The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09281995 Min Ag ~ '. . ... ",.~ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Fourth Revised Edition) Business Meeting September 28, 1995 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 31, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Hamilton Heights PUD #9409-05, Ken McBride, Proponent 1. 2. 3. 4. Stafr Report (Judy Surber) Public Testimony Committee Report (EnarsonlWelch) Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Jonathan Dudley, Rezone (9405-06) & Street Vacation (9405-07) Amendments 1. Stafr Report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Timeline VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 12. 1995 Cher DeBoehr/Geoffrey Masci, Conditional Use Application #9508-04 (KeithlThayer) ~tober 26. 1995 NQv~mbeJ," 9. 1995, City Council has a budget hearing scheduled in chambers on this date VII. ADJOURN · · · . City of Port Townsend Building and Community Development 540 Waœr Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360/385-3000 FAX 360/385-4290 PIANNlNG COMMISSION AGENDA (Third Revised Edition) Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 31, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A.. Hamilton Heights PUD #9409-05, Ken McBride, Proponent 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report (Judy Surber) Public Testimony Committee Report (Enarson/Welch) Commission Discussion and Conclusions September 28, 1995 B. Jonathan Dudley, Rezone (9405-06) & Street Vacation (9405-07) Amendments 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Timeline VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 12. 1995 October 26. 1995 November 9. 1995, City Council has a budget hearing scheduled in chambers on this date VII. ADJOURN ... . .~ . City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 \Vater St., Port Townsend, \VA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Second Revised Edition) Business Meeting September 28, 1995 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 31, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Parkview Preliminary Plat (#9009-03), Request ror one-year extension 1. Stafr Report (Dave Robison) _ 2. Pùblic -Testimony - 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. ~ Hamilton Heights PUD #9409-05, Ken McBride, Proponent ~1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (EnarsonlWelch) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions ~ C. - Jonathan Dudley, Rezone (9405-06) & Street Vacation (9405-07) Amendments 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Timeline VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 12. 1995 October 26. 1995 November 9. 1995, City Council has a budget hearing scheduled in chambers on this date VII. ADJOURN City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 . PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Revised) Business Meeting S~tember 28, 1995 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 31, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Parkview Preliminary Plat (#9009-03), Request for one-year extension .. 1. 2. 3. Staff Report (Dave Robison) Public Testimony Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Hamilton Heights PUD #9409-05, Ken McBride, Proponent 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (EnarsonlWelch) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Timeline VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 12. 1995 October 26. 1995 November 9. 1995, City Council has a budget hearing scheduled in chambers on this date , VII. ADJOURN . . t City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting September 28, 1995 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 31, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Parkview Preliminary Plat (#9009-03), Request ror one-year extension 1. Stafr Report (Dave Robison) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Hamilton Heights PUD #9409-05, Ken McBride, Proponent 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (EnarsonlWelch) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 12. 1995 October 26. 1995 VII. ADJOURN · · · : PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 1995 Business Meeting 7:00 PM I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Cindy Thayer, Ian Keith and Mark Welch. Karen Erickson was excused. Stafr members present were Judy Surber, Dave Robison, Randy Brackett and Sheila Spears. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve minutes of the August 31, 1995, meeting was made by Keith and seconded by Thayer. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. Surber announced that the applicants have agreed to change the order of the agenda so that the Dudley Rezone & Street Vacation amendments may be heard first. Planning Commission approved the requested change or agenda. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Jonathan Dudley, Rezone (9405-06) & Street Vacation (9405-07) Amendments Thayer announced that the applicant's r~resentative, Rick S~ler, is a client of hers on another issue, but that it has no bearing on this issue. Nobody expressed concern or a conflict and Thayer remained seated for the hearing. 