Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06111992 Ag Min . -- e . . City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 21, 1992 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Rosewind Planned Unit Development (#9106-04) 1. Public testimony (new information only) 2. Staff report (Rick Sepler) 3. Committee report (Welch/Baird) 4. Committee discussion and conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS VII. ADJOURN ..-- '.. June 11, 1992 7:00 PM Guest List P¿AIV 'I' / If yes, indicate topic. ~Js Do you wish to presenl lestlmony? YES NO ADDRESS I~¿O¡ Uh. í) .~ 0 ~ 0 0 18 ~ 0 fðj 0 ~ 0 ŒJ 0 lSJ 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 (J 0 0 O. 0 0 ·0 0 , C C £ Ie. 5 L ~LL dw()ofJ&f 3;;. ( - 3 ç---/{ D (..<..,.5 ¡;- &~ .Î(~ 1201(05 f r r ' r r ¡204D5 ft>--6<S€\V ¡Nf) ~&-G~ L u tJ{)6 p~ 10'2:. ~ RW ~. 4 - e . " .¡, City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 Planning Commission Minutes for June 11, 1992 I. ROLL CALL Chair Lois Sherwood called the meeting to order at 7: 15 PM. Other members present were Ernie Baird, Randy Maag, Karen Erickson, Cindy Thayer, Mark Welch and Bob Rickard. Staff members present were Rick Sepler, Jan Zimmer and Sheila Spears. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 21, 1992 Motion was made by Cindy Thayer to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Mark Welch. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS Citizen letters from Stanton, Mitchell and Little. Letter from Rosewind. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Rosewind Planned Unit Development (9106-04) 1. Public testimony (new information only) Ernie Baird said that he had an ex parte conversation and that he didn't feel that it would impair his objectivity. He volunteered to remove himself. Cindy Thayer and Mark Welch also said they had ex parte communications and volunteered to remove themselves. Nobody requested they excuse themselves from the Rosewind project. Bjorn Lunde asked if he could speak later, rather than first, so that he could address whatever questions came up. Rick Sepler said it would be difficult to reserve the right of putting it off. If something arises that needs clarification the applicant will be given the chance to respond. Doug Milholland spoke to Exhibit 7 of the master transportation plan. He talked about the meetings Rosewind had with the people on 33rd and 35th Streets and considered closely and discussed the possibility of developing 33rd. The reluctant conclusion was to develop 35th. This could be done without an enormous expense and without condemnation of property. Rosewind is attempting to create a zone that is open to residents but not to traffic. .' -- Planning Commission Minutes for June 11, 1992 Page Two Robert Costain, speaking against the proposal, said there has been no compromise from a year ago. He said that Rosewind's proposal always has been to use 35th Street for access. Mr. Costain said that he doubts that 35th Street is better than 33rd Street. He wants 33rd developed because he lives on 35th and doesn't want the added traffic. Pam Whelan, who lives on 35th, asked for clarification on the number of units to be built. Rick Sepler said that he will address that. Ed Stanton expressed concern about property values in the neighborhood, saying there are a number of things that need to be addressed in the covenants and restrictions. Mr. Stanton said he thinks the Uniform Building Code is not a high enough standard for lots selling for $30,000. Lynn, from Rosewind, responded that covenants and restrictions can be more restrictive than city ordinances but cannot be less. She said that many of the things listed in Stanton's letter are already in city ordinances. She said that the concerns of Stanton about height limitations and such (like trimming hedges) are inappropriate. Robert Clouse, a neighbor to Rosewind, expressed concerns about the structures that might be built. He said that in past years he has seen people live in trucks, tents, boats and such, and was forced to sell some of his property because of that. He had wanted to build but couldn't because of these other structures. e Question was asked whether an ordinary citizen has to do street vacations just like the PUD applicant. Rick explained that those usually go directly to City Council, and that Council asked for the Planning Commission's advice on this particular set of vacations because of the project. 