short Plat Parcel A (South Parcel) and Tax #33 (North Parcel), over two times the size required for 27 single-family units. 4.
Flexible Yards. Yards may be reduced to zero provided the structures are shown on the plat or planned unit development and a 10-foot access for maintenance is given by yard and/or easement
along each outside wall. Individual yards are not proposed for each residence; rather, each member has a certain amount of “personal zone space” (per Residential Guidelines, Exhibit
D-3.) 5. Residential Types. To achieve the most efficient use and conservation of land, energy, resources, view and terrain, mixed residential types may be designated and allowed in
innovative residential planned unit developments as prescribed in this chapter. PTEV proposes small residences to conserve land, energy, resources and terrain. 17.32.060.C. Minimum Lot
Size. The minimum permissible size for a single residential lot permitted through use of the incentives allowed in this chapter shall be 3,000 square feet. As stated above, there are
no residential lots. Members own land the buildings through an Occupancy Lease (Exhibit D-1) as part of the PTEV Limited-Equity Cooperative legal
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 14 of 75 structure (Exhibit D-2). 17.32.060.D. Buyer Notification. The planned unit development plan shall note that the residences thereon
constitute an innovative residential development and must be constructed as shown on the planned unit development plan. Building permits may be issued only for structure types and placements
as shown on the planned unit development plan. Sales agreements and titles for land and residences sold in innovative residential developments shall note this restriction. (Ord. 2571
§ 2, 1997). The Planned Unit Development Site Plan (Exhibit A-1) indicates the following structures and the Binding Site Plan (Exhibit B-1) indicates the following striped “personal
residential areas”: • “A” -including the existing ADU, the Kolff’s residence, (no separate address given to date); • “B” -including the single-family residence at 510 35th Street, which
currently serves as rental property to house EcoVillage members and provide common space; • “C” – – the area north of 510 35th Street which is envisioned to include four residences;
• “D” – the area on the east side of the South Parcel where most of the residences would be built; • “E” -the area on the North Parcel containing “Ruth’s House” and the “Wood Shop”,
and envisioned to include three additional dwellings, a guest house and other accessory structures. The applicants have not proposed any particular structure type for the residences,
other than small size and energy efficiency, as they are interested in building a variety of ecologically friendly dwellings.1The face of the Binding Site Plan (Exhibit B-1) includes
the maximum number of “personal dwelling units” which “may be placed anywhere within the ‘personal For example, in a February 19, 2009 email from Kees Kolff, one of their first buildings
may be a “Passive House” (Exhibit O). “Ruth’s House”, located on the North Parcel at 335 37th Street, is a 596 square foot house with a “non-structural slab floor” i.e. adobe floor topping.
As mentioned above, the PTEV website includes on the Dwelling Plans pages some housing designs (Exhibit F, SEPA, Exhibit H) for a cottage for one or two. The applicant is proposing to
build detached single-family dwellings (single-family) and detached single-family dwellings (including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes). 1 All non-exempt structures will require a
building permit, and must be established consistent with the requirements of the International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC), and International Fire Code
adopted by the City of Port Townsend at the time of building permit application submittal. For example, the 2006 IRC states in Section R304.1, Minimum Room Areas, “Every dwelling unit
shall have at least one habitable room that shall not have less than 120 square feet of gross floor area.”
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 15 of 75 residential areas’, may be of any size, and any number of them may be attached as duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes. These areas may
also include shared structures.” Area “A” would continue to just include the existing ADU, which would become a single-family residence through the PUD/BSP process; area “B” may include
up to two dwelling units in addition to the single-family residence; area “C” may have up to four dwelling units; area “D” seventeen dwelling units “spaced to allow for Stormwater management”;
and area “E” a maximum of five dwelling units, including “Ruth’s House”. The applicant has verbally stated that this does not mean that all personal residential areas would be developed
to these maximum numbers as that would total 30 dwelling units, exceeding the proposed 24 dwelling units. Building permits would be issued only for these types of structures within the
“personal residential areas” shown on the Binding Site Plan. Common buildings such as the clubhouse, meditation room, sanctuary and bath/laundry building would be built outside of the
personal residential areas. 21. 17.32.070, Modification of permitted densities – Bonus density. This does not apply as the applicants have not proposed any bonus density with the Port
Townsend EcoVillage Planned Unit Development. 22. 17.32.080, Modification of permitted uses – Commercial Uses. Initially when the applicants proposed development on only the South Parcel,
only residential development (with a clubhouse, meditation and sanctuary space) and home occupations was proposed. A community clubhouse, defined in PTMC 17.08 as “a privately owned
structure in which inhabitants of a neighborhood or subdivision or members of a neighborhood association gather for meetings and other activities” is allowed. Home occupations, when
they meet the guidelines of PTMC 17.56, are permitted. With the addition of the North Parcel, the applicants added commercial buildings to their proposal. As shown on the Revised PUD
Site Plan (Exhibit A-1) they envision a “detached office/studio/learning center” and “farm stand” at the intersection of San Juan and 37th Street, and a greenhouse near the parking lot
in the middle of the property. Per PTMC Table 17.16.020, Residential Zoning Districts Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses, agricultural concession stands are permitted in the
R-II zone when located in “ locations front onto principal arterial, collector, and minor arterial streets.” The farm stand would be permitted, as San Juan Avenue is designated as a
minor arterial street. The agricultural concession stand would need to meet the definition in PTMC 17.08 as “an open air structure, not to exceed 20 feet by 30 feet in its dimensions,
and at which produce (e.g. fresh eggs, fruits, vegetables, and/or other agricultural products) from predominately local farms may be sold to the public.” As described in Exhibit Q, the
applicants envision the “office/studio/learning center” to house a variety of uses, including shared offices for for residents with home occupations, a community agricultural center
as described above that would also include temporary
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 16 of 75 sleeping quarters for interns, training space for eco-friendly programs, classroom space for educational programs for children and
adults, a pre-school daycare component, arts-crafts-music studio space, and storage. The building would include bathrooms, and be connected to City water and sewer as shown on Exhibit
L. According to the applicants, the use would evolve with the interests of the members. Section 17.08 of the PTMC defines “Community Agricultural Center” as “an agricultural operation
which includes growing, processing, retail sales, office space, instructional activities and farmer/apprentice housing.” Many of these uses (day care, preschool, community agricultural
center) would require a conditional use permit. A. A planned unit development may allow commercial uses in residential zones which are not otherwise permitted in the underlying use zone
only under the following circumstances: 1. The use shall be part of a planned development in which not more than 10 percent of the gross floor area of the development is devoted to a
commercial use which is not otherwise permitted in the underlying use zone; At the time of building permit application, the applicants would need to further define the use of the office/studio/learni
g center, and make at least 90% of it that which is permitted or conditionally permitted in the R-II zone. PTMC 17.16.020 states that for a community agricultural center, “all office
and retail uses shall be secondary to the agricultural component of the center.” 2. The use shall be supportive of and/or complementary to the other uses within a planned development
and scaled to meet primarily the needs of the inhabitants of the project; If the office/studio/learning center were to be used for agriculture/permaculture educational programs, it would
be supportive and complementary to the other uses within PTEV PUD. Its use as a daycare, arts-crafts-music studio, and storage would support the PTEV members. The scale of the building
on on the PUD Site Plan is conservative. The applicant has stated that the building footprint would be no greater than 1,200 square feet, although it may not be limited to single-story.
A multi-story building could not exceed the maximum building height within the R-II zone of 30 feet. The applicants must keep the focus of the building uses to primarily meet the needs
of the residents, not the larger community. 3. The use shall be compatible with the uses permitted on other properties in the surrounding area; and There are other “commercial” uses
in the area which are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, such as Blue Heron Middle School a few blocks to the north and Fort Worden State Park in the northeast
corner of Port Townsend.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 17 of 75 4. There is public benefit to be realized by allowing the proposed use. The public benefit of the office/studio/learning center would
be for residents of Port Townsend to have a place to study permaculture, alternative energy and building, and see these principles at work on the ground. B. Basis for Approval of Commercial
Uses in Residential PUDs. Commercial uses may be located within the planned unit development when the proposed development includes residential use as an integral component of the planned
development and when commercial uses are situated and developed in such a manner as to be compatible with any residential uses that are existing or which could be developed in the adjoining
residentially zoned area. The applicants contend that the residential component is integral to PTEV. The office/studio/learning center would be located near the street and far away enough
from the existing and proposed residences at PTEV and neighboring residences to be compatible with the neighborhood. C. In proposing a commercial use in a residential zone, the applicant
shall establish specific community economic need for the use and facilities. The DSD director may require a competent market analysis to demonstrate that need. In the Narrative Summary
(Exhibit A-2) and on their website the applicants have expressed their desire to be a model community in these times of global warming, shrinking energy reserves, pollution, food crises,
and other world-wide problems. D. Building permits for commercial uses in a residential PUD situated within R-I, R-II, R-III and R-IV districts may not be issued until at least two-thirds
of the proposed residential units are completed, including issuance of final certificates of occupancy. Therefore, a building permit for the office/studio/learning center may not be
issued until at least 18 residential units (including existing units) are completed. 23. 17.32.090, Modification of development standards. This section of the PTMC is quoted below in
italics, and staff analysis follows each section. A. The following development standards may be modified in approving a PUD application: 1. Building setbacks (excepting side yard setbacks
and other setbacks adjacent to or abutting residentially zoned properties); In Table #2 (Exhibit M-1), the applicants are requesting the following modifications
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 18 of 75 of building setbacks: • Item #1: a minimum 5-foot rear yard setback on the South and North Parcel from the 16.5 wide city tax parcel
(Lot #34) instead of a 10 foot setback to allow “for placement of homes with better passive solar access, and thus will lower heating energy required and greenhouse gas emissions.” •
Item # 10: a zero front yard setback from 37th Street for the shop building on the North Parcel “if 10-foot ROW dedication is made along 37th Street, OR have the ROW dedication be only
5 feet along the shop”. The proposed public benefit is “the added ROW dedication can be made to widen the 37th Street ROW if the shop does not have to be moved.” • Item #11: a fifteen-foot
setback from 37th Street for any new structure on the North Parcel so that if a 10-foot ROW dedication is made along 37th Street, the remaining setback will only be 5 feet. The proposed
public benefit is “the added ROW dedication can be made to widen 37th Street ROW.” Staff findings are listed in Table 2, below. 2. Height of building or structure in C-I/MU and C-II/MU
zones, not to exceed 40 feet in the C-I/MU zone and 50 feet in the C-II/MU zone; Not applicable to PTMC located in an R-II zone. 3. Required off-street parking spaces; According to PTMC
Off-Street Parking and Loading Table 17.72.080, two on-site parking spaces per single-family dwelling would be required. Therefore, without the PUD process, 54 parking spaces would be
required for 27 dwelling units. Staff has determined that PTEV is likely more similar to a cottage development than a subdivision because it proposes building small dwellings (per Exhibit
D-3 between 300 and 700 square feet with an additional 150 square feet per child credit), clustering the buildings and providing group parking. The PUD Site Plan (Exhibit A-1) indicates
two dwellings on the North Parcel would be 1,200 square feet in size. According to PTMC Cottage Housing Off-street parking section 17.34.180, dwelling units with up to 1,000 square feet
in in total net floor area require 1.25 on-site parking spaces per cottage; between 1,001 and 1,200 square feet 1.5 on-site parking spaces. 24 residences under 1,000 square feet, multiplied
by 1.25, equals 30 parking spaces; 2 1,200 square foot residences with 1.5 parking spaces each equals 3 parking spaces, the existing Rental/Common house equals 2 parking spaces for a
total of 35 parking spaces. For commercial buildings on the North Parcel, per PTMC 17.72.080 the Office/Studio Learning Center (Office Use) would require a minimum of one space per each
600 square feet of gross floor area, and the Farm Stand (Commercial Retail Use) would require a minimum of one space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. The amount of gross floor
area for these buildings was not specified. Regarding the 3,000 square foot Clubhouse building, the applicants have stated that this is for the use of PTEV members and guests only. A
condition of approval limiting use of the
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 19 of 75 facility to members and guests has been proposed.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 20 of 75 The Revised PUD Site Plan dated May 28, 2009 (Exhibit A-1) indicates the following parking spaces, with dimensions added from PTMC
Table 17.72.160, Minimum Parking Lot Dimensions: Location Phase Number Type of Parking, Location and Code Reference if other than 17.72.160 Number of Spaces South Parcel 1 For “EV” Electric
Cars; parking lot; No specific EV size in PTMC. Compact car size is minimum 8’ x 16’ when at an angle to the access driveway or aisle. Site Plan shows them with a reduced depth, approximately
12’. 2 “ “ 1 Standard size; parking lot; each minimum 9’ x 19’ when at an angle to the access driveway or aisle. 14 “ “ 1 Compact size; parking lot; each minimum 8’ x 16’ when at an
angle to the access driveway or aisle. 11 “ “ 1 ADA; parking lot; per the ICC/ANSI standard, Chapter 5 (Exhibit P) each ADA space to be minimum 11’ wide for vans with 5’ wide access
aisle. 2 “ “ 1 Reserve Area; east of parking lot; each compact space minimum 8’ x 20’ when parallel to access aisle. 4 “ “ 1 Reserve Area; east of parking lot; each compact space minimum
8’ x 16’ when at an angle to the access driveway or aisle, and minimum 8’ x 20’ when parallel to access aisle. 15 Total for Phase 1 33 parking spaces and 19 reserve area parking spaces
South Parcel 2 Reserve Area (each compact space minimum 8’ x 20’ when parallel to access aisle) 6
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 21 of 75 Location Phase Number Type of Parking, Location and Code Reference if other than 17.72.160 Number of Spaces North Parcel 2 (or when
additional structures built) Small parking lot east of existing house with compact size spaces (each minimum 8’ x 16’ when at an angle to the access driveway or aisle). Four on-site
parking spaces were shown on the site plan for “Ruth’s House” at 335 37th Street. The PUD parking plan would add two more spaces for the additional three dwelling units on the North
Parcel. It is anticipated that in addition to the “Ruth’s House” three additional houses would be built. The PUD Site Plan (Exhibit A-1) indicates two would be 1,200 square feet. larger
dwellings than on the south parcel. Using the cottage housing formula, six on-site parking spaces would be required, an additional four parking spaces. 6 “ “ 2 (or when additional structures
built) Small parking lot near San Juan Avenue for farm stand and learning center with compact size spaces (each minimum 8’ x 16’ when at an angle to the access driveway or aisle) 8 Several
modifications of parking development standards would be required to allow the proposed parking: • Location. Per PTMC 17.72.110.A, the walking distance between the nearest point of the
parking facility to the nearest entrance to the building for single-family dwellings is not more than 200 feet. Some of the dwellings on the east side of the South Parcel would be up
to 400 feet away from the parking lot area. Given the nature of PTEV and their mission to promote walking trails and in general “green” non-motorization, this modification appears appropriate.