1. Stafr Report (Judy Surber) Surber introduced Rick S~ler, the applicant's representative. Surber outlined the rezone and street vacation applications which were approved by City Council in October 1994, and the applicant's subsequent request to withdraw the street vacation request, but go forward with the rezone. The question berore Planning Commission is whether or not this request is a substantial change to the rezone application. If it is determined to be a substantial change, then a Planning Commission hearing would be set. Surber said that ir the request is allowed there would be no physical change rrom the site plan or the 10/94 approval. Hill Avenue is recommended ror vacation through the Gateway · · · Planning Commission Minutes S~tember 28, 1995 Page Two Development Plan. The applicant still intends to develop the additional park area ror the City. Surber suggested additional conditions which would ensure landscape improvements are planted and maintained. A street development permit would be required for all work within the public right-or-way. . Robison stated that the site design for the rezone and street vacation applications was d~dent upon the street vacation. One problem in the future could be the street right-of- way being used for private purposes which would require a street use agreement. A street use agreement ordinance has not yet been adopted by the City Council. If Planning Commission agrees that the applicant's request is not a substantial change, we would be going on the hope that there will be a street use agreement allowing the driveway use. A street use agreement can be revoked by the City at any time and ir that happened, the applicant would have to alter the site design so as not to take access rrom Hill Avenue. Street vacations and street use agreements both have costs attached to them, and the applicant's proposal to abandon the application may not necessarily cost less that going through with the street vacation. 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Keith asked that a revised conceptual site plan be entered as Exhibit 6. The plan he has shows parking in 10th Street. Sepler said that the applicant is aware that this request will reduce the potential size or the proposed building and that the applicant understands the criteria. He said that the street vacation is no longer desirable because when the application was submitted construction of a speculative building was rairly certain; now the present business in interested in buying the property. If the street vacation is required in the future, the application may be resubmitted. The applicant wants assurance that a building can be built upon the site but not at the present time. The issue will be revisited at the time or the proposed building. The park improve- ments will go in when the building does. Sepler said that the applicant supports staff's recommendation. Comments by the Planning Commission included: 1) request for clarification of the process; 2) request for clarification that the applicant cannot have access from Sims Way; 3) seems appropriate that the site be zoned commercial; and 4) concern that the Gateway Plan recommends vacation of Hill Avenue. Robison explained the intent or the recommendation in the Gateway Plan for vacating Hill Avenue is so that it is not a right-of-way. He also described what initiated the street use agreement process and mentioned that the Planning Commission would be reviewing it. Motion to approve staff's recommendation that the proposed revisions are not substantial and the amendment be approved without further hearing, and that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions be revised was made by Thayer and seconded by Welch.. All were in favor. · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1995 Page Three B. Hamilton Heights PUD #9409-05, Ken McBride, Proponent 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) Surber outlined the applicant's proposal for a Planned Unit Development and associated subdivision. The proposed development consists or 101 single-family manufactured housing units on a 25.13 acre site. Lots would be privately owned with certain shared land held in common. Trails and open space are interspersed throughout the development comprising approximately 34 % of the site. Much of the proposed open space areas have limited development potential due to environmental constraints such as s~ slopes or drainage corridors. Associated amenities include a recreational vehicle storage lot, a 5,000 square foot tot-lot, and a network of trails and sidewalks. If future residents wish to have a club house, three of the single-family residential lots would be dedicated ror that use. Off-site improvements include installation of utility lines and upgrading Howard and 20th Streets to serve the development. The site is undeveloped and wooded and is located approximately 1/4 mile south or Hastings Avenue, directly west or Howard Street and north or 20th Street, Blocks 1-15 inclusive of the Hamiltons Addition to the City of Port Townsend. Surber explained that the street improvement exhibits ror both interior and exterior street improvements r~resent: It A It the applicant's proposal; and ItBIt the City's choice. Exhibit C is no longer an option. City Engineer Randy Brackett explained the street options and the dirrerences between the city's recommendation and the proponent's proposal. Ken McBride, Proponent, explained the reasoning behind the proposed street design. He said that the proposal came rrom researching projects or this type, and also costs. He said the proposed streetslstormwater ror the PUD are designed like another or his local projects (port Townsend Business Park), and that those streets are runctioning