Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07131995 Min Ag · · · . City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting July 13, 1995 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 29, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Campbell Construction, Lynnesfield Planned Unit Development (#9404-10) Continued Public Hearing 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report (Judy Surber/Randy Brackett) Public Testimony - new information only Committee Report (Erickson/Enarson) Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings July 27. 1995 August 10. 1995 August 31. 1995 VII. ADJOURN " !.- · · · ': City ðf Port Townsend Plànning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 1995 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:02 PM by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Ernie Baird, Lisa Enarson, Cindy Thayer, Ian Keith, and Mark Welch. Karen Erickson was excused. Staff members present were Judy Surber, Dave Robison, Randy Brackett, and Pam Kolacy. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the June 29, 1995 meeting were approved as corrected. III. COMMUNICA nONS A letter from Commissioner Enarson was distributed. The letter was supplied to the project stormwater engineer so he would be prepared to address the issués at tonight's meeting. (See copy of the memo attached to these minutes for reference.) Robison, asked the Commissioners if they had received his memo regarding regulatory reform, and noted he would discuss the memo if time permitted at the end of the meeting. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Campbell Construction, Lynnesfield Planned Unit Development (#9404-10) Continued Public Hearing 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber/Randy Brackett) Surber began by reminding Commissioners that the last meeting concerning this project was continued because of several specific concerns regarding stormwater. management and preliminary project design. She said that in response to these concerns, she has invited David Hannah, an engineer with Clark Land Office and Randy Brackett, City Engineer, to address stormwater engineering- for the project and overall regional stormwater concerns. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1995 Page 1 Copied to PCO'MM FO g~t5 · · · , , Other issues which remain to be addressed this evening include secondary emergency access, trail design, and phasing of the infrastructure. Surber stated she had contacted Assistant Fire Chief Tom Aumock to ask if secondary emergency access could come from 49th Street. He replied that that wouldn't be possible as opposing access is needed and there is potential for access to Jackman and Holcomb Streets to be blocked by fairgrounds traffic along 49th Street. If the east-west arterial street is constructed, connection can be made from there; however, if the east-west corridor is not in place by the time the 46th building permit is issued, further options would have to be considered. Aumock suggested as an option the trail system coming east along 43rd and leaving the property near the stormwater detention pond. That option would require additional environmental review. He noted it could be an emergency access with breakaway gates which would not substantially alter the look of the trail. Enarson questioned the reasoning for the trail design, (e.g., hard surface). Surber stated sidewalks would usually be required in a subdivision; however, since this plan calls for trails rather than sidewalks, staff recommends a multipurpose trail be designed which will fulfill ADA requirements, and accommodate bicycles as well as pedestrians. The application approval will be conditioned on the trail design details being approved by the Director of Building and Community Development. The phasing of infrastructure is addressed in mitigation #40, which states that the applicant agrees to submit construction detail plans for each phase of the project complete with erosion control plans, utility type and location (including fire hydrants and a looped water system) and emergency turn-arounds. The plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a clearing and grading or building permit for the subject phase. A letter Jrom Lisa Palazzi of Pacific Rim Soil and Water was entered as Exhibit T and a letter from Clark Land Office addressing features and operation of the proposed stormwater management plan was entered as Exhibit U. David Hannah, engineer for the Clark Land Office, referred to Exhibit U and discussed the stormwater engineering plan in detail. Mr. Hannah designed the proposed stormwater plan. The detention pond is designed to let water move through the surrounding soil and in the worst case (100 year storm) the pond will be no more than two feet deep. The design aims to provide the same rate of runoff that existed before development. Water will soak into the ground and recharge the groundwater at about the same rate it recharges now. The pond is designed with a series of weirs which can be adjusted to allow runoff to flow to the Happy Valley pond or to Townsend Meadows. The applicant will institute a monitoring program as well, and make adjustments according to the data received. The slopes leading into the pond will be 4: I, gentle enough for vehicles to drive sideways along the slope. If a child fell in, he/she could easily get out, as there are no steep sides. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1995 Page 2 · · · " , Also, as previously stated, the water level will generally be very low. According to Hannah, a good weekend rain may result in water 1/2 - I foot deep. He also stated that the pond represents the most modern technology and incorporates many features not required by the DOE manual. Rick Sepler of Madrona Planning added that pond safety features have been added in the landscape plan. The perimeter will be seeded with invasive blackberries, which will create an impenetrable barrier around the pond except for specifically designed access points. It is estimated that 75 % of the area will be impenetrable. He also addressed the question of the pond being a resting site for waterfowl. Literature and consultations with wildlife specialists have resulted in the conclusion that waterfowl are not likely to be harmed by residential runoff. Sepler referred to the Exhibit T, the letter from Lisa Palazzi of Pacific Rim Soil and Water. He noted a map of the drainage basin presented at the last meeting was incorrect because the basin was delineated by enhanced topographic lines, not lines showing the drainage basin. That basin has been delineated correctly by Polaris Engineering. He referred Commissioners to the second page of the Pacific Rim letter addressing the site drainage and existing ,conditions. According to Ms.' Palazzi, flooding concerns and the presence of wet soils have existed in the area for 7-10,000 years in the area and homebuilders will inevitably experience occasional seasonal flooding. The question before the Commission is whether the proposed project will make the problem worse. He stated that with careful management, ,and prudent design, the stormwater management plan should provide sufficient protection from increased flooding under all except the most extreme circumstances (earthquake or tsunami). As noted in the SEP A checklist, the applicant has also proposed provision of a fair share contribution for reg,ional improvements. Randy Brackett, City Engineer, stated that the project has been an interesting one and that there are a number of internal amenities which speak well for the project. It has been åesigned according to the DOE manual for storm water management, and in fact exceeds a number of the DOE criteria. He stated that he expects that while the applicant is willing to provide monitoring for three years, he doubts that there will be any measurable change in existing conditions. He noted the project doesn't produce more rainwater, that it will merely change the timing of release of water into the groundwater table. He believes the project will have a very minor impact, and that there indeed will not be a measurable impact to groundwater altered from its course. As more impervious surfaces are added to the drainage basin, regional stormwater impacts will occur. To address regional stormwater management, Brackett stated that the City is proposing a new sewer trunk line, 30 inches in diameter, some of which will be built with the Blue Heron school project, and some with the San Juan Avenue improvements. The trunk line will be carried out to the sewer treatment plant, and after it is established, the City can Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1995 Page 3 · · · " convert the existing 20" to stormwater overflow, install riser pipes at each of the terminal water receiving bodies, Le. Townsend Meadows wetland, Happy Valley, and set a predefined elevation to reduce the possibility of excess of flooding. Water over the maximum level of intake will be conveyed to Chinese Lagoon. At the present time the City does not have a specific schedule of dates and costs to provide to the Planning Commission or the applicant; however the applicant will participate in providing the intake structure at Happy Valley Pond. Brackett noted that is was appropriate to point out that homes in that area have been built in low lying elevations, and will continue to have drainage problems. The City can't mitigate all problems in the area without spending massive funds, and the City is satisfied that the applicant is doing everything possible to mitigate the impact of his development. He pointed out that water will discharge to Happy Valley or Townsend Meadow. Townsend Meadow can handle more overflow, but he pointed out the relative amount of water even in a 100 year storm will have a small impact to Townsend Meadow and, in addition to runoff from the project, the proposed stormwater management plan will also divert runoff from homes to the north of the project site. He reiterated that the City's concern is whether or not the project will create measurable impact on the groundwater and after examining all aspects of the application, he has concluded that there will be no such impact. He also added that the City will continue to address the existing regional problems in the future. Regarding the design of the detention basin, Brackett added that berm material selection is important and the fine materials in Clallam type soil tend to resist rapid infiltration. If that type of soil is selected and compacted, it should be adequate for the purposes of the detention pond. He added that the pond is not being created for long term deterition and does not need to be constructed as a dam. Brackett then asked to address Enarson' s questions point by point. In regard to the concern about elevations being shot for the proposed detention pond, etc. rather than engineering from the topo map, Brackett