• Surfacing. Per PTMC 17.72.150.L, “all driveways and off-street parking areas which have four or more parking spaces and which exit onto a hard-surfaced public street shall be surfaced
with a minimum of two inches of asphalt concrete for a driving distance of at least 40 feet from such street.” Existing on-site parking on the South Parcel is grass. The applicants have
have proposed retaining the grass rather than paving a parking lot. 17.72.150.J.2 includes regulations for marking “gravel or unsurfaced parking areas” with “wood or concrete bull rails
or wheel stops to delineate stalls, and each stall to compact car dimensions shall be clearly labeled “COMPACT” on the bull rails or wheel stops of each stall.” The applicants would
be required to use a hard pervious surface, of the same
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 22 of 75 type proposed for the fire lane, within 40 feet of 35th Street. The same would be required for parking off of 37th Street. The applicants
would be allowed to retain the grass in other areas as long as they are marked as described above, as well as marking the ADA spaces as required by ICC/ANSI. • Phasing. Typically parking
lots are built during the first phase of a project. The City has agreed to a phasing plan as described in the following SEPA Mitigations (Exhibit F): Mitigation #1.E states that half
of the on-site parking from 35th Street shall be bonded for or built to acceptable standards prior to final PUD approval; Mitigation #1.H states that the PUDA CC&Rs shall include a limit
on access from 37th Street for uses established prior to its improvement, that residents and guests shall not use 37th Street until required improvements are made, and that 1.25 off-street
parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling; Mitigation #20 states that prior to issuance of the third building permit on the south parcel, 35th Street shall be paved or bonded
for; Mitigation #37 states that the other half of the on-site parking shall be built or bonded to prior to issuance of the clubhouse building permit or the 12th residential building
permit on the South Parcel, whichever comes first. The Occupancy Lease (Exhibit D-1) does state that “members who live on the south parcel of PTEV, and their guests and family members,
shall access their dwellings from 35th Street (page 1) and lists access and off-street parking spaces in the PUDA section (page 2). Having enough parking for PT Ecovillage was a concern
expressed in several public comments letters (Exhibit F SEPA, Public Comment Letters #32, #45) and staff had concerns as well given the number of visitors PT Ecovillage may attract through
their various events and activities. In addition to the above requirements, as stated in the SEPA document (Exhibit F, Parking section page 29), prior to large events (i.e. events in
which over 25 cars with outside people are expected), the applicant shall submit an event parking plan for review and approval by the Public Works department
describing how traffic and on-site parking would be handled. Some on street parking along the North side of 35th along the applicant’s property utilized for occasional events would
be anticipated, but for frequent meetings all parking should be accommodated on-site. Commercial uses such as the learning center and farm concession stand would require the minimum
on-site parking specified above per gross floor area to be provided. In addition, a condition of approval has been proposed requiring the applicant to prepare an updated on-site parking
plan for submittal with each building permit application indicating that each dwelling unit would be provided a minimum of 1.25
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 23 of 75 parking spaces. The applicants state in Exhibit M-1, Table 1, “reduction of vehicle ownership and use is another primary component
of the demonstration aspect of this project. We have numerous strategies to limit the number, size and use of cars…from a small electric to a variety of larger electric, hydrid, biodiesel
and/or gasoline vehicles. Those of us currently living on site already share the ownership of one electric vehicle for use in town. We anticipate extending this practice of car ownership
and sharing (like ‘FlexCar’) so that the number of vehicles needed by our community will be less than one per adult.” Because of these goals, the proposed parking plan appears to satisfy
the parking criterion. 4. Landscaping requirements; The PTMC Off-Street Parking section includes 17.72.170, Parking Facilities, Landscaping. The purpose is to provide “a pleasing visual
environment”. The applicability is for zones other than single-family residential, but it does include “all surface, off-street parking lots in the city of Port Townsend.” Minimum standards
include perimeter landscaping adjacent to public rights-of-way, perimeter landscaping abutting other properties, parking lot interior landscaping, and preservation of significant trees.
PTMC 17.72.170.F allows the DSD director to approve alternate parking lot landscaping plans if strict adherence to the minimum standards would be unsafe, unnecessary of unreasonably
burdensome upon the applicant. The applicants submitted an Alternative Tree Conservation and Landscaping Plan, Map and Notes (K-1 through K-3). They propose to retain a majority of the
forested area with significant trees on the west side of the South Parcel surrounding their residence (the existing ADU which would become a dwelling unit of its own through the PUD
process). As described at Exhibit K-1, the applicants are interested in promoting permaculture, i.e. “the design of ecological landscapes that produce food”. With the preservation of
the forested area on the west side of the property, landscaping is not required in this area. Section I of the SEPA MDNS (Exhibit F) stated that the applicants must submit a plan that
proposes the establishment of visual buffer landscaping on the easterly and southerly areas of the South Parcel next to existing residences. The applicants have proposed planting shrubs,
nuts and fruit trees and other plantings for wildlife habitat and food for humans as well including “fedgerows”, hedgerows which provide both food and screening, along the east and south
sides of the south parcel and at the corner of San Juan and 37th Street. Their proposal is to install the east side fedgerow prior to obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy for the 4th
dwelling unit in the northeast corner of the South Parcel. They did not indicate a proposed time for planting the “South Side Fedgerow”, but this shall be done prior to obtaining the
Certificate of Occupancy for any of the dwelling units on the southeast corner of the South Parcel to allow time for these “fedgerows”
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 24 of 75 to grow and provide a visual buffer from the residences across 35th Street. The proposed Alternative Tree Conservation and Landscaping
Plan appears appropriate, as it will preserve significant trees, provide a visual barrier and help maintain the solar access important to many of the future “eco” homes. . 5. Lot size,
except as provided in PTMC 17.32.060(D) (minimum lot size is limited to 3,000 square feet); PTEV does not propose lot segregation. Except for the dedication of 10 feet along the northerly
edge of the North Parcel along 37th Street, 15 feet along the easterly edge of the North Parcel, and the vacation of the southern portion of Landes Street, the existing two parcels would
remain the same size. As stated in the SEPA MDNS (Exhibit F) page 34, the15 feet of right-of-way along San Juan Avenue would provide San Juan Avenue a 50-foot wide right-of-way rather
than a 35-foot right-of-way, and be in alignment with the adjacent properties to the North and the South. In exchange for this property (approximately 1,732 square feet) as part of the
PUD process the City would agree to vacate the southerly end of vacated Landes Street north of 35th Street, a 48-foot by 40-foot (approximately 1,920 square feet) portion that has no
use to the City. 6. Lot width; Other than the above dedication in exchange for a partial street vacation, PTEV does not propose changing the existing properties’ lot width. 7. Engineering
design standards; PTEV has requested several departures from the Engineering Design Standards (EDS). (See Public Works analysis below.) 8. Multifamily and mixed use development standards
contained in Chapters 17.36 and 17.40 PTMC. A Multi-family dwelling is defined in PTMC Section 17.08 as “a building containing five or more dwelling units”. PTMC has not proposed multi-family
development, only single-family attached and detached dwelling units up to a fourplex.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 25 of 75 Applicant Requested and Staff Findings for Modifications. The applicants provided two tables: “Table #1 Matrix of Requests that are
permitted within the Municipal Code Standards” and “Table #2, Code Departure Matrix of requests that vary from the PT Municipal Code Standards” (Exhibit M-1). These Tables and staff
comments are summarized below. Table #1 – “Matrix of Requests that are permitted within the Municipal Code Standards”. Item # Request Staff Findings 1. The PUD Site Plan will specify
only approximate location of paths and structures over 200 square feet, and no surveys will be required to locate any future infrastructure of buildings. Between buildings, the building
code requires a minimum separation distance of five feet between buildings before a one-hour fire separation wall is required. The building inspector will need to verify adequate separation
between buildings, and between buildings and the property lines prior to the footing pour. The City will need sufficient survey data to confirm the location of any structure built within
20 feet of a boundary property line. 2. Five non-permitted structures of not more than 200 square feet will be allowed for future construction regardless of changes in the city building
code of the future. When asked, the applicant verbally stated that these structures would be used for storage or greenhouses. The current code allows one-story, unheated, non-habitable
space buildings up to 200 square feet to be constructed without a building permit. However, the city wants to allow for future changes in the building code, and cannot “freeze” this
as an option. The building code at the time will be used to determine what could be built without a building permit. 3. Eliminate two utility easements and modify a third in exchange
for one 20’ wide utility and one 10’wide path easement donated on Tax Parcel #33. This would be allowed. See Public Works comment letter (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit O-2). 4. Vacate City
ROW at the south end of vacated Landes Street. This would be allowed through the PUD process and would not require a separate Street Vacation process. Staff does not see a need for the
City to use this small piece of property now or in the future. This partial street vacation would be allowed in exchange for the 15 feet of the east portion of the North Parcel shown
on the Binding Site Plan (Exhibit B-1) to be 115.5 feet long.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 26 of 75 Item # Request Staff Findings 5. Street improvements on 35th Street as a T-6 scenic collector with wedge curb and infiltration trenches.
T-6 is allowed. See Public Works comment letter, Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit O-2. 6. That 35th Street and any parking lot improvements not be required until just before the 5th and 10th
additional dwelling is occupied. See Public Works comment letter, Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit O-2. Per the SEPA Mitigations, 35th Street shall be paved or bonded for prior to issuance of
the third building permit on the South Parcel. 7. 28 on-site parking spaces in one location and those improvements not be required until just before the 5th and 10th new dwelling is
occupied. See Public Works comment letter, Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit O-2. Per the SEPA Mitigations, half of the on-site parking from 35th Street (14 spaces) shall be bonded for or built
to acceptable standards prior to final PUD approval, and the other half prior to issuance of the clubhouse permit or the 12th residential building permit, whichever comes first. 8. Option
to use Grass pave or other pervious vehicle travel surface for fire lanes, if financially feasible. According to February 10, 2009 email from Tom Aumock, Consulting Fire Marshall (Exhibit
F SEPA, Exhibit Q-1), this would be acceptable as long as it meets current Fire Code standards adopted by the City. 9. One ¾ inch water meter for every cottage cluster dependent on fixture
units. See Public Works Comment Letter, Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit O-2 and SEPA Utilities section, which states that the applicant needs to size the water service line and the water meter
to the Uniform Plumbing Code, and submit calculations to Public Works as part of the Street Development Permit application. 10. (Prior version of Table stated: Allow the looping of water
lines so that 8 – 10 dwelling can be served by 2 taps that form a single loop.) This was removed from the revised Table. See Public Works Comment Letter, Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit O-2
and SEPA Utilities section. Looping of water lines would be required to correct the fire flow deficiency. 11 We are charged multi-family rates for water use. See Public Works Comment
Letter, Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit O-2 and SEPA Utilities section. This is a City Council decision, and is not subject to PUD review.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 27 of 75 Item # Request Staff Findings 12. We are allowed a low-income sewer charge for up to two (2) of our water taps. See Public Works Comment
Letter, Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit O-2 and SEPA Utilities section. To be eligible, the applicant must meet the requirements in PTMC 13.02.020, and be approved by the City Treasurer. 13.
Greywater systems that keep all of the water within five feet of the building envelope are allowed and water can be reused for toilets and laundry. Greywater systems are under the purview
of the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology. If the greywater is kept within the piping system of the house and not allowed
outside of the building envelope except to exit into the City sewer, it would be under the purview of the City. 14. Greywater systems in which the water leaves the building envelope
are allowed once permitted by County Health Department. Greywater systems are under the purview of the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department and/or the Washington State Department
of Ecology. 15. Zone R-II uses as listed in the PTMC (see Tables 3 and 4) will be permitted outright indefinitely in this development or conditionally as currently defined. As shown
on Exhibit M-2, the applicant has listed some of the permitted and conditionally permitted R-II zone uses in PTMC 17.16.020 and some of their definitions from PTMC 17.08. The applicant
wants in particular to guarantee “continued agricultural uses to maintain local production of food”. The applicant did not include “Concession stands, agricultural or produce” but has
included a “farm stand” on the PUD Site Plan. The current table 17.16.020 allows Concession Stands for agricultural or produce in the R-II zone when in “locations fronting onto principal
arterial, collector, and minor arterial streets.” The EDS classifies San Juan Avenue as a Scenic Collector. Crop or tree farming with community supported agricultural sales, U-pick sales
of crops and crop or tree farming with no retail sales are permitted outright, while a community agricultural center, barns, plant nurseries and commercial greenhouses are conditional
uses.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 28 of 75 Item # Request Staff Findings 15. (cont.) Zone R-II uses as listed in the PTMC (see Tables 3 and 4) will be permitted outright indefinitely
in this development or conditionally as currently defined. The applicant included “Rummage or other outdoor sale” but this is only for nonprofit organizations such as churches, schools
and community centers. The applicants did not include “Home Occupations” in this table, but added the definition that states they “shall only be allowed as regulated pursuant to Chapter
17.56 PTMC. Staff has proposed changes to Chapter 17.56, but not beyond the Planning Commission stage. With this PUD, the recommendation is that the proposed uses in the Tables be permitted
with the condition that they must still comply with the related Code Section. For example, a home occupation will comply with the latest version of PTMC 17.56, not the version as of
this date. In addition, only these R-II uses will be “frozen” into the future, not all of the R-II uses not specifically requested by the applicant from Table 17.16.020. 16. Flexibility
in ownership, allowing LLC, Co-op, Condo or homeowner Association, or Community Land Trust ownership of part of all of the land. The applicants have decided to structure the ownership
as a Limited Equity Cooperative, in which PTEV individual members would own shares of stock in the corporation. This would entitle them to a 99-year Occupancy Lease on a dwelling and
“a voice in cooperate governance” (Exhibits D-1 through D-5). 17. Once the PUD has been approved, future requirements for surveys, landscaping, construction permits, engineering, etc.
will be no greater that what is required for anyone building a residence on a standard lot. All future improvements will need to comply with adopted City Codes at the time, including
the Engineering Design standards, International Residential Code, and Port Townsend Municipal Code. Staff cannot state that requirements will be no greater than what is required for
a residence on a standard lot as the PUD is different from a standard lot and residence. The PUD has requested and obtained modifications to standards which are not provided to someone
building a residence on a standard lot. 18. That all of our approaches outlined in this application to keep housing affordable will be approved and we will guarantee an income of diverse
community. All of the approaches outlined in the application cannot be approved, as outlined in this document.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 29 of 75 Table #2 – “Code Departure Matrix of requests that vary from the PT Municipal Code Standards” Item # Request Staff Findings 1. Minimum
rear yard setback of 5 feet from the 16.5 foot wide City tax Lot #34 used for sewer line only. Because this is a main sewer line, the minimum setback from a main line is ten feet on
either side to allow for equipment access for a total width of 20 feet. The City property is only 16.5 feet wide. The sewer line may not be in the middle of the easement. This request
cannot be approved; the R-II minimum ten-foot rear setback from the property line is required. 2. Maximum front yard fence height of 8 feet along 35th Street. The applicant verbally
stated that this would be a “deer” fence that would be predominantly open. The Code allows for eight-foot high fences along a right-of-way when the top half is predominantly open, and
when a building permit is applied for and issued. Allowing such a fence would not be a departure from the Code. 3. (Initial Table stated: “Keep existing septic system for use by one
cottage in the forest”.) This “cottage” is the currently existing ADU. The applicants agree with City and County requirements that this unit must be connected to the sewer. County comments
state that a septic permit for this building is not in their system, and a septic permit is required for its use. The connection to sewer must be made and approved prior to final PUD
approval per SEPA Mitigation #1.A. 4. Only one sewer connection and a minimum of only one flush toilet required per each of the four dwelling clusters; no toilet plumbing required for
every dwelling. This request cannot be approved, due to health code requirements. Each dwelling will need to be connected to the sewer, and contain within it a toilet. If compost toilets
are used, a sewer drain for the toilet must be installed in each bathroom within the dwelling unit in case future residents want to connect to the sewer with a flush toilet. All composting
toilets are under the purview of the Jefferson County Public Health Department and/or the Washington State Department of Health. Human waste must be disposed of per Health codes. 5.