well. Lee Wilburn, Proponent, explained that the onsite streets will be privately owned and maintained. The City has a right· to enter the property and assess the property owners ror maintenance if they are not kept up to City standards. The infrastructure is a cost of development which is passed onto the landowners. Wilburn explained that the streetlstormwater design includes catch basins in the street that carries the runoff to stormwater detention ponds throughout the development. Wilburn explained that staff's recommendation to install bicycle lanes on both sides of the exterior streets (Howard & 20th) could cost the developer an additional $20,000. Surber recommended the rollowing edits to the draft Findings and Conclusions: · · · Planning Commission Minutes S~tember 28, 1995 Page Four a) revise to reflect that Howard Street and 20th would deviate from street standards and conrorm to the alternative design that is selected here tonight; b) revise to reflect the interior street design selected tonight; c) revised Condition 18 to include staff review of RV lot and club house; d) add condition that individual booster pumps be installed ir city standpipe not on line at time or building permits. Pumps to be abandoned when standpipe comes on line; and e) revise Condition 5 and Finding 18 to state "power back up QI emergency storage per DOH requirements. " 2. Public Testimony Ken McBride reported that the project was set up mainly because a lot or people cannot afford to live in the City. He stated there is a need ror this project and that it would be compatible with the area. The cost to purchasers or the individual parcels will average rrom $79,000 to $90,000. McBride stated that it is overwhelming to build an affordable project and he doesn't want to create anything that is unsafe or not to code. If there are two situations which are both safe, he wants to use the one that will keep the cost down. He is trying to keep the price as low as possible to pass onto the individual purchasers. Lee Wilburn said that stafr, edits to the draft report take care or most or his points. He asked that consideration be given to the proponent's street design which is based upon their past experience. Drew Coleman, an adjacent property owner, stated that he is not really opposed to the project but wants to learn more about it. He asked about the development and questioned how to keep people from falling into a natural pond on his property. He said this needs to be worked out with the builders to their mutual satisraction. There are eagles in the area. He asked ir there really is a need ror 100 or these houses. He plans to work with the builders and the City to see that a nice project goes in. In response to his question, stafr confirmed that there are no plans ror entering his property from Baker Street. Enarson asked if the Fire Chief has reviewed the preliminary plat because she cannot see that lots 1, 2 and 3 are served by afire hydrant. She asked for confmnation that a hydrant is not needed if it isn't there. Staff responded that location' of fire hydrants would be specified during standard review by City staff. In response to Enarson's comment that the preliminary plat shows stormwater directed to the private property owner northerly or the site, Brackett explained that the runorr would maintain historic flows to the wetland to the north. He said there may be more review of the situation prior to the final plat. · · · Planning Commission Minutes S~tember 28, 1995 Page Five Welch pointed out a discrepancy in the size or the proposal site between the draft report and the market analysis. Thayer asked ir there is a requirement to add a right-hand turn lane rrom Howard Street and how can you make that a requirement or the Hamilton Heights PUD when it wasn't required or the Parkview plat which is in the same vicinity. Enarson asked Ü the Planning Commission has the authority to change or clarify conditions of the SEPA Mitigated Determination or Non-Significance (MDNS). Robison responded that the Planning Commission should not be trying to amend the SEP A conditions, but ir a conflict is found, the Commission should work with the responsible orficial on the condition. If there is a conflict, it should be remanded back to stafr to work through the process. Robison confirmed this with the City Attorney. 3. Committee Report (EnarsonlWelch) Enarson reported that she supports the concept or the PUD, and that there is a need for more affordable housing. She has some specific concerns. Enarson agrees with the staff edits and has some additional ones: 1) Finding of Fact #15 should be amended to reqJ,Jire tþat .6...tQQt fences be setback; 2) Finding or Fact #16, the trail plan provided to the Planning Commission shows the trails ending within the project. The exhibit needs to be amended to show that the trails go through to. the south; 3) Finding or Fact #21 - the third exhibit/alternative needs to be eliminated; and 4) Finding or Fact #6 - the figure ror the area of single-family lots needs to be corrected. Enarson's suggestions for edits under Conclusions· include: 1) #1 - change "demonstrated" to ~; and 2) #10 - eliminate the last sentence. Suggestion was made that sidewalks and trails should be included in Condition #6. Not all members agreed. Surber pointed out that the intent has always been that the trails would be public and the applicant is in agreement. Conditions 12, 13 and 14 need to be addressed with new language. Robison suggested