HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-064Resolution No. 00-064
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT
TOWNSEND UPHOLDING A SEPA APPEAL AND DEFERRING ON A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNTIL COMPLETION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, APPLICATION LUP 00-039
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend, Washington resolves as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Port Townsend Assisted Living, LLC has petitioned the City for
Conditional Use Permit approval to allow phased construction of a 74-unit
congregate care facility within the R-II medium-density, single-family
zoning district; and
The application was originally submitted on or about June 9, 2000 by
Madrona Planning & Development Services, representing the Port
Townsend Assisted Living, LLC, and the application is vested under the
current rules then in effect; and
Congregate care facilities are listed as a conditional use in the R-II zone
and are defined in PTMC 17.08.020 as:
"a building or complex of dwellings designed for, but not limited to,
occupancy by senior citizens which provides for shared use of facilities,
such as kitchens, dining areas, and recreation areas. Such complexes
may also provide kitchens and dining space in individual dwelling units.
Practical nursing care may also be provided, as well as recreational
programs and facilities. '
A conditional use is defined in the PTMC 17.08.020.C, in part, as a use
which:
"requires a special degree of control to make such uses consistent with
and compatible to other existing or permissible uses in the same zone or
zones."
o
o
10.
Following the initial submission of the conditional use application, the
applicant made several modifications to the proposal designed to enhance
its compatibility with the surrounding R-II zoning district. These design
modifications included the elimination of a covered turnaround, a
significant reduction in outdoor lighting, a redesign of the driveway
entrance and landscaping, relocation of the building to take advantage of
on-site topographic screening, and additional building modulation; and
The Building and Community Development (BCD) Director issued a
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigated Determination of
Non-Significance (MDNS) on August 16, 2000; and
The MDNS was appealed by Colette M. Kostelec on August 31, 2000
who maintained the Port Townsend zoning code limits the number of
dwelling units within a single structure in the R-II zone to four (PTMC
17.16.030, Residential Zoning Districts - Bulk, Dimensional and
Density Requirements). The appellant further stated this provision is
intended to prevent the proliferation of monolithic structures within the
R-II zone; and
While congregate care facilities are listed as a conditionally permitted
use in the R-II zone, the appellant states, among other things, that such
uses must demonstrate consistency with all Conditional Use criteria
which include "compliance with all other applicable criteria and
standards of the Port Townsend Municipal Code" (PTMC 17.84.050. F).
Given this, the appellant concludes that "the proposed project cannot
meet the Conditional Use approval criteria because it would be in clear
violation of PTMC 17.16.030", i.e. more than 4 dwelling units would
be located within a single, R-II zoned, structure; and
A dwelling unit is defined in PTMC as:
"a building or portion thereof providing complete housekeeping
facilities for one family. Dwelling unit does not include motel tourist
court, rooming house, or tourist home; "and
The 74 proposed assisted living units would each contain a bathroom and
shower, a kitchen sink, a microwave, a mini-refrigerator, and a kitchen
counter. Most units would contain a bedroom and living space; some
would be studios. It is intended that the units will be used for residential
purposes in an assisted living environment. The units are not intended
for transient use like a hotel, tourist court, rooming house, or tourist
home.
11.
During the course of Conditional Use review BCD staff rendered an
interpretation that the assisted living units, in and of themselves, did not
constitute dwelling units, and recommended denial of the SEPA appeal and
approval of the Conditional Use, subject to specific conditions; and
Res. 00, tO& q
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit and SEPA appeal were duly noticed
pursuant to Chapter 20.01 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code; and
The Port Townsend Planning Commission conducted a single, consolidated
open record public hearing on September 28, 2000 for the purpose of taking
testimony, hearing evidence, considering the facts germane to both the
proposal and the SEPA appeal, and evaluating the proposal for consistency
with adopted plans and regulations; and
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the SEPA appeal and
approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to a number of conditions;
and
The Planning Commission's reCommendations were appealed by the
Olympic Environmental Council (OEC), Colette M. Kostelec and others on
October 12, 2000; and
The City Council held a closed record public hearing for the purpose of
considering the Planning Commission's recommendations, the October
12 appeal by OEC, Kostelec and others, as well as evidence in the record
including any written comments and/or public testimony received; and
The SEPA MDNS, as presently issued, does not address impacts of the
physical size, shape, configuration, aesthetics or compatibility of the
applicant's project to the surrounding environment; and
Lands immediately northwest and west of the subject property are zoned
R-III, which allows congregate care facilities as a permitted use.