noted that this is typically resolved in the final design phase and that field surveys have been done. The issue of pond construction has been addressed. As far as the pond being considered a legal "attractive nuisance", Brackett's research indicates that the City's insurance carrier would not consider a pond of this nature to fall into that category because of the careful design, in particular the very gradual slope and the impenetrable vegetation barrier blocking most of the perimeter. To expand on question 3, regarding outflow from the detention ponds, Brackett stated he understands the school has released a flood zone easement for controlled diversion of the outfall. Brackett said after modeling full buildout and a 100 year event, an elevation at the lowest point of the easement indicated a broad cross section that could handle a river of water. The school released an easement so drainage would be allowed to the north. The project will cause a gradual increase in impervious areas and the project may even serve to Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1995 Page 4 enhance the wetland. · Surber stated a condition could be added that a drainage easement will be obtained from the owners, and Sepler said it would be considered if applicable and necessary. Baird stated his concern that there isn't any baseline data; although a qualitative idea has been proposed, there is no quantitative measurement. He noted that at some point neighboring property owners may claim that their flooding has increased because the City allowed the proposed project to be built. Even if their position is incorrect, it will be difficult to address without baseline data. Brackett replied that there will be a period of three years during which the applicant will be responsible for monitoring the water levels of Happy Valley and the Townsend wetlands. Keith noted there was still no baseline data. Brackett said he knows of no community which has done baseline studies for existing conditions. The studies would be expensive and the City does have a stormwater management plan which prioritizes and assesses these types of problems throughout the City. The City is quite familiar with existing concerns and is moving toward mitigation of those. This will certainly involve working with neighbors, but some solutions may be incumbent on individual property owners. · Enarson noted that the other questions in her memorandum had been addressed earlier in the presentation. Surber stated that staff has recommended additional conditions based on the new questions which were raised. Keith brought up the question of the inclusion of an economic and market analysis packet. He stated that the only substantive question he is aware of is whether the applicant has the financial capacity to complete the project. In this case, applicant owns the property free and clear and has a long history of responsible building in the City. If the other information is not important to the application, it shouldn't be required. Although a bond by the applicant could be posted to cover some costs of infrastructure, he would like to know why tax revenue figures must be supplied. Sepler then noted that in terms of tax revenue, the current PUD adds no additional financial burden to the City. The financial study is to show there are possible savings to the City. If there are neither savings nor extra expenditure, the project meets the criteria of the ordinance. He also stated that infrastructure will be provided for each phase before the construction occurs. Robison then noted that Keith's comments are quite valid. He stated that the reason the market analysis is included is because of the requirements in the PUD ordinance that a project will not burden the City with extra expenses. He added that large scale developments usually do a better job of providing services than small projects and that the market study is really another obstacle put in the way of a larger project. He agrees the information isn't · Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1995 Page 5 · · · particularly worthy, but must be submitted because it is required by the Code. He added that staff is presently working on revisions to the Subdivision and PUD ordinances. Surber then recommended additions to the conditions. Based on the new contour map, Lots 10-15 should be reconfigured because of steep slopes. She also said an RV lot design should be submitted that meets drainage requirements. In response to Planning Commission comments, the trail will be designed to meander so a limited number of trees will be removed. Also, drainage easements will be sought from adjoining property owners, signage to be posted around the pond will be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a clearing and grading permit, and no outdoor burning or fireplaces will be allowed. These items will be addressed in the MDNS as well as in the CC & Rs. Enarson noted that in regard to the landscaping plan, that she has been disillusioned with public and private developments because plants are put in but not maintained with proper watering. She thought maintenance was understood, but from observation of public and private projects, realizes this is not always the case. She would like to clarify the that plants will be supported so they can survive. Sherwood agreed it is important to have some mechanism to provide a performance standard in addition to a requirement to provide plants. Sepler noted that it generally takes three years for establishment of plants; usually there is an agreement which says any that die within three years will be replaced. This makes it within the applicant's best interests to keep the vegetation healthy. Thayer stated that this issue is usually addressed through the homeowners association for public areas. Welch added that it behooves the developer to keep the site attractive. The wording for Finding 12 was amended to say "maintenance and success of plantings will be assured." 2. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Murray Ritland, who lives near the project, spoke in favor of the project. He distributed an article to the Commissioners which was entered as Exhibit V. His home was built by the applicant and he stated that he had an excellent experience with Campbell Construction and has complete faith in their ability to do a good project which will be a benefit to the community. Allan Youse, who lives on San Juan Avenue near the project, raised concerns about the fact that the retaining pond will not be fenced around its entire perimeter, and that there will still be areas that could be accessed by small children. He suggested gates be used in addition to the vegetation barrier. Another concern was that the pond weir would direct drainage to the Happy Valley pond which he believes will be full at the same times the detention pond will be full. Mr. Hannah replied that the weirs can be used in various combinations so the water is directed into whichever area is appropriate at the time. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1995 Page 6 · · · Youse also asked about landscaping maintenance and whether property owners would be required to keep natural vegetation on a portion of their property. Keith pointed out that the CC&R agreement guidelines prohibit removal of trees of a certain diameter and distance from the building pad or roadway unless they constitute a danger. 3. COMMITTEE REPORT (ERICKSON/ENARSON) Enarson thanked Mr. Hannah and staff for being present to address the Commission's concerns. She noted she feels it is very important for the Commission to make an informed recommendation to the City Council. She stated she still has one concern about Condition 22 stating that construction of the residential units may be phased over ten years. She would like to add "or more" to that condition indicating that the project does not have to reach full buildout within ten years. Robison noted the project infrastructure would probably be subject to the five-year timeline under state regulations. Enarson then noted she thinks the proposal overall is a good one. She added that she has a personal bias about stormwater issues and does not want that to unduly influence the Commission's decision. Her personal experience makes her wary of underestimating groundwater quantities. She believes that after the new school construction and San Juan A venue expansion, there will be a lot of water which she feels will probably not dissipate in a week; however stated she will bow to the experts on the matter. SherwoOO noted that the stormwater plan has been deliberately over-engineered to accommodate even unforeseen conditions or changes. Enarson stated she believes if the homeowners association is willing to risk liability for the pond, they should be allowed to do so. She complimented the applicant on the amount of public access which has been allowed over the years and concluded that the positive aspects of the project far outweigh her concerns about drainage. She emphasized again that she encourages the engineers go to the field and not just design on paper. In conclusion she noted that the committee recommends approval of the project. Enarson moved that approval of Application No. 9404-10, Lynnesfield Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat be recommended to the City Council with the correction of a typo on page 2, Finding #5. Sherwood noted there will be some changes and amendments based on tonight's discussion. Thayer seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Sepler asked that the Planning Commission prepare a letter regarding the stormwater discussion for the Council as an appendix to the minutes. Robison noted he will summarize the important questions, but that the minutes should reflect the major points of discussion. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1995 Page 7 · · · . . The City Council hearing will be scheduled after certain mitigation requirements are met, and the Draft PUDA is complete. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. Regulatory Reform Robison discussed the memo distributed to Commissioners regarding state regulatory reform legislation and the impact this will have on the City's decision-making process. He noted that by April 1, 1996, the City will be limited to one decision-making body and that all building and land use applications must have complet¢ all phases of review and decision within 120 days from the date of submittal. He said that the legislation is aimed toward large cities and is a great burden on smaller jurisdictions, because of the need to redesign the entire application process and the associated city code sections. He added that staff is now working on Port Townsend's process and will probably designate an overall hearing board which will consist of a combination of members from various present commissions (Shorelines, HPC, Planning). The Land Use Committee of the City Council will be working on the process and he urged any Planning Commission members who would like to have input in the process to become involved through that committee. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The meeting scheduled for July 27, 1995 has been cancelled. The next meeting will be held on August 10, 1995. VII. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Dam ck~T Pam Kolacy Administrative Assistant Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1995 Page 8 · · · '.. r MEMORANDUM Date: 7/12/95 To: Judy Surber, Madrona Planning and Development Services et.a!. Subject: Lynnesfield Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Application No. 9494-10 While not wishing to "micro-manage" this project, I think that given the serious consequences of a potential problems with the proposed ground and storm water management system it is helpful for the planning commission and city council to understand the proposal as best we can. I also recognize that several safeguards (monitoring, re-assessing after a certain density, etc.) have been written into both SEPA and the Conditions. Please re-assure us as to the following questions and concerns, in no particular order: 1 ) Have actual elevations been shot of the area of the proposed detention pond, the intake/outflow of the 12' pipe to Happy Valley Wetlands, and the hump going over to the Townsend Meadows Wetland, and the lowest point of the Townsend Meadows Wetland: or is the engineeering firm going solely off the topo map? 2) The detention pond is shown in our Exhibit I pg. 2 as having a pond bottom of "existing ground", with built up 4: 1 slope berms. That implies that the topsoil would not be removed. I've understood that detention ponds must have clay or clay like materials as both bottom and sides, or the water will simply move through! the topsoil. Please clarify the construction of the pond and berms. Also, isn't a fence required around an attractive nuisance like that, especially so close to multi-family housing and tots? 3) In SEPA, on pg. 5 it is stated that "water tends to travel laterally across the site to the wetlands off-site to the east" and on pg. 9 that "(a)fter biofiltration, detention, and settling, the water would be released via a 12 inch pipe to the adjacent Happy Valley Wetland. Ultimately, all water will reach the Townsend Meadows wetland' (emphasis mine). Yet in the SEPA mitigations (No. 13) efforts are made to prevent such water from reaching the Townsend Meadows, or if it Ails exceeds the Happy Valley capacity an either/or scenario for overflow from the Happy Valley Wetland is set up, requiring either an eight to ten inch overflow to the 18 inch main in 43rd. St. OR "controlled diversion of the outfall from the project's detention ponds into the Townsend Meadow Wetland (provided that this would be consistent with the results of the monitoring program, and the applicant is able to secure a drainage release from the Port Townsend School District)." PCO~~M Cop\ed to - Although I realize that we cannot as planning commissioners change the SEPA conditions set in the MONS, it is very troubling to me that both of the .'/' above "solutions" to the potential overflow of the Happy Valley Wetland are NOT assured. The 18" line in 43 5t. remains a sewer line until the city actually builds the proposed 30' new sewer line. None of our documents show that the Port Townsend School District has in fact agreed to sign a drainage release. Although these are both just contisencies in the event that the on site pond and Happy Valley Wetland aren't handling the water as planned, and the city will refuse to issue building permits until the problem is resolved, neither option is in place and available for a quick fix should this problem be not discovered in advance as a result of the monitoring program but rather in the form of water spreading into 43rd 5t. and the neighbors' backyards during a storm. Also, shouldn't a drainage release also be secured from the owner of the Happy Valley Wetlands? 4) What standard was used in determining the two year storm overflow instead of requiring on site holding capacity for water from the twenty five year storm? And if that overflow is to be directed to the Townsend Meadows Wetland as is stated in SEPA mitigation No.9, does that mean it bypasses Happy Valley Wetland? How? Again, has a drainage release been promised from the school district and the owner of the Happy Valley wetland? 5) The streets have one drainage swale: which side of the street is it on? 6) I was told that the reason that the trails must have an eight foot wide "hard surface" is for barrier free access. What ADA requirements, if any, is the applicant bound by? Is there consistency in accessibility? No point in hard surfacing if there is no way to get the wheelchair or baby stroller across the curb or the drainage swale.... 6) Is Fire Chief Scott willing to accept another street ofF49th as secondary emergency access instead of 43rd, which we all agree isn't feasible? It may take some time for Jackman to connect to the dream listeasUwest street. 7) With the various phases proposed for infrastructure, is it clear enough to the applicant that appropriate emergency vehicle access must be provided for each phase? For instance, if phase C goes in after A and 8, where is the T turnaround or hammerhead on Jackman, if.. 0 is not completed as well? Thanks for your consideration and patience with these concerns. rift ,~~ . .