Option of “off-grid” dwelling units. The 2006 International Residential Code (IRC) requires that “every dwelling unit shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining
a minimum room temperature of 68 degrees F …” as the “winter design temperature” for Port Townsend would be less than 60 degrees F. It would be up to the applicant to prove to the Building
Official that “off-grid” dwelling units could meet this requirement. In addition, smoke detectors must be hard-wired and an adequate battery system provided.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 30 of 75 Item # Request Staff Findings 6. Option of “detached bedrooms” to be without a bathroom in same building if within 50 feet of a shared
bathroom PTMC 17.08 defines a “Guest house”/“detached bedroom” as “a detached building used as sleeping quarters with a bathroom but without a kitchen located on the same lot with a
principal building and occupied for the sole use of members of the family, temporary guests, or persons permanently employed on the premises. One guest house/detached bedroom is permitted
as an accessory use to a single-family dwelling. See also “Accessory dwelling unit.” A detached bedroom must include a bathroom. A detached bedroom is meant to be an accessory building
to a main residence, not a residence it itself. In addition, the 2006 IRC states under Section R306, Sanitation that “every dwelling unit shall be provided with a water closet, lavatory,
and a bathtub or shower”. This request cannot be approved. 7. Some dwelling units may be as small as 100 square feet, with or without a bathroom and/or kitchen amenities. PTMC 17.08
defines a “Dwelling Unit” as “any building or portion thereof that contains separate living facilities for not more than one family. Separate living facilities shall constitute provisions
for sleeping, eating, kitchen facilities (including at least an oven range or cooking device and a permanently installed sink), and bathroom facilities.” A bathroom and kitchen are required
in each dwelling unit. In addition, the 2006 IRC requires that “every dwelling unit shall have at least one habitable room that shall not have less than 120 square feet of gross floor
area; other habitable rooms shall have a floor area of not less than 70 square feet” (Section R304). A building as small as 100 square feet with a bathroom may be considered a “guest
house/detached bedroom” as defined in number 6 above. These buildings would be counted towards the total number of dwelling units allowed in PTEV, but they would not be considered dwelling
units. This request cannot be approved.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 31 of 75 Item # Request Staff Findings 8. Fire lane only 16 feet wide to access dwellings for 12 unrelated individuals (the equivalent of 2
SFR dwelling units). In referring to “12 unrelated individuals” the applicant is using the PTMC definition of “Family” which states in PTMC 17.08, “one or more persons related by blood,
marriage, adoption, or a group of not more than six persons not related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The persons thus constituting
a family may also include foster children, guests and domestic servants.” Per Exhibit F, SEPA, Exhibit Q, email from Tom Aumock, Consulting Fire Official, “there is no problem with a
16 foot wide fire lane on the east side of the property, accessed from 35th Street, at about 175 feet in length.” Approval of this request is recommended. 9. Allow pole height of 60
feet for up to 3 poles and electricity generating wind turbines. This exceeds the maximum height of 30 feet in an R-II residential zone. This would be more appropriate on a larger piece
of property that could have greater setbacks to neighbors. This request cannot be approved. 10. Allow 0’ setback from 37th Street for shop on north parcel if 10-foot ROW dedication is
made along 37th Street OR have the ROW dedication be only 5 feet along the shop. The shop building was built with the required R-II minimum front setback (Exhibit E-8) prior to submittal
of the PUD application. Staff will allow a 0’ setback from the 10-foot ROW dedication and not require that the structure be relocated further back.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 32 of 75 Item # Request Staff Findings 11. Allow 15’ setback from 37th Street for any new structure on the north parcel so that if 10-foot
ROW dedication is made along 37th Street, the remaining setbacks will be only 5 feet. The 10-foot ROW dedication must be made prior to issuance of the building permits for the Farm Stand
or the Office/Studio/Learning Center or the 21st residential building permit on the South Parcel or the second residential building permit on the North Parcel or prior to issuance of
any greenhouse on the North Parcel used for commercial use (per SEPA Mitigations #22, #23 and #24). The R-II front yard building setbacks of 10-feet for structures and 20-feet for garages
are in part to allow for vehicle parking in front of the house or garage. The applicant is proposing one parking lot near the greenhouse for all of the residential parking. The Occupancy
Lease (Exhibit D-1) does not specify that 37th Street members must park in the group parking lot. It states “members who live on the north parcel of the PTEV and their guests and family
members, shall be able to access their dwellings from 37th Street.” Human nature, especially for guests, is for people to park close to their buildings. For this reason, the residential
and commercial buildings must be setback from 37th Street 20 feet (i.e. 10 feet from the 10 foot dedication.) B. Standards which may not be modified or altered are: 1. Height of building
or structure in all residential zones; PTEV originally proposed a wind turbine structure of 45 feet tall (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit K-2); then on April 13, 2009 proposed a wind turbine
of 32 feet tall (Exhibit F, SEPA Exhibit C-4, Section 11 North Parcel Outbuildings and other structures and their uses). These structures would exceed the maximum building height of
30 feet for the R-II zone. The maximum height standard may not be modified or altered. However, in the future City Code may be changed to make height exceptions for alternative energy
sources such as wind turbines. 2. Shoreline regulations when the property is located in an area under the jurisdiction of the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program; This is not applicable
to PTEV, as it is not located within 200 feet of the shoreline. 3. Standards pertaining to development in environmentally sensitive areas; This is not applicable to PTEV, as no environmentally
sensitive area (now referred to as a critical area) has been mapped as being within the subject properties.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 33 of 75 4. Regulations pertaining to nonconforming uses; and Staff is not aware of any existing non-conforming uses on the subject properties.
The applicants initially proposed dwellings which did not include kitchens or bathrooms (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit C-4), but modified their proposal (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit C-6) to include
bathrooms to conform to the PTMC definition of detached bedrooms. For PUD purposes, all detached bedrooms without kitchens would be counted as dwelling units (Exhibit F SEPA, page 23).
The applicants propose to share meals in the Clubhouse, and prior to building the Clubhouse in the existing Rental/Common building at 510 35th Street. 5. Regulatory standards and requirements
pertaining to the preservation of historic structures located within the National Register Historic District. This is not applicable to PTEV as it is located outside the National Register
Historic District. C. Basis for Approval of Alternative Development Standards. Approval of alternative development standards for PUDs differs from the variance procedure described in
Chapter 17.86 PTMC in that rather than being based upon a hardship or unusual circumstance related to a specific property, the approval of alternative development standards proposed
by a planned unit development shall be based upon the criteria listed in this section. In evaluating a planned development which proposes to modify the development standards of the underlying
use zone, the city shall consider and base its findings upon the ability of the proposal to satisfy the following criteria: The environmental and affordable housing characteristics of
the project are unique and creative. In Tables 1 and 2 above, the applicant has requested modifications that they believe are necessary to support these attributes. As discussed above,
staff has recommended some of the alternative development standards be approved, modified, or not approved. 1. The proposed planned development shall be compatible with surrounding properties
especially related to: a. Landscaping and buffering of buildings, parking, loading and storage areas; The project provides sufficient landscaping necessary to warrant PUD approval. The
trees and vegetation on the west side of Parcel A will be preserved, forming a natural buffering to the west. Currently, there are no other significant trees or vegetation on the property
as a portion of the land has been used for agriculture for some time. As described in their Alternative Landscaping section (Exhibit K) they will provide buffering on the southeast and
east portions of the property as well as the northeast corner. Existing significant trees will provide a buffer on the southwest and west portion of the property while providing new
public trails. Final landscaping plans will be approved by staff to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and provisions of the Alternative Tree Conservation Plans
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 34 of 75 in the City’s Tree Conservation Ordinance. b. Public safety; All residences must connect to City water and sewer. Composting toilets
must conform to Jefferson County Environmental Health and/or State of Washington Department of Health rules. c. Site access, on-site circulation and off-street parking; The site is accessed
from San Juan Avenue, designated in the EDS Transportation section #13 as a “minor arterial” street, and 35th Street, designated as a “neighborhood connector”. As described in the Parking
section 22.3 above, parking on the south parcel would be in a shared parking lot located between the existing house and the forested area/ADU. This parking lot would expand and improve
the existing parking area used by the applicants, other residents and guests. On the North Parcel, current access to the house and shop structure is from a gravel driveway from 37th
Street. This parking lot would be expanded, and an additional parking lot added near the corner of 37th and San Juan Avenue for future commercial uses. As noted in the Phasing Plan (Exhibit
F SEPA, Mitigations) the applicants are required to use only 35th Street for access prior to building an additional residence or commercial building on the North Parcel. As also described
in at Finding 23.3 above, prior to large events (i.e. events in which over 25 cars with outside people are expected), the applicant shall submit an event
parking plan for review and approval by the Public Works department describing how traffic and on-site parking would be handled. While PTEV advocates members and guests to walk or ride
bicycles to and from PTEV, not everyone can do this, and others will be driving vehicles. On-site circulation is shown on the PUD Site Plan. However, prior to PUD final approval this
plan will need to be enlarged and greater detail provided, indicating the size of each parking space and parking aisle, as well as where vehicles would park in the reserve areas. Preliminary
plans for site access and circulation, including the non-motorized trail system, are designed to provide safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. d. Light and shadow impacts; While the
exact building style and number of stories of future residences has not been specified, the applicants have stated that one of their goals is to use solar power. To meet this end, they
will try to build so that they do not impact future access to sunlight. Small structures proposed along the edges of PTEV are not anticipated to shadow neighboring properties and impact
neighboring light. Neighboring properties appear to be are far enough away from PTEV to not affect PTEV’s light, and in turn not be affected by them. e. Generation of nuisance irritants
such as noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare, vibration or other undesirable impacts;
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 35 of 75 Some noise, dust and vibration may occur through the construction process, but in their Narrative Summary (Exhibit A-2) and other
proposal documents the applicants have described their sensitivity to undesirable impacts to the environment and are seeking to minimize them. It is possible that a future wind turbine,
if allowed by the City at some point, may generate noise or vibration, but it is assumed that these factors would be regulated by setbacks and other requirements in the Ordinance. f.
Architectural design of buildings and harmonious use of materials; The applicants have not submitted an architectural design, other than general house plans on their website. “Ruth’s
House” built on Tax Lot #33 is of an architectural design which has used materials in a harmonious manner. The building materials for future houses are likely to be somewhat unconventional,
but they will be screened. DSD staff recommends that, subject to conditions, the applicant’s proposal will provide sufficient landscaping necessary to warrant PUD approval. Final landscaping
plans would be approved by DSD to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and terms of the City’s Tree Conservation Ordinance. Proposed building locations and unit parking are
to be depicted on the preliminary PUD site plan, and Binding Site Plan. Development locations within the project are adequately located to mitigate impacts on surrounding residential
development. Public safety will be addressed through compliance with all City, County, and State rules and permitting requirements, including those for composting toilets and greywater.
Site access, on-site circulation and off-street parking in the shared parking lot is designed to provide safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. No light or shadow impacts to adjoining
properties are anticipated from the development, and no nuisance irritants beyond those typical for a residential area will be generated; in fact, they may be less give the applicants’
sensitivity to the environment. Building designs have not been specified. The goal of the applicants is that dwellings be innovative in design and materials, but it is not anticipated
that they will be so innovative as to not use materials in a harmonious manner. 2. The unique characteristics of the subject property; The subject property is unique in that it consists
of two fairly large unplatted lots in the center of town close to a major street. Portions of it have been used for agriculture for some time, and a portion of it will continue in that
use. The applicants are making every attempt to establish low impact use of the land. It appears that, subject to appropriate conditions, the applicant has exercised considerable forethought
in their effort to create a quality residential development while preserving the setting of surrounding lands including the adjacent forested area.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 36 of 75 3. The unique characteristics of the proposed use(s); The “alternative” nature of so many segments of the proposed use makes it unique,
as it includes alternative energy, alternative building styles, alternative building materials, alternative transportation, and an alternative form of ownership. It appears that, subject
to certain conditions, the size and arrangement of the residential units, open spaces and transportation amenities warrant modification of setback and roadway development standards that
would normally apply. 4. The arrangement of buildings and open spaces as they relate to various uses within or adjacent to the planned development; The buildings would be arranged outside
of the forested area around the agricultural space. All buildings would have visual and trail access to the substantial open space of the property both on the North Parcel’s open fields
and the South Parcel’s forest. It appears that the building locations and their relationship to the common open spaces relate well to one another, as well as to residential uses adjacent
to the development. 5. Visual impact of the planned development upon the surrounding area; Across from the southwest portion of the South Parcel, the majority of the property on the
south side of 35th Street is yet to be developed. On the southeast portion of the South Parcel, the northerly view of the dwellings on 35th Street addressed as 341, 343 and 409 35th
Street would be towards a group of houses (behind planted “fedgerows”) instead of a field. To the east, dwellings addressed as 3506, 3526 and 3550 Haines Street would be buffered by
Tala’s Short Plat Lot B and planted “fedgerows”. Neighbors on the north portion of 37th Street are few at this time. According to the PUD Site Plan (Exhibit A-1), future houses are not
proposed to be built directly across from 230 37th Street or 434 38th Street. Future commercial buildings would be located across from 3723 San Juan Avenue; however, those buildings
are located in the middle of the property and not directly on 37th Street so a buffer would be retained, and a “fedgerow” built at the corner of San Juan and 37th Streets. DSD staff
recommends that several aspects of the project will ensure that visual impacts will not be detrimental to the surrounding area. These include: • The preservation and public trail enhancement
of the forested area on the west side of the property as a boundary open space; • The boundary landscaping on the south, east and northeast sides of the project across from existing
residences. These factors, coupled with the recommended conditions of approval, will adequately screen the development from surrounding uses and warrant the PUD approval of
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 37 of 75 certain modified development standards. 6. Public improvements proposed in connection with the planned development; The following
public improvements which are alternative development standards have been preliminarily approved in the SEPA MDNS: 1. Per the SEPA MDNS (Exhibit F, O Transportation), an additional traffic
study was not required when the North Parcel was added to the proposal because the trip generation would be less than proposed in the original Gibson Traffic Report from 2007 (Exhibit
F SEPA, Exhibit P); 2. Per the SEPA Mitigations (Exhibit F), the entire Phasing Plan is considered an alternative development standard as typically infrastructure improvement are required
prior to or before each phase of a development. Initially, PTEV did not propose improvement of 37th Street and focused all development on the South Parcel located off of 35th Street.