that the underlined portion of Condition #12 could become #13 and then the remaining numbers would change. Enarson expressed concern about the lack of usable open space, stating that .05 % is very small ror active recreation. She asked ir the City has plans to build nearby parks. Welch stated that he is in agreement with Enarson's report and believes the PUD is a significant benefit to the underlying platting. He is comrortable with the proportional share with buildout with the Parkview Plat. He said his inclination is to allow the applicant to build the interior streets to his choice, but Howard and 20th Streets should be improved as recommended by the City . Welch requested a condition that we set the street standard at · · · " Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1995 Page Six what the City has recommended unless the fmal design of Howard Street is narrowed. He wants continuity with Howard Street improvements. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Keith stated that development or Howard Street is crucial. He said that it makes more sense to arrive at a standard ror Howard Street and build to that standard, rather than do the physical work twice. If the City's standard is higher than this project's is going to be, the cost should be shared with the developer. Robison pointed out that street standards are a major problem or future growth. A lot or study has been going on for arterials such as Howard Street in the past two years and right now we only have a policy direction. He said that the stafr alternative meets the policy direction or Howard Street best. The problem with the east side or Howard Street is that we don't know how it will develop. This puts the burden on the City to build that stretch in the future. McBride pointed out that the only dirrerence between the proposals is bike trails on both sides, as opposed to only one side. Enarson said a 4 root gravel shoulder seems to be good safety ir you don't have bike trails on both sides. This allows bicycles and room to get off the road. McBride said gravel shoulders would be a large additional expense because of the ravine that would have to be filled in and supported. Most of the area of the road is level with adjoining property. Additional Commission comments concerning the exterior street design include: 1) by allowing crushed surfaces on sidewalks, the kids will be in the street in the bike lane; 2) ideally, all or Howard Street should be developed with bicycle lanes on both sides; 3) put gravel on one side of the street with the plan or paving it at some time in the future;. 4) link the paving of the graveled side of the street with the number of building permits issued; 5) in terms of safety, the City's street proposal is the best, but reel uncomfortable with passing excessive costs on to the homeowners; 6) rather than layout a bicycle lane, pave 27 feet and stripe down the center and don't delineate a bike lane; and 7) WBW is the best option but stafr can add a memo to Council packets asking them to decide whether or not it is appropriate to burden the applicant with the higher, more costly standard. Robison suggested that if the Planning Commission wants to make a variation on the city's street recommendation a motion should be made to add a condition, but staff cannot change the MDNS. The Commission recommended acceptance or the applicant's proposal ror the interior streets. In response to a question pertaining to the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Robinson said that the City is not in a position to monitor or enrorce them. The CC&Rs can be more restrictive than city codes and the proponent has not allowed for ADUs in the PUD. . Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1995 Page Seven Surber said the CC&Rs have to be revised to be consistent with the revised Findings and Conclusions. In response to a question or the Commission, Wilburn said that $22,500 is the projected cost or a vacant lot in the PUD. The association dues have not been projected yet. Motion was made by Enarson recommending approval of the Hamilton Heights PUD #9409-05 as amended by the Planning Commission and further directing staff to write a memo to City Council regarding the .Commissioners' concerns about continuity on Howard Street, and an equitable burden to the developers. Seconded by Welch. All were in ravor. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Timeline Robison reported that release of the Comprehensive Plan has been delayed. It is ready to go to the printer, but in view of the fact that the County's plan has to be revised, that may have an errect upon our plan. He reported that the County has requested a meeting with the City. . Enarson recommended that the County be inrormed that their delays cost the City money. Robison announced that he has taken the liberty or subscribing to a journal for Planning Commission members. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 12. 1995 Cher DeBoehr/Georrrey Masci, Conditional Use Application #9508-04 and Parking Variance #9508-05, (Keith/Thayer) October 26. 1995 November 9. 1995 City Council has a budget hearing scheduled in Chambers on this date VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Thayer and seconded by Enarson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM. · ~~entA~ismnt · · · Guest List 't! ¥' S7:' ~ ~ It:)/V Name (plea.e print) Address T A~tim onv? YES NO ~A_~ ~ - h_- ~ ~- ~.7- V v"'"L.. / .I . . -,---'-, .'--.--, ------