Portions of the northwest R-III zoned land are developed with a three-
story, multi-family apartment complex and a separate 29-unit, single-
story Alzheimer's facility. The R-III zoned property lying immediately
west of the subject property is platted into numerous lots that are
currently vacant but utilized as part of a community based agriculture
operation (Collinwood Farms); and
Land southwest of the subject property is also platted, but zoned R-II. It
is operated as part of Collinwood Farms and contains farmed land, a
single-family residence and several outbuildings. To the north and east of
the subject property, the lands are all zoned R-II. Along the north, these
lands contain previously platted properties already developed with single-
family residences. A single 9-acre parcel immediately east of the subject
property is zoned R-II, and is vacant, unplatted property. Further to the
east and southeast, properties are zoned R-II, and there are numerous
single-family residences on previously platted lots; and
Res. 00- c9{o ~1
20.
Single-family residences are a permitted use in the R-II zone. Duplexes,
triplexes and fourplexes are also permitted as single-family dwellings
within the R-II zone upon demonstration of sufficient lot size; and
21.
The applicant's attorney characterized the proposed structure as a
"relatively large building." As proposed, the completed facility would
consist of a two-story, "H"-shaped structure having an enclosed area of
approximately 53,000-square feet. Approximate ground dimensions
occupied by the structure involve an area measuring 230-feet by 140-
feet. While the proposed height of 28-feet complies with the standard of
underlying R-II zone standard, the building's dimensions and square
footage are very large relative to both existing single family residences in
the nearby R-II zone and to future single family residences that could be
constructed under existing zoning in the immediate vicinity; and
22.
Design drawings of the proposed structure were introduced at the
Planning Commission hearing as Exhibits L, P & Q. The two-story
structure includes some features to attempt to soften the overall bulk and
scale of the building. The building is proposed to be located with a
relatively large amount of open space all sides, including the permanent
preservation of 6-acres north of the building as open space. Each facade
of the "H"-shaped building is shown as being modulated and articulated
at a residential scale (26-feet or less in width). Proposed exterior
materials are a combinatiqn of horizontal lap siding (of differing widths
& colors), trim boards and cedar shake siding for accent. The proposed
exterior colors are beige, soft yellow and forest green. However, even
with these design features, the building still is and would be much larger
and bulkier than any residence that exists in the immediate vicinity zoned
R-II; and
23.
The project would be accessed from "F" Street by a private roadway
680-feet in length. Parking for up to 50-cars would be provided on the
south and east sides of the facility. The 'access and parking areas are out
of scale and different in size and appearance than access and parking in
the adjacent areas zoned R-II single-family; and
23.
A preponderance of the evidence did not establish that a congregate care
facility requires that all the assisted living units be in one structure. The
applicant's attorney described this facility as one providing for
"independent" living arrangements for its occupants; and
24.
The completed facility would provide assisted living residential services
for up to 94 residents while employing up to 27 staff persons working in
shifts 24-hours a day. Traffic anticipated from the proposed use was
Res. 00- ~9 (~ c[
evaluated by the Public Works Department who determined that no
adverse transportation impacts would occur; and
25,
The appellant, Olympic Environmental Council, argues in its appeal that the
applicant's proposed building contains individual "dwelling units" as that
term is used in the City's zoning ordinance, and that the number of
"dwelling units" exceeds the authorized number allowed in the City's
zoning ordinance. The applicant, on the other hand, claims that the
building itself constitutes a single "dwelling unit" as that term is used in the
City's zoning ordinance, and that the application meets the dwelling unit
density standards in the zoning ordinance. This Resolution is not a
legislative decision on the matter of clarifying the definition of "dwelling
unit"; rather, it is a SEPA decision concerning the matter of environmental
impacts that would likely result from construction of the assisted living
facility as currently proposed; and
26.