However, because the existing house and shop recently built on the North Parcel are an integral part of PTEV per the applicant’s website and prior inquiries, the development of 37th
Street would be required as part of the PUD application. However, the applicants stated they could not afford to develop 37th Street and install or bond for all of the improvements at
the beginning of the project. The applicants and staff worked on a Phasing Plan and came to an agreement. Phasing plans are appropriate when adequate measures are taken to create additional
capacity prior to the initiation of a use that will create impacts. 3. The Phasing Plan includes: For Roads (per Exhibit F SEPA, Mitigations): • That the improvement of 37th Street to
a modified T-8 standard from San Juan Avenue to the west side of the North Parcel not be required; that the improvement of 37th Street to a modified T-8 standard from San Juan Avenue
“far enough to accommodate the traffic to the learning center or farm stand” be delayed until prior to issuance of the building permits for the learning center or farm stand (Mitigation
#22); that that the improvement of 37th Street “from San Juan Avenue to the relocated utility easement” be delayed until prior to issuance of the 21st residential building permit on
the property, or the second residential building permit on the north parcel, or any commercial building on the North Parcel (Mitigation #23); and that the improvement of 37th Street
to the west end of the greenhouse “far enough to accommodate the traffic to the greenhouse” be delayed until prior to the issuance of any greenhouse on the North Parcel used for commercial
purposes (Mitigation #24). • That the improvement of 35th Street to a T-6 standard from the existing
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 38 of 75 edge of 35th Street to the west property line of the South Parcel (i.e. to and through the subject property frontage) not be required
as a condition of development. Due to little development on the west side of the parking lot, the applicants are allowed to extend the street approximately one block to the west, and
end the street at the driveway prior to issuance of the third building permit on the South Parcel (Mitigation #20); For Fire Department Requirements (per Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit Q-1):
• The use of GrassPave for the fire truck emergency access and the fire lanes as long as it is consistent with the Emergency Vehicle standards contained in Ordinance 2947 adopting the
2006 building and fire codes; For Sewer (per Exhibit F SEPA, section Q, Utilities): • Connect to the existing 8-inch sewer main and extend it within the City owned strip as far as possible
to meet gravity, then on private property extend it as a private sewer to serve the existing ADU ADU (on septic and without a permit from the Jefferson County Health Department) as well
as future residences east of vacated Oxford Street; • Provide one sewer line and flush toilet connection for each of the four housing clusters; However, each dwelling unit must still
be connected to City sewer; toilets in each unit may be an in-home greywater system, a conventional flush toilet, a composting toilet, or some combination of the three. Permits from
Jefferson County Public Health would still be required for greywater and composting systems. Composting toilets will be authorized through the alternative methods provisions of the adopted
Building Code, and will be addressed during building permit review. For Water (per Exhibit F SEPA, section Q, Utilities): a) The City will install water meters with the capability for
future remote meter reading. In the meantime, meters are to be grouped on 35th and 37th Streets. The following alternative proposals will be determined during the Street Development
Permit process: • To keep the existing hedgerow on the North Parcel (Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit U), a modification to the T-8 road standard; • Meandering 35th Street to avoid a 26” Douglas
Fir Tree near the entrance to PTEV; DSD staff recommends that the public improvements set forth in the conditions of approval, coupled with the relationship of buildings to the open
spaces and the internal trail network proposed, warrants modification of certain setback and road development standards.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 39 of 75 7. Preservation of unique natural features of the property; and PTEV proposes to preserve the forested area, and continue to farm
a portion of the agricultural land. The applicants state that they currently have almost half an acre of land in food production. The garden would be reduced to a circular area approximately
125 feet wide in the center of most of the dwelling units. As detailed in the Finding above, protection of the forested area on the west side of the South Parcel will help create a quality
residential setting providing benefits to the public. Non-motorized opportunities will also be enhanced, while providing additional affordable housing stock. 8. The public benefit derived
by allowing the proposed alteration of development standards. (Ord. 2571 § 2, 1997). The public benefit includes affordable housing and an environmentally compatible development. In
light of the foregoing, the proposed project will be compatible with surrounding properties and complies with the PUD criteria for approval of certain modified development standards.
D. Analysis of Consistency with 17.32.100, Preliminary Approval Criteria. The preliminary PUD approval criteria set forth in PTMC 17.32.100 are quoted below in italics and bold. A statement
of consistency follows each numbered and italicized criteria. A. PUDs shall be given preliminary approval, including preliminary approval subject to conditions, upon finding by the city
that all of the following have been satisfied: 1. The proposed PUD conforms to: a. Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; b. All provisions of the Port Townsend Zoning Code which are not
proposed for modification; c. All engineering design standards which are not proposed for modification; d. Critical Areas Ordinance (Chapter 19.05 PTMC); and e. Any other applicable
city, state or federal regulations, policies or plans, except those standards proposed for modification. PUD Approval Criteria 1. The applicant submitted a Public Benefit Analysis; “Consistency
with the City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan” (Exhibit N). Analysis of these criteria and review of the project’s conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Findings
numbered 25 through 29, below: 24. Community Direction Statement (Chapter III, PT Comp Plan). As mentioned on Page 1 of the submitted Public Benefit Analysis, PTEV’s vision statement
seems to be in
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 40 of 75 harmony with the Comprehensive Plan’s Community Direction statement of “a great place to live. A wide choice of housing types and
prices is available for a diversity of lifestyles and incomes. Residential development is centered in distinct neighborhoods that are safe, secure, and have identities and characters
of their own. Opportunities for socializing, recreation, quiet and solitude are all close at hand, as are facilities and events that enrich the body, mind and spirit.” 25. Land Use Map
(Chapter IV, PT Comp Plan). The 1996 Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property Medium Density Single Family Residential (R-II). This designation accommodates single-family
dwellings (including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes) at a density of up to 8 units per acre (i.e., 5,000 square foot minimum lot size, or approximately 8 dwelling units within one
block of platted land). The R-II designation corresponds closely to those areas of town that are currently platted to 8 lots a block, include few development limitations, and which are
in proximity to existing pubic facilities and services. Selected forms of agriculture are also allowed. [Ord. No. 2670, § 1.2 (December 7, 1998)]. TABLE IV-1: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS –
SUGGESTED USES, DENSITIES & BUILDING HEIGHTS* LAND USE DESIGNATIONS LAND USES ALLOWED MINIMUM DENSITY MAXIMUM DENSITY OR LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHTS (Feet) R-PUD Single-Family & Multi-Family
Residential Not Specified Varying – Depends Upon Base Zoning Density Varying – Depending Upon Surrounding Uses and Development Design R-II Single-Family Houses, Duplexes, Triplexes &
Fourplexes Not Specified 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre 30 PTEV, including the North and South Parcels, totals 7.7 acres. If an acre is considered to be 40,000 square feet and 8 dwelling
units per acre are allowed, then on 308,000 square feet 62 residences could potentially be accommodated. The applicants are proposing an additional 24 residences to the existing two
residences and pre-existing ADU (which will be considered a post-approval residence). This criterion appears satisfied. However, the wind turbines as high as 32 feet would not meet the
maximum building height in the R-II residential zone. While the Comprehensive Plan Table able lists the PUD building height as “varying”, PTMC 17.32 lists the height of buildings or
structures under standards which may not be modified or altered. 26. The Land Use Element (Chapter IV, PT Comp Plan). Proposals such as the PTEV were clearly anticipated and encouraged
by the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as the RoseWind development is mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan: R-PUD -Residential: This designation provides for a compatible
mix of single and multi-
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 41 of 75 family housing and a neighborhood center. The designation can be applied only within areas zoned for residential use (i.e., R-I, R-II,
R-III and R-IV). The R-PUD designation promotes clustering and the development of innovative self-sustaining residential communities offering a wide variety of compatible housing types
and densities, neighborhood businesses, recreational uses, open space, trails and other amenities that are seldom achieved through traditional zoning approvals. This designation is based
on the Rosewind Cohousing PUD approved by the City in 1993. Specific requirements for the siting and relationship of the various land uses, dwelling types, and densities in these developments
should be established in the zoning ordinance, consistent with the applicable policies of this Plan. The zoning ordinance should provide sufficient flexibility to allow the dwelling
types and densities to vary in response to market conditions, while maintaining the integrity of the project. The actual mix and arrangement of uses should be established through a binding
site plan. The most applicable of these, including those contained in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, are listed below. In some cases, achieving compliance with these Goals and
Policies will require conditions. Overall Land Use Goal: To accommodate the City's expected population growth in a sustainable manner that maintains or improves the community's character,
environment, employment base, and quality of life. Residential Lands Goal 7: To accommodate the population growth objectives for the City of Port Townsend and to further the objectives
of the Housing Element of this Plan. Policy 7.1: Assure a wide range of housing opportunities throughout the entire community, while preserving and creating distinct residential neighborhoods.
PTEV would provide “affordable housing” opportunities. Preserving the forested land on the west side of the South Parcel would preserve the neighborhood, while building dense residential
units on the east side of the North Parcel would create a distinct residential neighborhood. Policy 7.2: Locate medium and high density housing in areas of the community most suitable
for such uses, based on consideration of environmentally sensitive areas, the availability of existing services, public utilities and facilities, and transportation facilities. PTEV
is centrally located in Port Townsend. No environmentally sensitive areas are mapped on the property. Public bus service is several blocks east on San Juan Avenue with a bus stop in
front of San Juan Commons Apartments. Public Utilities (sewer, water and power) are available nearby. Policy 7.3: Allow manufactured homes (which meet the HUD Code) on single-family
lots in all residential zones, provided that they comply with the requirements of the Washington State Energy Code for single-family homes, or its equivalent, and further provided that
the
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 42 of 75 manufactured homes meet applicable age and design standards established in the zoning code. The intent of this policy is to recognize
manufactured housing as a legitimate housing choice for Port Townsend residents. Manufactured homes are included in the list of uses PTEV would like to maintain into the future (Exhibit
M-2). Manufactured homes would be allowed if they meet current code. Currently two stipulations are that they be new (or not older than three years) and placed on a permanent foundation.
Policy 7.4: Require that medium and high density housing developments be served with streets of sufficient capacity to lessen neighborhood traffic congestion. PTEV includes the North
Parcel, which is currently served by a gravel road per the waiver granted October 29, 2007 (Exhibit V-1) that states “the requirement to pave 37th Street from San Juan Avenue across
your frontage is waived.” The letter stated that “it is not possible to rule out the need for this this ROW to serve this parcel if it develops in the future.” SEPA Mitigations (Exhibit
F, SEPA) require that 37thPTMC Table 17.16.020 lists those uses which are subject to a conditional use permit. As discussed above, PTEV requested that some of the land uses in this table
be “frozen” for their Street be improved as part of the Phasing Plan. Policy 7.5: Ensure that implementing regulations allow experimentation in newer forms of residential development
where clustering, density bonuses and other incentives help to achieve affordable housing and open space goals. A central focus of PTEV seems to be with “experimentation in newer forms
of residential development” including “clustering” for “affordable housing”. Maintaining the open space on the west side of the South Parcel and on the North Parcel meets “open space
goals” by providing for “passive recreation opportunities” in trails, wooded areas and fields that provide quiet places for residents. Small houses and “green” practices will help to
achieve affordability. Policy 7.6: a. Develop performance standards to ensure that home occupations maintain or enhance the character of existing residential neighborhoods; and PTEV
mentions Home Occupations as something it would encourage its residents to pursue. Home Occupation standards are located in PTMC Chapter 17.56. Activities that involve more than five
customer or business visits per day are listed among the ineligible activities in PTMC 17.56.050.D. PTEV requested that home occupations as described in the current code be “frozen”;
however, future Home Occupations would need to comply with the PTMC code current at the time of proposal. b. Consider establishing a conditional use permit (CUP) requirement for other
commercial uses not permitted outright under the Home Occupation Code that might be made compatible with the primary use and character of residential neighborhoods through the CUP review
and approval process. [Ord. No. 2670, §1.4 (December 7, 1998)].
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 43 of 75 development. More information about the Office/Studio/Learning center activities would be required before making a determination if
it could be considered an outright conditional use. Policy 7.7: Encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and other innovative techniques for providing affordable housing. Due to the
ownership structure, ADUs are not proposed for PTEV, nor would they be allowed. A condition of approval has been proposed that prohibits the establishment of ADUs within the project.
However, affordable housing is proposed by limiting the maximum ground floor area of the proposed dwellings. This makes them smaller than the average detached ADU, which is limited to
a maximum floor area of 800 square feet per PTMC 17.16.020.C.4. Policy 7.8: As funding becomes available, develop neighborhood parks in higher density locations where the need is greatest.
Preserving the forested area on the west side of the South Parcel and providing non-motorized trails would be developing a type of “neighborhood park”. Policy 7.9: Encourage higher density
residential development in areas where the existing development patterns or terrain are conducive to walking, bicycling, and frequent transit service. While PTEV is not located in an
R-IV high density residential zone, the proximity of houses to each other creates a higher density on the east side of the South Parcel than found in a typical single-family R-II residential
neighborhood with 5,000 square foot lots. PTEV proposes letting residents naturally determine where the existing on-site trails would be. The terrain is fairly flat and conducive to
walking and bicycling. Frequent transit service is located a few blocks away on San Juan Avenue near 32ndAs stated above, the maximum housing density for the R-II zone as 8 dwelling
units per acre has been established. Typically each dwelling unit is on a 5,000 square foot lot. PTEV proposes each dwelling unit to have less surrounding space, but still allows for
“personal space”. The density proposed would accommodate “a variety of lifestyles and income levels”. Some Street. Policy 7.10: Encourage well designed infill development through density
bonuses and by allowing innovative lot configurations. Located north of the Rosewind PUD and south and east of existing residences, PTEV is proposing infill development. A density bonus
has not been proposed, nor has splitting the existing parcel into lots. However, the placement of the dwellings and the pathways is considered innovative. No other development has proposed
such small dwelling units in such close proximity to each other, while letting the pathway locations evolve over time. Policy 7.11: Establish maximum housing densities for residential
districts, and minimum densities for the highest density multi-family residential district. Establish a variety of densities for residential areas to accommodate a variety of lifestyles
and income levels.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 44 of 75 dwellings could only accommodate one or two people with a lifestyle of “simplicity”. It would not attract those who need a garage
space, private yard, and large residence. Policy 7.12: Disperse multi-family housing and special needs housing throughout the City rather than in isolated developments. Facilitate the
development of this housing by designating and zoning smaller multi-family residential districts in many locations. Encourage building design and landscaping that will help this housing
blend into or improve the neighborhood. Multi-family housing and special needs housing has not been proposed by PTEV, although they have listed foster homes and adult family homes as
uses they would like to maintain outright in the future (Exhibit M-2). Policy 7.13: Accommodate higher density residential uses in well designed mixed use centers to promote more efficient
land use, support transportation facilities, and ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. R-II is not considered a “high density residential use” or “mixed use” zone. However,
the proposed commercial use on the North Parcel would be a type of “mixed use” by inviting the greater community to the learning center and farm stand. PTEV would profit by being located
approximately five blocks north of the C-I/MU Neighborhood Serving Mixed Use at San Juan and F Streets. Policy 7.14: Discourage the conversion of residential areas to nonresidential
uses. Prevent the encroachment of commercial uses into residential zones, except for: a. A limited amount of small scale, compatible commercial uses within neighborhood commercial districts
that are located within walking distance of all homes in a neighborhood, which serve and enhance the neighborhoods where they are located, and are spaced at least one-half mile from
any existing commercial district; b. A limited amount of small scale commercial uses in mixed use districts, when developed in conjunction with new housing units; and c. Home occupations
within residential districts, provided the use is consistent with the primary residential use, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. PTEV proposes a “community clubhouse”,
which
is defined in PTMC 17.08 as “a privately owned structure in which inhabitants of a neighborhood or subdivision or members of a neighborhood association gather for meetings and other
activities. The applicant has verbally stated that events would include guests by invitation only from members. A condition of approval has been proposed that memorializes this limitation.