2. . Staff report (Rick Sepler) Rick Sepler asked if the Commission had received both draft A and B and the exhibits. He explained that staff will present drafts recommending or not recommending or can do another draft and explained that City Council will be holding another hearing on this and the public can present again. He said that Findings and Conclusions (FNC) of the Planning Commission is regards the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Street Vacation applications. Rick read draft A and B of FNC for the PUD for consideration by the Commission. He made a correction in #10 to 13 units (there is currently 1). He also read draft A and B of the Street Vacation. Commission questions and comments: - a) b) Do we have a report from Public Works approving these street vacations? Could a piece by piece explanation of the dedicated parcels be provided? Rick suggested included vacated parcels. Asked for clarification of Exhibit A. c) "' - Planning Commission Minutes for June 11, 1992 Page Three d) When a PUD is being approved and road configuration is changed, is it not normal for the existing roads within that plat to be vacated? Rick said that if you are taking a land locked section of the roadway as part of a PUD you can certainly suggest that that be vacated as part of the condition. e) Public perception re street rights-of-way that would not be developed would be that there is no public property. Commission suggested adding a condition relating to these streets that it might be like taking the exchange of value of vacated to group the exchange land in one area of open space so that it is a contiguous piece of land. This way it would show on public maps that there is a single contiguous area that the public can use. Another option is that it could be traded for public trails. f) Disputes number of parking spaces shown in exhibit and in Findings of Fact (Street Vacations) and poses a problem because all of parking in multi family units is shown in the Woodland Ave right-of-way. The plan in Exhibit 3 does not allow Commission to approve this. g) h) Question whether the concerns of neighbors of 33rd Street have been addressed. Asked for a list of names of declarants saying that Robert Scalf spoke against the proposal yet his name is listed as a declarant. He is legal owner of some of Doug Milholland' s Rosewind property. Doug is making payments to Scalf. Questions on setbacks. . i) Bjorn Lunde explained the parking situation. Rick Sepler said the Fire Department has signed off on this application. 3. Committee report (Welch/Baird) Mark Welch reported that the primary focus is access from 33rd Street and access issues with 33rd Street. 35th street is developed better and has a relatively unobstructed view from the North. 33rd Street has a very steep slope and poor visibility to the North. He said that the applicant has gone a long ways toward spreading the traffic patterns but suggested that they might want to look also at extending Haines Street. Mark expressed concern about allowing woodworking (because of noise) without some time constraints, and said that no consideration has been given to removal of toxins for photographing. He suggested each home occupation be looked at. Ernie Baird said that the neighbors' concerns about traffic are well founded but agreed that 35th Street is the better choice. He also stated his agreement with home occupations being examined on an individual basis. 4. Committee Discussion and Conclusions - Staff was requested to research the following: a) Report from Public Works on each of the proposed street vacations. b) Table that would explain dedications and what each is for. . . e þ Planning Commission Minutes for June 11, 1992 Page Four c) Clarification on supported street vacations. d) Work with applicant on dedications and swaps and other alternatives and also review tax changes. e) Work with applicant to prepare an alternative dealing with extension of Haines Street into Woodland. t) Better clarification on arterial situation. Rick will check if Umatilla's rolling surface is the actual right-of-way. Bob Rickard said that restrictions on buildings should be the same as for buildings on adjacent land unless the PUD wishes to make it more restrictive. Bjorn Lunde responded to the issue of whether the setbacks are the same as other areas of the city, and said that height limitations are the same. He explained that the difficulty for Rosewind is that since they are not designing all the residences and are clustering the housing more tightly in some areas in order to free up other areas and trying to access solar access for each house site - would like to propose that where building lot adjoins neighboring property that the existing underlying setbacks would apply. Therefore it would not present anything unusual for a neighbor except what is normally allowed. He also proposed that within the PUD, Rosewind could regulate the setbacks from neighboring lot lines within the project thereby allowing for solar access. Rosewind would still comply to fire code for 10 feet between buildings. Rick Sepler asked for an exhibit prepared by the applicant. Motion to continue the public hearing to 6-25-92 was made by Bob Rickard. Seconded by Cindy Thayer. All were in favor. Rick suggested that comments or suggestions to be addressed be submitted to the Commission before the next meeting on 6-25-92. V. NEW BUSINESS: None VI: ANNOUNCEMENTS VII. ADJOURN Motion was made by Bob Rickard to adjourn. Seconded by Mark Welch. All were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM. Signed, ~~ Sheila Spears Planning and Building Assistant