In determining whether the probable adverse impacts of a project are
significant, it is appropriate to consider the project's context. "The context
may vary with the physical setting." WAC 197-11-794(2). "The same
proposal may have a significant adverse impact in one location but not in
another location." WAC 197-11-330(3)(a). That is, a building of this size
and scale might have limited significance if situated in a multi-family
zoning district but in a single-family zone the impact is far greater; and
27.
In assessing the significance of an adverse impact, it is also important to
consider the "magnitude and duration" of the impact. I__d. The magnitude
of the impact of this proposal is great. In terms of land use policies, the
objectives of the R-II zoning district and of the residential zones in Port
Townsend generally include:
"encourag[ing] development of attractive residential area that provide a
sense of community ... ;" and "maintain[ing] or improv[ing] the
character, appearance, and livability of established neighborhoods by
protecting them from incompatible uses..." PTMC 17.16.010(A); and
Given that the bulk, size and appearance of the project as proposed is
significantly greater and different that the single-family housing in the
adjacent R-II zoning district, the project as presented does not maintain or
improve the character, appearance or livability of the established single-
family neighborhood in the adjacent R-II zoned lands; and
28.
Additional goals and policies of the City's 1996 Comprehensive Plan
support the objectives of the R-II zoning district and include:
Res. O0-_O. [_a c{
29.
30.
31.
32.
Land Use:
Policy 7.1: Assure a wide range of housing opportunities throughout
the entire community, while preserving and creating distinct residential
neighborhoods.
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.
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.
Housing
Policy 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);and
The project as presented does not preserve the distinct residential character
desired for the R-II zone and is not compatible with nor does it reinforce or
enhance the nearby existing residential development in the R-II zone; and.
Given the City's concerted effort, as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies, to preserve and enhance its residential neighborhoods,
allowing a building of this size to intrude into one of Port Townsend's
residential neighborhoods constitutes an environmental impact of substantial
magnitude; and
Significance also takes into account the "duration of an impact." WAC
197-11-794(2). The building is proposed to stand for decades. The
duration of the impact is substantial; and
Significance also requires taking into account the "likelihood" that the
impact will occur. Here, the likelihood of the impact occurring is
certain. There definitely will be an immediate, substantial impact to
those owning or living in smaller residential structures in the vicinity of
the subject property. Further, there is a high likelihood that vacant land
in the vicinity of the subject property will be developed with single-
family homes that also will be adversely impacted by the size and bulk of
the proposed building; and
Res. 00- O [,o */
33.
34.
In determining whether the impacts of a project are significant, the City is
precluded from taking into account the beneficial aspects of the proposal.
WAC 197-11-330(5). Thus, even though there was substantial evidence of
a need for a facility of this type somewhere in Port Townsend (for instance
in the R-III zone where it would be a permitted, and not a conditional use),
that evidence is not relevant to determining whether the impacts of the
proposed building in this specific location are significant; and
In cases where substantial environmental impacts are identified, such as
those described above, and those impacts can be mitigated against, the
SEPA determination can include specific measures to mitigate against them;
and
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council reverses the
Planning Commission recommendation on the SEPA Appeal dated September 28,
2000 and grants the appellant's SEPA Appeal and hereby defers a decision on the
Conditional Use Permit until the applicant has complied with the new SEPA MDNS
including the modification to include additional mitigation set forth below. The
MDNS issued August 16, 2000 by the Responsible Official is hereby modified to
include the following additional mitigation:
The assisted living facility shall be broken up into a collection of structures
such that no more than four (4) assisted living units (studios or one
bedroom apartments) are located within any one structure.
The applicant, Port Townsend Assisted Living, LLC, is hereby required to revise
the Conditional Use Permit application, including site plan and project description,
to comply with the required mitigation. Upon receipt of the necessary revisions
demonstrating compliance with this mitigation, a decision on the Conditional Use
application shall be rendered by the City Council.
Res. 00-
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend on the ~ day of
fi/o v', , 2000 and signed by the Mayor on this ~2 day of/t)c4,e,,~g~ ,2000.
Geoff M~
Attest:
Pam Kolacy,
Approved as to Form:
John P. Watts, City Attorney
Res. 00- D/_o q