Community Clubhouses are permitted in the R-II zone. This clubhouse building is not to be confused with a “Community Center” defined in PTMC 17.08 as “a place, structure, area, or other
facility used for and providing social, fraternal, religious, and/or recreational programs generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significant segments of
the community.” A Community Center is a Commercial use which is not allowed in the R-II zone.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 45 of 75 Policy 7.15: Promote increased densities and alternative housing types in all residential neighborhoods through design standards that:
reinforce the character of single-family residential districts; and assure multi-family developments integrate with and enhance the neighborhoods in which they are permitted. PTEV would
not “reinforce the character of the single-family residential district” as the single-family residential district consists of a residence on a minimum 5,000 square foot lot. The density
of the small houses on the east side of the South Parcel would “promote increased densities and alternative housing types”. Policy 7.16: Ensure that each neighborhood is provided with
adequate open space, natural buffers, and public recreational facilities. [Ord. No. 2898, § 4, (July 5, 2005)]. Although not of a permanent nature, the Yesberger property to the west
of PTEV currently provides open space for the neighborhood. Natural buffers on the west side (i.e. the forested area) would be preserved. Public recreational facilities are available
several blocks to the north at the Blue Heron School (such as the outdoor track) and through the existing and enhanced trail system. 27. The Housing Element (Chapter V, PT Comp Plan).
Housing Affordability (Policies relating to PTEV are included below): Goal 2: To promote the provision of affordable housing throughout all geographic and economic segments of the community.
Policy 2.1: Encourage the provision of affordable housing by designating more land area for higher density housing. PTEV is proposed in a medium density zone, but it does encourage affordable
housing through diversity of housing types. Policy 2.2: Evaluate existing land use regulations and identify measures to increase the variety of affordable housing types throughout Port
Townsend. Examples of potential code revisions include: smaller single-family lot sizes; more liberal allowance of single-family attached dwellings (i.e., duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes);
and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).2.2.1 Offer incentives to developers and home builders who provide housing for low and moderate income households, such as: density bonuses: waivers
for impact fees and system development charges (SDCs); and priority permit processing procedures. Density bonuses are possible through the PUD process, although PTEV has not asked for
them.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 46 of 75 Waivers for impact fees and system development charges have been granted for Habitat for Humanity houses in the form of deferring,
not waiving, some charges through an agreement with the City. All waivers would need to be approved by the City Manager, the Finance Director and ultimately City Council. 2.2.2 In order
to provide lower cost housing, consider permitting affordable housing "demonstration projects" in which development standards may be negotiated without sacrificing public health and
safety. PTEV is a self-proclaimed “demonstration project”. The above states that public health and safety cannot be sacrificed. The City would require that all units be connected to
City sewer and water mains. The Jefferson County Environmental Health department would review all greywater and composting toilets applications if such proposals would not be connected
to City sewer Housing Types Goal 4: To promote a variety of housing choices to meet the needs of Port Townsend residents and to preserve and encourage socio-economic diversity. Policy
4.1: Encourage the integration of a mix of housing types, densities and costs suitable for a population diverse in age, income, household composition and individual needs. PTEV would
provide housing at higher densities and lower costs than other existing PUDs such as RoseWind (located south of 35th Street) and Lynnesfield (located north of the Middle School). 4.1.1
Allow attached single-family dwelling units (i.e., duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes) in all single-family residential zones, provided that the base density requirements for the zone
are not exceeded. The site plan proposes some attached single-family dwelling units in the form of duplexes. 27 dwelling units on 7.7 acres would not come close to exceeding the base
density requirement of not more than 8 units per acre in the R-II zone. 4.1.2 Amend the zoning code to allow manufactured homes (which meet the HUD Code) on single-family lots in all
residential zones, and further provided that they comply with the requirements of the Washington State Energy Code for single-family homes, or its equivalent, provided that the manufactured
homes meet applicable age and design standards established in the zoning code. It is not the intent of this plan to promote the development of traditional mobile home parks. Instead,
the intent is to recognize manufactured housing as a legitimate housing choice, which should be made available to Port Townsend residents. As mentioned above, manufactured homes less
than three years old would be allowed in PTEV, and were mentioned as a residential use they would like to maintain into the future.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 47 of 75 4.1.3 Permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in all residential zones, providing zoning code requirements are satisfied. The South
Parcel includes an accessory dwelling unit (the Kolffs’ residence) but due to the proposed ownership structure ADUs are not proposed. Through the PUD process the Kolff’s residence would
become its own dwelling unit, no longer accessory to the larger house. Policy 4.2: Encourage innovation and variety in housing design and site development and support unique and sustainable
community housing projects such as: co-housing; planned unit developments (PUDs); "grow" home and cottage home developments; and cluster developments which offer an alternative to the
City's prevailing grid pattern. PTEV does provide an innovative site development by clustering small houses around a garden area. The PUD would offer an alternative to the grid pattern.
4.2.1 Encourage clustering and small lot PUDs in order to retain open space and promote the construction of affordably priced attached single-family houses. As mentioned above, the PUD
does not propose dividing the existing parcel into smaller lots, but rather proposes an Occupancy Lease of the clustered small houses. Open space on the west and north sides of the property
would be retained. PTEV seeks to promote affordably priced houses, while offering “alternative” construction techniques. 4.2.2 Offer density bonuses to builders who provide low-income
housing in market rate developments. Link the amount of bonuses to the level of affordability (i.e., the lower the cost or rental rate per unit, the greater the bonus). Grant density
bonuses only in instances where all of the following conditions are satisfied: a. The developer agrees to sell or rent the units to qualifying residents (i.e., low income and very low
income households); b. The developer ensures the continued affordability of the units for a minimum of 40 years; and c. The units are of an innovative design and compatible with existing
neighborhood character. While PTEV is not proposing “low-income housing”, it has a Limited Equity Formula (Exhibit D-5) with a development buy-in cost of $32,000 in 2008. 4.2.3 Develop
and implement standards which encourage innovative housing design while ensuring compatibility with existing neighborhoods (e.g., standards for zero lot line development; and design
standards for multi-family and attached single-family developments). The proposed dwellings on the east portion of the South Parcel are small and up to two-story in size. Multi-family
housing (five or more units) is not proposed. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood would be ensured by providing enough on-site parking for residents and their
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 48 of 75 guests, by adhering to the minimum setbacks in the R-II zone from adjacent properties, and by vegetative screening on the south and
east sides of the property. Policy 4.5: Promote home ownership by encouraging alternatives to conventional detached single-family housing, such as: condominiums; attached single-family
units; townhouses; and "grow" and cottage homes. [Ord. No. 2898, § 5, (July 5, 2005)]. As described in the Occupancy Lease, Legal Structure of the Limited Equity Cooperative, Residential
Guidelines and Assessments and Limited Equity Formula (Exhibits D-1 through D-5), PTEV proposes alternatives to conventional detached single-family housing. 28. The Transportation Element
(Chapter VI, PT Comp Plan). Local Street System Goal 4: To develop a fully integrated local street system this accommodates various transportation modes depending upon individual neighborhood
characteristics. Policy 4.1: Establish street development standards for City streets that reflect a reasonable balance between initial expense and long-term operations and maintenance
costs. The City requirement of the development of 37th Street for PTEV has been a significant challenge for PTEV. Street Development requirements are established in the Port Townsend
Engineering Design Standards. There would be an initial expense for PTEV to engineer and pave 37th Street. The amount of traffic on 37th Street that would be generated by PTEV is greater
than that for a single-family residence. The Phasing Plan in the SEPA Mitigations allows PTEV to begin development on the south parcel without improving 37th Street as long as residents
and guests do not use 37th Street for parking. Policy 4.2: Incorporate street standards for transportation facilities that safely accommodate: a. Drainage and other utilities; b. Neighborhood
motor vehicle traffic and parking; c. Emergency and service vehicles; d. Pedestrians; e. Bicycles; f. Mail boxes; g. Garbage and recycling services; h. Public transportation access i.
Street Lights; and
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 49 of 75 j. Street trees. PTEV submitted a drainage plan and transportation plan (see Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibits J and P). The Fire Department
has provided comments for emergency and service vehicles (see Exhibit F, SEPA Exhibit Q). Policy 4.3: Encourage the use of "narrow streets" to help retain the City's small town atmosphere
and to minimize the amount of paved area to reduce construction costs, storm water runoff and heat buildup. The level of service for collectors, local access roads or residential streets
should reflect a balance between safety, efficiency, and the maintenance of small town character. 37th Street is considered a “narrow street” as it was platted at just 35 feet wide.
Therefore, the 10 foot dedication of 37th Street along the North Parcel was required. Alternative street widths may be considered as part of future road improvements. Policy 4.4: Ensure
that the City's street development standards result in safe streets and are compatible with the the standards contained in the State Department of Transportation (i.e., DOT) Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Engineered plans would be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works staff to ensure that the resultant street would be safe and compatible with
DOT standards. Policy 4.5: Encourage local access and residential traffic only on local streets to minimize traffic noise, congestion, and hazards to pedestrians. Discourage through
access by installing traffic calming devices and/or by allowing certain streets to remain unopened to motor vehicles. 37th Street would only be for local access, and would not be a through
street. Policy 4.6: Designate certain viewpoint street ends and, where appropriate, provide signs, benches and safety barriers to encourage public use and to prevent encroachment from
neighboring residents. Some safety barriers would need to be provided at the west end of 37th Street. Policy 4.7: Allow street closures (or do not allow some streets to be opened) in
certain areas so the street grid is broken in an effort to promote more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. Streets designated to be closed or to remain unopened should be identified
within the Non-motorized Plan. 37th Street is not designed on the Non-Motorized Plan Map as a street not to be opened. It already has an existing driveway. Policy 4.8: Encourage applicants
for new subdivisions and PUDs to build streets on a grid or a modified grid pattern. If cul-de-sacs are used, require that cul-de-sacs connect to on-site and off-site pedestrian and
bicycle facilities and provide for a sufficient number of thoroughfares (connections to arterials, collectors or feeders) for public transit and emergency access.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 50 of 75 The PTEV PUD proposal is to use an existing street (35th) for access during the first phase. No cul-de-sac is proposed. Parking Management
Goal 7: To encourage City, Transit and private interests to establish coordinated parking strategies to achieve overall transportation goals and to ensure that parking standards do not
act as a deterrent to new development or redevelopment. Policy 7.1: Encourage private developers to address parking demand by participating in the cost of shared parking facilities,
agreement with others for the joint use of parking spaces and through the use of bicycles, carpools, transit, and the Park-and-Ride facility. As described in the Parking section above,
PTEV proposes an on-site parking lot in addition to car sharing and encouraging the use of bicycles, carpools and transit. Policy 7.2: Encourage private and public employers to provide
bicycle parking facilities on or near their properties. PTEV states that they encourage alternative forms of transportation, such as bicycling. The parking lot area would need to include
bicycle parking facilities. Policy 7.6: Property owners should be responsible for providing parking and for managing parking demand generated at the site, to avoid any spill-over parking
on neighboring properties and streets. And Policy 7.8: New and redeveloped residential areas should be planned to accommodate adequate off-street parking. This will encourage narrower
streets. Excessive on-street parking was a concern by Mr. and Mrs. Milholland (comment letter #45). However, after talking with the applicants the Milhollands wrote another letter (comment
letter #46) stating that they were satisfied. Off-street parking would be available to PTEV on the north portion of 35thLevel of Service (LOS) & Concurrency Management Street. However,
guests and residents will be encouraged to use the on-site parking lot. Goal 8: To set an appropriate level of service to reduce traffic congestion and to increase the efficiency and
safety of the overall transportation system by maximizing the use of existing facilities. Policy 8.1: New streets must be constructed to City street standards. Structures that access
37th Street are considered an integral part of PTEV, therefore 37th Street must be constructed to City street standards as described in the SEPA MDNS and SEPA Mitigations Phasing Plan.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 51 of 75 Policy 8.2: The City should adopt a clearly defined and consistent policy describing which existing facilities are maintained by the
City. There should be four categories of streets: a. Arterials and collectors; b. Accepted streets; c. Not accepted streets with past obligations; and d. Not accepted streets with no
maintenance obligation. Those substandard streets that the City has maintained in the past, shall be maintained as lowest priority. If existing streets are not listed as maintained by
the City but are not safe to carry emergency access vehicles, the City may assess residents to maintain the street. The City’s Engineering Design Standards (EDS) classifies San Juan
Avenue as a “scenic collector” and 35th and 37th Streets as accepted “local access” streets. Policy 8.3: Ensure that any transportation improvements or strategies required to mitigate
impacts are constructed or financed concurrent with development or require either a construction or financial commitment for the necessary improvements within six years of the date a
permit is issued. 37thUtilities -Generally Street would need to be constructed or financed concurrent with development as stated in the SEPA Mitigations Phasing Plan. 29. The Capital
Facilities and Utilities Element (Chapter VII, PT Comp Plan). Goal 9: To ensure the provision of utilities to address current needs and growth and development. Policy 9.1: Ensure environmentally
sensitive, cost effective, safe and reliable utility service that is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Proposed wind generators would need to be compatible with the surrounding
land uses. Concerns include noise, height, public safety, views of neighboring properties, and exceeding the maximum structure height for the residential zone. In the future, the City
may allow for these alternative energy sources. City Water Utility -Water Service -Generally Goal 10: To provide quality drinking water to all Port Townsend residents. Policy 10.1: Allow
developers to provide service extensions within the City service area, provided: City design and construction standards and Washington State Department of Health (i.e., DOH) regulations
and requirements are met; the costs of the extensions are paid for by the
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 52 of 75 developer or new customers; off-site impacts are mitigated; all necessary permits are obtained; and all right-of-way issues are resolved.
The applicants propose to extend water. City design and construction standards, as well as DOH regulations and requirements for greywater systems, are to be met. Water Conservation Goal
14: To promote the conservation and prudent use of water resources. Policy 14.1: Ensure that water conservation is an integral component of the City's water supply planning program and
that new development is designed to conserve water resources. PTEV proposes to conserve water through greywater systems, and smaller dwelling units with fewer fixtures. They have described
in Exhibit F SEPA, Exhibit L their plans to conserve water. City Wastewater Utility -Public Health & Safety Goal 18: To assure proper disposal of wastewater to protect ground and surface
water supplies. Policy 18.1: Ensure that all existing and new development within the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (UGA) is supplied with adequate wastewater collection and treatment
facilities and that connection to the sanitary sewer system is required wherever practical, or environmentally necessary [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003); Ord. No. 2716, § 3.2,
(December 6, 1999)]. 18.1.1 Require all new development to connect to the City's wastewater collection and treatment system when the development is located within 260 feet (i.e., 1 City
block measured along public rights-of-way) of a wastewater collection line, measured from the nearest portion of the subject parcel [Ord. No. 2716, § 3.2, (December 6, 1999)]. 18.1.2
Except for a single family residence on a parcel greater than 260 feet from a sewer and adequately mitigated through SEPA and/or ESA review when necessary, require new development that
is subject to one or more of the following approvals to connect to the City's wastewater collection and treatment system, regardless of its location: a. Subdivision, short subdivision
and planned unit development (PUD) approvals subject to the Subdivision Ordinance, Title 18 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC); b. Land use or building permit approvals subject
to review and threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance, Chapter 19.04 PTMC; and c. Any land use or building permit approvals subject to
the permit requirements of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Chapter 19.05 PTMC [Ord. No. 2716 § 3.2, (December 6, 1999)].
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 53 of 75 All dwelling units would be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system as the PUD is located within 260 feet of the wastewater
collection line in the strip of property between the North and South Parcels. City Stormwater Utility-Stormwater Quality Goal 22: To protect and manage Stormwater quality through the
use of current design practices and standards. Policy 22.1: Review each public and private development project to ensure conformance with the standards of the City's Stormwater Master
Plan, Stormwater and Drainage Ordinance and Procedures Manual, and the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound. PTEV has submitted a preliminary drainage
plan to manage Stormwater, and Public Works staff has reviewed this plan and provided comments. A final drainage plan will be required with the Street and Utility Development application,
as stated in the SEPA Mitigations. Energy Conservation Goal 31: To promote the efficient use of energy and resources, and the use of alternative energy sources and technologies. Policy
31.1: Facilitate and encourage the efficient use of resources to delay the need for additional facilities. Policy 31.2: Promote the conversion to cost-effective and environmentally sensitive
technologies and energy sources (e.g., solar energy, natural gas, etc.). PTEV promotes alternative energy such as solar energy. Alternative energy would delay the need for additional
energy facilities. 30. PUD Approval Criteria 2. Utilities and other public services necessary to serve the needs of the proposed PUD shall be made available, including open spaces, drainage
ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, potable water, transit facilities, sanitary sewers, parks, playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other improvements that assure safe walking conditions
for students who walk to and from school; Subject to the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed PUD will be provided with utilities and all other public services necessary
necessary to serve it. Open spaces are being provided on the west side, and a public trail east of the development will be retained. Additional walkways will be constructed on-site as
the project is developed, and residents naturally create their own trails through their daily walks. See Public Works comments regarding the utilities and streets necessary to serve
the needs of the proposed PUD (Exhibit F, SEPA Exhibit O). 31. PUD Approval Criteria 3. The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 54 of 75 the proposed PUD, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts, have been considered such that the proposal will
not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment, in accordance with Chapters 19.04 PTMC and 43.21C RCW; The project was reviewed pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA), and a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued (Exhibit F). 32. PUD Approval Criteria 4. Approving the proposed PUD will serve the public use and interest
and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and general welfare; The proposed residential PUD, subject to the recommended conditions of approval, will serve the
public use and interest by placing a high priority upon affordable housing and environmental compatibility. Affordable housing is promoted by relatively small individual dwelling units,
and the pooling of resources through share amenities such as the garden space, a shared parking lot, clubhouse, and preserved forested open space. As designed, the public benefits from
the project are high in terms of integrating the development into the natural landscape as well as in promoting affordable and livable housing. 33. PUD Approval Criteria 5. The proposed
PUD satisfies all criteria set forth in PTMC 17.32.070 through 17.32.090, as applicable; 34. PUD Approval Criteria 6. The proposed PUD will be superior to or more innovative than conventional
development and will provide greater public benefit without additional probable significant adverse impacts to public health, safety or the environment, than available through the use
of conventional zoning and/or development standards. Conventional development of this site would be far less desirable than the proposed PUD for several reasons. Unless clustered housing
were proposed, conventional development into 5,000 square foot lots would probably require removal of the forested area. Each residence would require its own garage and parking space,
where that is all in one shared parking lot with PTEV. Development of this site through a PUD provides greater public benefit without the adverse impacts that conventional lot-by-lot
development would allow. 35. 17.32.100.B, PUD Approval Criteria Continued. Notwithstanding approval criteria set forth in subsection A, in accordance with RCW 58.17.120, as now adopted
and hereafter amended, a proposed PUD may be denied because of flood, inundation or swamp conditions. Where any portion of the proposed PUD lies within both a flood control zone, as
specified by Chapter 19.05 PTMC and Chapter 86.16 RCW, and either the one percent flood hazard area or the regulatory floodway, the city shall not approve the PUD unless it imposes a
condition requiring the applicant to comply with Chapter
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 55 of 75 19.05 PTMC and any written recommendations of the Washington Department of Ecology. In such cases, no development permit associated
with the proposed PUD shall be issued by the city until flood control problems have been resolved. The proposed site is not mapped by FEMA or the City as containing any flood, inundation
or swamp conditions. 36. 17.32.100.C, PUD Approval Criteria Continued. Preliminary approval does not constitute approval to obtain any building permits or begin construction of the project.
(Ord. 2571 § 2, 1997). No building permits may be obtained until the final PUD approval, and issuance of the Street and Utility Development permit. 37. Analysis of PTMC 18.20.050, Binding
Site Plan Approval Criteria: A. Binding site plans shall be approved upon showing compliance with the following: 1. Applicable city, state and federal zoning, land use, environmental
and health regulations, policies or plans, including but not limited to: a. Port Townsend comprehensive plan; b. Port Townsend zoning code; c. Engineering design standards; d. Critical
Areas Ordinance (Chapter 19.05 PTMC); e. Tree conservation (Chapter 19.06 PTMC); 2. The availability of the utilities and other public services necessary to serve the needs of the proposed
binding site plan shall be demonstrated including, but not limited to, open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, potable water, transit facilities, sanitary sewers,
parks, playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other facilities that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; 3. The probable significant adverse environmental
impacts of the proposed binding site plan, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts, shall be considered such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse
effect upon the quality of the environment, in accordance with Chapter 19.04 PTMC and Chapter 43.21C RCW; 4. Approving the proposed binding site plan will serve the public use use and
interest and adequate provision shall be made for the public health, safety, and general welfare. B. Notwithstanding conformance with the criteria provided in subsection A herein, a
proposed binding site plan may be denied because of flood, inundation or swamp conditions. Where any portion of the proposed binding site plan lies within both a flood control zone,
as specified by Chapter 19.05 PTMC and Chapter 86.16 RCW, and either the one percent flood
hazard area or the regulatory floodway, the city shall not approve the binding site plan unless it imposes a condition requiring the applicant to comply with Chapter 19.05 PTMC and
any written recommendations of the Washington Department of Ecology. In such cases, no development permit associated with the proposed binding site plan shall be issued by the city until
flood control has been resolved. (Ord. 2837 § 2(Exh. B § 6), 2003; Ord. 2572 § 2, 1997).
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 56 of 75 As shown in the PUD analysis above, the Binding Site Plan meets the approval criteria. It is not located within a flood control zone
or flood hazard area. The final Binding Site Plan shall conform to all of the requirements of PTMC 18.16.120, Preparation of a Final Plat, and PTMC 18.16.130, Accompanying documents
– Final plat, if applicable. Analysis of PTMC 20.01.235, Type III Review Approval Criteria: 38. 20.01.235(D)(1): The development is consistent with the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan
and meets the requirements and intent of the Port Townsend Municipal Code; As previously discussed, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Other than the proposed modifications,
the project is consistent with the PTMC. 39. 20.01.235(D)(2): The development is not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; As discussed above, the project will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as long as it complies with the City, County and State regulations regarding greywater and composting toilets. 40. 20.01.235(D)(3):
The development adequately mitigates impacts identified under Chapters 19.04 (SEPA) and 19.05 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) PTMC; and The proposal was reviewed under PTMC 19.04 (SEPA),
and an MDNS threshold determination was issued. The project site is not mapped as containing a critical area, therefore review under PTMC 19.05 (Critical Areas) was not required. 41.
20.01.235(D)(4): For subdivision applications, findings and conclusions shall be issued in conformance with PTMC Title 18 and RCW 58.17.110. The Binding Site Plan is a type of subdivision,
and will be reviewed for its conformance with PTMC Title 18.20. Conclusions 1. Subject to certain conditions, the proposed residential preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
Binding Site Plan (BSP) is a use permitted within the underlying R-II zone. The project complies with the Type III approval criteria set forth in PTMC 20.01.235. The proposed development
was reviewed under SEPA and an MDNS was issued. The proposed development was found to be exempt from review pursuant to the City’s Critical Area regulations.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 57 of 75 2. Under the conditions described below, the development is consistent with the spirit and intent of Chapter 17.32 (Planned Unit Developments)
and complies with the applicable approval criteria contained within PTMC 17.32.060, 17.32.090 and 17.32.100. 3. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, and as conditioned below, the proposed development
will include appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general welfare. The PUD will be served by adequate public facilities including streets, fire protection, water,
sanitary sewer, and storm water control. 4. The PUD will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel. The project involves residential
development within an area designated for such. 5. The Port Townsend EcoVillage PUD has merit and value for the community as a whole. The open space and landscaping measures, along with
the internal non-motorized system path system to be constructed, will promote alternatives to sole reliance on the automobile for its residents. Development impacts can be addressed
by the conditions of approval outlined below. 6. Subject to conditions, the PUD is consistent with the goals and policies of the 1996 Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, as well as all
applicable criteria and standards of the Port Townsend Municipal Code not proposed for modification. 7. An appropriate management organization (e.g. a Home Owners Association) shall
assume maintenance and tax liability of the landscaping, open space, and the on-site stormwater facilities. Ownership and any applicable tax liability will be defined in the required
Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA). 8. Preliminary PUD and BSP approval is conditioned as set forth below, including City Council approval of the PUDA to be completed at the
time of final approval.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 58 of 75 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposal is an innovative PUD design that places a high priority upon affordable housing and environmental
compatibility. Affordable housing is promoted by small individual dwelling units, and the pooling of resources through shared amenities. Unique covenants will perpetuate affordable housing
prices well into the future. Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions and the following recommended conditions, staff recommends approval of the Port Townsend EcoVillage PUD and
BSP, Land Use Application number LUP08-063. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS GENERAL 1. Subject to any conditions of approval noted below development shall be carried out in substantial conformance
with the preliminary BSP and PUD site plans (Exhibits A-1 & B-1), and the preliminary stormwater engineering (Exhibit F, SEPA Exhibit J). 2. The following modified development standards
sought by the application are approved, as discussed in Finding 23 above: a) Table #1, Item 3: Eliminate two utility easements and modify a third in exchange for one 20-foot wide utility
easement and one 10-foot wide path easement donated on the North Parcel; b) Table #1, Item 4: Extinguish city ROW at south end of vacated Landes Street (in exchange for 15-foot wide
dedication at the east end of the North Parcel); c) Table #1, Item 5: 35th Street improvements to T-6 standard with wedge curb and infiltration trenches; (Note: stormwater system to
be approved by Public Works); d) Table #1, Item 6 (modified): 35th Street improvements not required until prior to issuance of the third building permit on the South Parcel; (see SEPA
Mitigations and conditions below); e) Table #1, Item 7 (modified): That improvements for 14 of the 28 on-site parking spaces on the South Parcel be delayed – until prior to Certificate
of Occupancy for the clubhouse or issuance of the 12th residential building permit on the South Parcel. The reserve parking areas may be grass; paving or approved alternative material
is required for the other on-site parking spaces on the South and North Parcel. f) Table #1, Item 8: Option to use Grass pave or other pervious surface for fire lanes (as long as it
meets Fire Code Standards); g) Table #1, Item 15: The R-II zone uses listed in Tables 3 and 4 will be permitted, with the condition that they comply with the related Code section in
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 59 of 75 place at the time that building permits are sought. These uses include the following: • Residential uses permitted outright: Adult
Family Homes with 6 or fewer adults, Manufactured Homes, Modular Homes, Single-Family Detached Dwellings (including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes), Boardinghouses with six or fewer
roomers, Foster Homes, Family Day Care Homes; • Accessory uses permitted outright: Accessory Buildings, Detached Office/Studio (for the sole use of members of the family, or persons
employed on the premises consistent with the current PTMC code provisions of Home Occupations); Guesthouse/Detached Bedroom (including a bathroom, and counting towards the number of
total dwelling units); Private Residential Garages (for the use of residents only); • Agricultural uses permitted outright: Crop or Tree Farming with no retail sales, Crop or Tree Farming
with community supported agricultural sales, Small Animal Husbandry, Non-Commercial, U-Pick Sales of Crops; Concession Stands, Agricultural or Produce; • Temporary uses permitted outright:
Contractor offices and model homes, Yard or Garage Sales. • Uses that require Conditional Use Permits: Bed and Breakfast Inns, Child Day Care Centers, Child Care Facilities, and Preschools,
Tourist Homes, Barns, Community Agricultural Center, Plant Nurseries, Landscaping Materials, Greenhouses (Commercial) and Schools (Public or Private). h) Table #1, Item 16: Flexibility
in Ownership; i) Table #2, Item 2: Deer fence of eight-feet in height permitted along 35th Street as long as fence conforms with PTMC 17.68 and a building permit is sought for any fence
over six feet in height; j) Table #2, Item 4 (modified): The use of composting toilets is conditioned upon the Building Official, in his or her discretion, considering them as an “alternate
method” under Section 104.11 of the International Building Code (IBC), and the applicant providing sufficient documentation (research and testing reports) to allow the Building Official
to determine the work will comply with the intent of the code; and, that all dwellings shall be constructed with the ability to have a flush toilet; k) Table #2, Item 8: Fire lane only
16 feet wide (see SEPA Mitigations); 3. The applicant shall have applied for final approval for the development within five (5) years of date preliminary approval is granted, unless
an extension is granted pursuant to PTMC 18.16.150. 4. Final BSP and PUD approval shall be presented by the applicant as required by municipal
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 60 of 75 code and shall indicate the precise location of all required dedications, easements and open spaces as set forth in these conditions
of approval. The final Binding Site Plan shall conform with all of the requirements of PTMC 18.16.120, Preparation of a Final Plat, and PTMC 18.16.130, Accompanying documents – Final
plat, if applicable. 5. All required improvements as set forth below and any additional requirements established as part of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval must be
installed or bonded for either prior to final approval or as identified in the phasing plan. If the applicant proposes performance bond(s) for any portion of the public works requirements,
prior to the bond an agreement will be made with public works that a bond would be more suitable than installation of the infrastructure, and the maximum timeframe for the bond will
be determined by public works. PRIOR TO FINAL BSP AND PUD APPROVAL: 6. All improvements as specified in this approval and the subsequent Street and Utility Development Permit shall be
installed, inspected and approved by the DSD prior to final BSP and PUD approval. 7. An appropriate management organization (e.g. a Home Owners Association) shall assume maintenance
and tax liability of the landscaping, open space, the on and off-site stormwater facilities in the 35th Street right-of-way), and the alternative street standard in 37th Street. Ownership
and any applicable tax liability will be defined in the required Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA). 8. All on-site and on-street landscaping as per the approved final landscape
plan shall be installed prior to final BSP and PUD approval or the Director shall obtain a performance security. The amount of the performance security shall be based upon the current
cost estimate of all plant materials and landscape construction costs. The performance security shall consist of a performance bond in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an
amount acceptable to the Director. Cash deposited in an escrow account may also be accepted by the city. All required plantings shall be installed within six months of approving the
performance security. 9. The applicant is responsible for repair and restoration of any damage to existing city or privately maintained streets to an “as good as or better than” condition.
City staff will photo document facilities where the potential exists for damage by heavy construction traffic. 10. The City requires reasonable assurance that prior to the issuance of
the final PUD and BSP approval (i.e. before any on-site construction) the following will be provided:
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 61 of 75 A. The existing ADU, accessory to 510 35th Street and located on the West side of South Parcel, shall be connected to City sewer.
Recently Jefferson County Environmental Health staff comments state that a septic permit for this building is not in their system, and a septic permit is required for its use. B. The
following easements shall be dedicated: 1. 20-foot wide utility easement extending North of the existing vacated Oxford Street easement running in a North–South direction across the
North Parcel. The Oxford Street easement will be reduced to 20 feet wide and may be angled as shown on the site plan. 2. 10-foot wide trail easement as a continuation of the public trail
in Haines Street running in a North-South direction across the North Parcel. 3. 10-foot wide trail easement running in a North-South direction on the Westerly boundary of the North and
South Parcel. 4. 15-foot wide right-of-way easement running in a North-South direction along the Easterly edge of the North Parcel adjacent to San Juan Avenue. C. Trail #2 in above section
A shall be bonded for or built. D. Fire lanes and fire hydrant: 1. The East fire lane shall be bonded for, or improved to meet emergency vehicle standards, consistent with Ordinance
2947 adopting the 2006 International Fire Code with Appendices B, C, D107, E and F. 2. The West fire lane shall be improved to meet emergency vehicle standards, consistent with Ordinance
2947 adopting the 2006 International Fire Code with Appendices B, C, D107, E and F up to the new fire hydrant at the Southwest corner of the existing residence at 510 35th Street. 3.
The fire hydrant North of the parking lot on the South Parcel shall be installed. This includes extension of the domestic water line as required for the fire hydrant. Note: in addition
to the SEPA Mitigation, the applicant shall install the fire hydrant in the easement, or provide another easement, 16 feet square, around the fire hydrant. Fire hydrant placement to
be determined by the Public Works and Fire Department. E. Half of the on-site parking from 35th Street (14 spaces) shall be bonded for or built to accepted standards. F. The following
infrastructure shall be bonded for or built (as discussed in Utilities Section Q above) 1. Sewer 2. Water: extended far enough for the Fire Hydrant North of the ADA parking spaces. The
water main looping must be completed prior to any additional residential construction on the North Parcel, including detached bedrooms without kitchens.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 62 of 75 3. 35th Street shall be improved to the minimum emergency vehicle access standard in the International Fire Code, and stormwater management
provided per the PT EDS. G. A restrictive covenant shall be prepared by the City and signed and recorded by the applicants that states the following: Residences constructed on the South
Parcel shall not access their units from 37th Street until full roadway improvements are provided. Events occurring in EcoVillage shall not use 37th Street for access until full roadway
improvements are provided. The North Parcel may not be used for parking supporting uses to the South and events and other activities. H. The applicants enter into a Property Use and
Development Agreement (PUDA) with the City. The PUDA shall include CC&Rs binding upon all future purchasers, tenants and occupants of the PUD and such agreement shall be recorded per
PTMC 17.32.120. The applicants shall include the following in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Document: 1. There shall be a limit on access from 37th Street for uses established
prior to its provision. Residents on the South Parcel will not use 37th Street to access their dwelling units. Guests will not use 37th Street when they participate in events at the
EcoVillage until such time as required improvements are made. 2. 1.25 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling. 3. To mitigate potential lighting impacts to adjacent
properties and street rights-of-way, the applicants shall establish restrictions regarding exterior lighting. The lighting requirements in the CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of DSD prior to recordation. The CC&Rs shall contain the following standards: a. Exterior illumination intensity shall be kept to a minimum. b. All exterior lighting fixtures
shall be shielded and pointed downward. The lighting shall include proposed average illumination levels and be designed so as not to cause glare or light spillage to adjacent streets
or other off-site properties. c. To reduce off-site glare impacts, exterior mounted light fixtures shall not exceed 15 feet in height. Additionally, no mercury vapor or halogen lights
shall be permitted. I. The final Tree Conservation and Landscaping plan for both on-site and on-street plantings shall be submitted to DSD for review and approval prior to issuance of
any clearing or grading permit, including such activity within City rights-of-way. Said plan shall include low-pressure irrigation to ensure survivability and shall emphasize the use
of native, drought-resistant plants. The final plan shall be drawn to scale showing all property lines and the following information: a. Any proposed or existing physical elements, such
as fencing, berms, walls, buildings, curbs, and lighting, that affects the overall landscape;
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 63 of 75 b. The location of all proposed plants, number of plants, and the species are to be shown by botanical and/or common name. A planting
schedule shall be included that shows all plants, quantities, sizes at planting and spacing. J. A draft of the CC&Rs or their equivalent, such as Occupancy Agreement or Proprietary Lease,
shall be submitted signed and recorded, and a current title company certification submitted with the final PUD plat per 17.32.150. K. The applicant shall provide a final PUD Site Plan
with dimensions of all parking spaces, including reserve parking. L. The applicant(s) and staff shall meet with the Jefferson County 911 department to determine the best way to address
the dwelling units within Port Townsend Ecovillage. M. The face of the PUD Plat (see preliminary PUD site plan, Exhibit A-1) shall state the following: • With each building permit application,
the applicant shall indicate the cumulative number of homes (numbers one through twenty-four.) • Each building permit shall include a landscaping plan. • Staff reserves the right to
charge additional staff time to review building permits, as the phasing plan is complicated. • The Clubhouse is exclusively for the use of Port Townsend Ecovillage and their invited
guests. The Clubhouse shall not be used for widespread community activities, but only an ‘invitation only’ basis. • The following infrastructure must be completed and approved by Public
Works prior to the City issuing building permits or certificates of occupancy as specified below: • PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT: No building permit shall be issued until
either all required improvements are constructed and the city “has accepted a properly executed bill of sale for such improvements” or all required improvements for the appropriate phase
of development have been bonded or otherwise guaranteed, or an improvement bond has been accepted by the City. After the initial Street Development Permit, the applicants must submit
a minor improvement permit to install all infrastructure and on-site parking as required for each building with each building permit. • PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANY FOR EACH RESIDENCE:
Required infrastructure and parking to serve each residence shall be installed and approved by the Public Works department. • PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE FIRST RESIDENCE
ON THE SOUTH PARCEL: If the East fire lane was bonded for, the installation of the East fire lane shall be triggered by the first
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 64 of 75 building permit for a residence within a cluster located over 150 feet from the fire lane. • PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
FOR ANY OF THE BUILDINGS LOCATED OVER 150 FEET FROM A STREET OR EXISTING FIRE LANE: A. The West fire lane shall be continued to the location shown on this PUD Site Plan prior to issuance
of any building permit in Zone 1 North of the existing residence (i.e. the clubhouse, and residential building permits for the Northwest cluster on the South Parcel) so that a fire truck
would be a minimum distance of 150 feet from the back of the building. B. The East fire line shall be improved to meet emergency vehicle standards, consistent with Ordinance 2947 adopting
the 2006 International Fire Code with Appendices B, C, D107, E and F. • PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE THIRD BUILDING PERMIT ON THE SOUTH PARCEL: 35th Street shall be paved to a T-6 Standard
or bonded for, and stormwater management provided per PT EDS. • PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE THE FIFTH BUILDING PERMIT ON THE SOUTH PARCEL: The following infrastructure improvements shall
be installed to the EDS standards: A. A 10-foot wide trail easement running in a North-South direction on the Westerly boundary of the North and South Parcel; B. A sidewalk along the
property frontage adjacent to 35th Street, the length of which shall coincide with the paved portion of 35th Street; C. A trail within 35th Street from the terminus of the new sidewalk
(in Item B above) to tie into the trail (Item A above). • PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE FARM STAND OR OFFICE/STUDIO/LEARNING CENTER: A. The dedication of a 10-foot
wide section of land along the applicants’ North Parcel to extend from San Juan Avenue to where the West edge of McNeill Street would intersect 37th Street. B. 37th Street shall be paved
to a T-8 Standard far enough to accommodate the traffic to the learning center or farm stand, and on-site parking provided. C. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the Southwest
corner of 37th and San Juan Avenue. • PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE 21ST RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ON THE PROPERTY, OR THE SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ON THE NORTH PARCEL, OR
ANY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE NORTH PARCEL: A. The dedication of a 10-foot wide section of land, along the applicants’ North Parcel from San Juan Avenue to end of the property frontage.
B. Roadway improvements to 37th Street (from San Juan Avenue to the relocated utility easement) shall be constructed to the following standards starting from the South portion: a paved
6-foot trail, 10-feet for stormwater treatment rain garden/swale/bioretention with intermittent pocket parking in places for traffic calming, an 18-foot paved roadway, leaving room for
a future 6-foot wide sidewalk (modified T-8) standard to the North side of the right-of-way.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 65 of 75 • PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR ANY GREENHOUSE ON THE NORTH PARCEL USED FOR COMMERCIAL USE: For any greenhouse
used solely for commercial purposes (i.e. beyond that allowed by a home occupation) the dedication of a 10-foot wide section of land will extend to the West end of the greenhouse, and
37th Street shall be paved far enough to accommodate the traffic to the greenhouse and on-site parking provided. • PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE CLUBHOUSE OR ISSUANCE OF
THE 12th RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ON THE SOUTH PARCEL: The remaining half of the on-site parking shall be bonded for or built prior to one of the following, whichever comes first:
issuance of the clubhouse building permit, or issuance of the 12th residential building permit on the South Parcel (as each residential unit requires 1.25 parking spaces). • Building
construction activities on private property by contractors shall be limited to 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Owner/builders and their friends may work on private dwellings
and other structures from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays as well, if neighbors do not complain about the noise. Any exceptions made necessary by special and unusual circumstances
must be approved in advance by the DSD Director. N. The final PUD is processed as a Type IV application per PTMC 20.01, and shall be approved by City Council upon satisfaction of all
conditions of approval and requirements in section 17.32. O. The final PUD shall be recorded at the applicants’ expense. PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRADING: 11. To mitigate potential water
and soil erosion hazards, final engineered plans for clearing, grading and temporary erosion and sediment controls (TESC) must be submitted to the Development Services Department (DSD).
If the applicants propose to perform any land disturbing activities that involve clearing, grading, filling of 50 cubic yards or more a Clearing and Grading Permit application will only
be required. Clearing and Grading permits are used for private property land disturbance and most often prior to issuance of a Building Permit (BLD) (if clearing and grading not included
in BLD application). Any clearing and/or grading in the City’s rights-of-ways will require a Street and Utility Development Permit. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC)
plans is required to utilize best management practices (BMPs), located in the current edition of the Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington, to ensure potential adverse impacts
to earth are addressed. Said plan(s) shall indicate areas where cut and fill work will take place, shall show the locations of trees to be removed and/or retained, shall conform to the
Port Townsend Engineering Design Standards (PT EDS) and the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 66 of 75 SWMM). If leftover fill or other overburden material will be left on any of the property, the City may require Notice of this situation
to be recorded so potential purchasers are made aware. These plans shall be reviewed by engineering staff for compliance with the PT EDS and DOE SWMM. TESC measures shall be installed
as specified in the approved plans before beginning clearing and grading activities and shall be maintained until the City’s Public Works Department deems them unnecessary. If removal
of soils from the site is required, the applicants shall first notify the DSD Director of the destination of the soil. If the destination site is within the City of Port Townsend, the
DSD Director must approve the location of the site and the necessary erosion control measures associated with the soil relocation. The TESC Plan must include and shall be subject to,
the following requirements and standards: a. If contamination is currently known or observed during during construction or soil removal (placement), sampling of the potentially contaminated
media must be conducted. If contamination of soil or groundwater is readily visible, or is revealed by sampling, the Washington State Department of Ecology must be notified. b. Erosion
control BMPs must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These control measures must be installed properly to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other
pollutants into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand, silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquifer habitat and are considered pollutants. c. Proper
disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter the storm drains that convey water to waters of the state or cause water quality degradation
of state waters. d. Soil in stockpiles should be stabilized and protected with sediment-trap BMPs to prevent soil loss. All exposed areas of final grade or areas that are not scheduled
for work, whether at final grade or otherwise, shall not remain exposed and unworked for more than two (2) days from October 1 to April 30. From May 1 to September 30, no soils shall
remain exposed and unworked for more than seven (7) days. e. Clearing limits and/or any easements or required buffers, including trees to be protected, should be identified and marked
in the field, prior to the start of any clearing, grading or construction. Some suggested methods are staking, flagging or high visibility fencing. f. All temporary erosion control systems
should be designed to contain the stormwater runoff without eroding.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 67 of 75 g. Provision such as a tire wash should be made to
minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved public roads. If sediment is deposited, it should be cleaned every day by shoveling or sweeping. Water cleaning
should only be done after the area has been shoveled out or swept. h. Construction access shall be the same as the final driveway access and fire lanes. 12. If earth disturbance occurs
in drier months, water shall be applied as a dust suppressant. 13. A copy of these mitigation measures, in the format of a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
shall be given to and read by the project contractor and all sub-contractors prior to beginning construction and a list of these mitigation measures shall be prominently posted at the
site in a waterproof container or bag. 14. To mitigate potential impacts from offsite discharge of stormwater (from rain), the applicants are responsible for contacting the Washington
State Department of Ecology and, if necessary, obtaining a Washington State Department of Ecology Construction Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
This permit must be issued prior to any site-disturbing activities. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE STREET AND UTILITY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: 15. To mitigate transportation and utility impacts
to the City’s streets and to ensure compliance with Port Townsend Engineering Design Standards and Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) related to site layout, frontage requirements,
and utility service in City rights-of-way, a completed Street and Utility Development Permit Application shall be submitted to the Development Services Department (DSD). All Public Works
Requirements outlined in the March 31, 2009 Memo (Exhibit O-2) shall be implemented. The following plans must be prepared and submitted with the completed application, and approved by
the Public Works Department in order for a Street Development Permit (SDP) to be issued: a. Engineered plans for water service and sewer service for the project including provisions
for any necessary fire flow improvements and/or hydrant(s). The Fire Department must establish fire flow requirements for the project. It is the applicants’ responsibility to meet those
requirements if the existing system is inadequate. The water and sewer plan shall show how the water and/or sewer main(s) connect to the proposed development’s structures. Should easements
be required, they shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to recordation. b. A final engineered stormwater drainage plan (the plan includes a narrative and
drawings portion) complying with the requirements of the 2005 DOE SWMM and the PT EDS. The plan shall include the sizing of the stormwater facilities located
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 68 of 75 within the City’s rights-of-way and on-site. To determine how the stormwater facilities will be sized, refer to Figure 2.2 (New Development)
or Figure 2.3 (Re-Development) flow chart from the DOE SWMM. The plan shall also include specifications for maintenance and operation (O&M) of all on-site and public stormwater treatment
facilities. The applicants shall secure facility maintenance responsibility, via a Home Owner’s Association, or other entity acceptable to the City. These provisions must be reviewed
and approved by the City and included in the final recorded Planned Unit Development Agreement. c. Engineered plans for street construction shall be submitted. To mitigate potential
impacts to transportation, the applicants shall construct street improvements and non-motorized improvements per the PT EDS requirements or as modified during the PUD approval and subsequent
SDP process. If the applicants wish to receive a building and/or PUD final approval prior to the completion of the Public Works requirements, the applicants shall provide a bond or other
financial guarantee (performance guarantee) for 120% of the improvements construction cost. The assurance must be irrevocable until extinguished by mutual agreement of the City and the
applicants and shall run with the land. The assurance shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The applicants shall install or bond for street, stormwater and utility improvements
on “section” basis prior to the issuance of building permits associated with that “section” of property. Should the applicant bond for improvements that do not affect life/safety, construction
shall occur within three years after the date of the bond(s). d. To mitigate potential impact to existing trees, trees in the right-of way shall be protected where possible during construction.
e. Any street lighting shall be minimized, and ultimately determined during the SDP process. Such lighting shall conform to the PT EDS, including use of high-pressure sodium vapor lighting
and lighting shields to control “light pollution”. All street lighting installation including wiring, conduit and power connections shall be located underground. If public street lighting
is a requirement, the applicants will work directly with the power company (PSE). PSE will submit an electrical plan and Minor Improvement Permit (MIP) application to the City for approval.
16. To mitigate impacts to recreation, the applicants shall install a sidewalk along the property frontage for the length of the paved portion of 35th Street. After the pavement ends,
a pedestrian pathway is to be extended to the West boundary of the project site. The trail shall be on the North edge of the right of way so that when the road is extended in the future
the trail will still be usable. The applicants will also be required to build a continuation of the existing trail located within the Haines Street right-of-way across Tax Parcel 33,
thus connecting the trail to 37th Street. The applicants shall shall provide the City with a public easement across Tax Parcel 33 for the public trail. The applicants will be
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 69 of 75 required to install a trail along the South side of 37th Street (refer to roadway profile in Comment #6) and a trail on the Western
EcoVillage property line within a public easement (refer to Comment #4). 17. To mitigate disposal of waste vegetative material, the applicants shall grind and distribute it on-site,
or dispose of it at an authorized facility. Waste vegetative material shall not be disposed of at the City of Port Townsend’s Compost Facility. 18. To mitigate tree removal prior to
the issuance of building permits, the applicants shall comply with the tree conservation standards of PTMC 19.06. Should the applicants propose tree thinning, a written exemption is
required, provided that no more than one-third of the trees per 40,000 square feet or no more than on-third of the tree canopy cover, whichever is greater, be removed in any six year
period (PTMC 19.06.070.B). The minimum tree density requirement for vacant lots in the R-II zoning district is 40 tree units per 40,000 square feet. A preliminary Alternative Tree Conservation
Plan has been submitted as per PTMC 19.06.120.C, and will be further discussed as part of the PUD process. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION: 19. The applicants will be required to provide a performance
financial guarantee for the infrastructure improvements and/or a remediation guarantee. A remediation guarantee (erosion control/site stabilization guarantee) is for site restoration
in the event the rights-of-way are cleared and the project is not taken to completion. The guarantee(s) will be 120% of the cost as approved by the Public Works Director and shall be
obtained prior to any construction. DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS: 20. During roadway extension construction signage shall be installed and maintained through construction
including the intersection of San Juan Avenue. 21. During tree removal in the right-of-way, the dead end roadway shall be blocked to all traffic. 22. To mitigate the impact of construction
noise, noise, outside construction activities in the rights-of-way and infrastructure activities (including work related to water, sewer, trails, and stormwater) on private property
shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. A Public Works Permit does not permit work on weekends and national holidays, unless approved by the Public Works Director.
23. New power, telephone, and cable TV lines must be placed underground where feasible, and within private utility easements, as determined by the Public Works Director as part of the
Street and Utility Development permit process.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 70 of 75 24. To avoid environmental health hazards during construction, emergency spill and cleanup procedures shall be explained to all workers
on the site and a point of contact will be designated. PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE: 25. The applicants shall provide: 1) a maintenance financial guarantee
for 20% of the total improvement costs for each infrastructure component when it is required. This warranty guarantee shall be for a period of two years after the final acceptance date
of the improvements. 2) If the applicants decide to use Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, a financial guarantee will be for a minimum of a three (3) year period to allow
for the establishment of plants. The guarantee(s) will be in a form approved by the Public Works Director. 26. The proposed stormwater facilities, located on-site and within rights-of-way
as outlined within Section C, will be privately operated and maintained by the property owners. An operation and maintenance plan and covenants ensuring perpetual operation and maintenance
of the facilities must be prepared, approved by Public Works, and the covenants recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor’s Office. 27. The applicants and future property owners shall
maintain the non-motorized trails adjacent to the project. Maintenance standards and covenants ensuring perpetual maintenance of the trails must be prepared, approved by Public Works,
and the covenants recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor’s Office. 28. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization
is achieved, or as needed if longer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT: 29. Per 17.32.140.B, no building permit shall be issued
until either all required improvements are constructed and the city “has accepted a properly executed bill of sale for such improvements” or all required improvements for the appropriate
phase of development have been bonded or otherwise guaranteed, or an improvement bond has been accepted by the City. After the initial SDP, the applicants must submit a minor improvement
permit to install all infrastructure and on-site parking as required for each building with each building permit.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 71 of 75 Due to the complexity of the proposal and the uncertainty of a site development schedule, staff may charge additional fees to cover
staff time costs associated with building permit review. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR ANY OF THE BUILDINGS LOCATED OVER 150 FEET FROM A STREET OR EXISTING FIRE LANE:
30. A. The West fire lane shall be continued to the location shown on the PUD Plan (Exhibit Q-2) prior to issuance of any building permit in Zone 1 North of the existing residence (i.e.
the clubhouse, and residential building permits for the Northwest cluster on the South Parcel) so that a fire truck would be a minimum distance of 150 feet from the back of the building.
B. The East fire line shall be improved to meet emergency vehicle standards, consistent with Ordinance 2947 adopting the 2006 International Fire Code with Appendices B, C, D107, E and
F. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE THIRD BUILDING PERMIT ON THE SOUTH PARCEL: 31. 35th Street shall be paved to a T-6 Standard or bonded for, and stormwater management provided per PT EDS.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FIFTH BUILDING PERMIT ON THE SOUTH PARCEL: 32. The following infrastructure improvements shall be installed: A. A trail (per the standard in Transportation Section
O above) located within the Western trail easement described in Mitigation Measure 1.B.3 above). B. A sidewalk along the property frontage adjacent to 35th Street. The length shall coincide
with the paved portion of 35th Street. C. A trail within 35th Street from the terminus of the new sidewalk (in Item B above) to tie into the trail (Item A above). Trail shall be per
the standard in Transportation Section O above. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE FARM STAND OR OFFICE/STUDIO/LEARNING CENTER: 33. A. The dedication of a 10-foot wide
section of land will extend from San Juan to where the West edge of McNeill Street would intersect 37th Street. B. 37th Street shall be paved to a T-8 Standard far enough to accommodate
the traffic to the learning center or farm stand, and on-site parking provided. C. An additional fire hydrant will be installed at the Southwest corner of 37th and San Juan Avenue.
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 72 of 75 D. The 10-foot dedication will extend from San Juan to where the West edge of McNeill Street would intersect 37th Street and 37th
Street shall be paved far enough to accommodate the traffic to the concession stand and on-site parking provided. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE 21ST RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ON THE
PROPERTY, OR THE SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ON THE NORTH PARCEL, OR ANY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE NORTH PARCEL: 34. A. The dedication of a 10-foot wide section of land, along
the applicants’ North Parcel from San Juan Avenue to end of the property frontage. B. Roadway improvements to 37th Street (from San Juan Avenue to the relocated utility easement) shall
be constructed to the standards discussed in the Transportation Section O above. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR ANY GREENHOUSE ON THE NORTH PARCEL USED FOR COMMERCIAL
USE: 35. For any greenhouse used solely for commercial purposes (i.e. beyond that allowed by a home occupation) the dedication of a 10-foot wide section of land will extend to the West
end of the greenhouse, and 37th Street shall be paved far enough to accommodate the traffic to the greenhouse and on-site parking provided. DURING CONSTRUCTION ON-SITE: 36. Since residential
development is planned in phases, each dwelling or area under construction shall be roped off (using sturdy stakes and rope). 37. Each tree to be preserved shall be protected and flagged
(see tree conservation plan). 38. To minimize erosion during construction, the applicants are required to follow the TESC BMPs outlined in the construction SWPPP. It will be the contractor’s
responsibility to install and maintain the construction TESC BMPs throughout the construction project. The temporary TESC measures are set forth in the Stormwater Drainage Plan prepared
by the applicants’ engineer (NTI). Regardless of the reason, if construction is suspended for more than 30 days the applicants will be required to install permanent TESC BMPs on-site
and and within the City’s rights-of-way. The construction SWPPP shall be on-site during construction at all times. 39. Should dust become a problem during construction, water will be
applied as a suppressant (Construction SWPP BMP). 40. To mitigate impacts to groundwater with home construction activities, wash water from paint and wall finishing equipment should
be deposed of in a way that will not adversely
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 73 of 75 impact waters of the state. Untreated disposal of this wastewater is a violation of State Water Quality laws and statutes and as such,
would be subject to enforcement action. 41. New power and telephone lines must be placed underground where feasible, as determined by the Public Works Director. The applicants must contact
the private (franchise) utilities themselves. 42. To avoid environmental health hazards during construction, emergency spill and cleanup procedures shall be explained to all workers
on the site and a point of contact will be designated. 43. All construction contracts shall specify that all diesel, gasoline and air-powered equipment must be properly muffled or silenced.
44. To mitigate potential impacts to archeological resources that may be discovered during excavation, work should be stopped immediately if such materials are discovered and the State
Historic Preservation Officer contacted immediately. Work may not resume until approval is obtained from the DSD Director. 45. Building construction activities on private property by
contractors shall be limited to 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Owner/builders and their friends may work on private dwellings and other structures from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM
on weekends and holidays as well, if neighbors do not complain about the noise. Any exceptions made necessary by special and unusual circumstances must be approved in advance by the
DSD Director. PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANY FOR EACH RESIDENCE: 46. Required infrastructure and parking to serve each residence shall be installed and approved by the Public Works
department. PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE FIRST RESIDENCE ON THE SOUTH PARCEL: 47. If the East fire lane was bonded for, the installation of the East fire lane shall be triggered
by the first building permit for a residence within a cluster located over 150 feet from the fire lane. PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE CLUBHOUSE OR ISSUANCE OF THE 12th RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING PERMIT ON THE SOUTH PARCEL: 48. The remaining half of the on-site parking shall be bonded for or built prior to one of the following, whichever comes first: issuance of the
clubhouse building permit, or issuance
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 74 of 75 of the 12th residential building permit on the South Parcel (as each residential unit requires 1.25 parking spaces). ON-GOING MITIGATION
MEASURES: 49. After construction is complete, maintenance of stormwater facilities (permanent Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices is acceptable) are the
property owner’s responsibility. 50. Long-term source control of pollution including all categories of household and yard chemicals and pollutants is the responsibility of the property
owner(s). 51. After each storm event, the stormwater collection system and erosion control devices are to be visually checked to make sure catch basins, collection lines and functioning
BMPs are free flowing. If any repairs or debris removal is necessary, work shall be done as soon as possible to minimize the impact. 52. All required infrastructure improvements as set
forth in these conditions and the subsequent Street and Utility Development permits must be installed or bonded for prior to final BSP and PUD approval. All landscaping and non-motorized
facilities as set forth in these conditions and the subsequent final Tree Conservation, Landscaping and Non-Motorized Plan must be installed or bonded for prior to final BSP and PUD
approval. 53. A Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) shall be submitted by the applicant for review by DSD and Public Works a minimum of one month prior to submittal for final
BSP & PUD approval. The PUDA shall be approved by the City Council as part of their final approval for the project. The PUDA shall contain provisions to ensure the modified development
standards as approved by the Hearing Examiner are confirmed. 54. If the proponent proposes to add signage for the development, it will be necessary to obtain a sign permit. Please contact
the DSD Department for signage requirements prior to ordering any signs. APPENDIX City Required Permits After this Type III review and approval for the preliminary Binding Site Plan
(BSP) and and Planned Unit Development (PUD): 1. Street and Utility Development permits, including; 2. Clearing and Grading Permit; 3. Final Parking Plan Review and Approval; 4. Final
Tree Conservation and Landscape Plan Review and Approval; 5. Final Lighting Plan Review and Approval; 6. Final Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Review and Approval;
Port Townsend Ecovillage Staff Report Page 75 of 75 7. Final BSP and PUD approval; and, Once the above city approvals have been obtained, each phase will require: 8. Building Permits;
9. Minor Improvement Permit for each dwelling. 10. Prior to large events (i.e. events in which over 25 cars with outside people are expected), the applicant shall submit an event parking
plan for review and approval by the Public Works department describing how traffic and on-site parking would be handled. Appeal to the City Council Pursuant to PTMC Chapter 20.01, Article
V, Type III decisions of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed by parties of record to the City Council. Such appeal must be filed with the Development Services Department (DSD) within
14 calendar days after the date of the decision and must contain items required by PTMC 20.10.310.B. A notice of appeal shall be delivered to DSD by mail or personal delivery, and must
be received by 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period, together with the required appeal fee (emphasis added).