Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06291995 Min Ag , · · · . City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Revised) Business Meeting June 29, 1995 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 8, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Campbell Construction, Lynnesfield Planned Unit Development (9404-10) 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report (Surber) Public Testimony Committee Report (Erickson/Enarson) Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Third Amendment to the Port Townsend Business Park Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) 1. Staff Report (Surber) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings July 13. 1995 July 27. 1995 Queen of Angels School, Conditional Use Permit Application #9505-04 (Thayer/Erickson) VII. ADJOURN ,Jtity of Port Townsend " Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 · · · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 29, 1995 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:04 PM by Chair Pro-Tem Karen Erickson. Other members in attendance were Ernie Baird, Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson, Cindy Thayer, Ian Keith and Mark Welch. Lois Sherwood was excused. Staff members present were Judy Surber, Dave Robison, Tim McMahan and Sheila Spears. Ernie Baird announced his resignation from the Commission, effective 7/15/95, because he is running for Port Commissioner. The Commission wished him good luck and said he will be missed . II. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of June 8, 1995, was made by Thayer and seconded by Keith. The minutes were approved as written. III. COMMUNICATIONS A letter dated 6/26/95 from William Dentzel reo the Campbell PUD was distributed to Commission members and was entered as Addendum to Exhibit O. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Campbell Construction, Lynnesfield Planned Unit Development (9404-10) Cindy Thayer disclosed that as a real estate professional she has sold two houses built by the applicant but that she has never represented the seller. She stated that she felt she could objectively sit on the hearing board. A member of the audience, John Wohlhaupter, disagreed. City Attorney Tim McMahan agreed that Thayer represented the buyer and explained the relationship between the agent, buyer and seller. Thayer remained on the hearing board. 1. Staff Report (Surber) Surber described the applicant's proposal for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and explained PUD I s, including variations from zoning ordinances and subdivision codes. The proposed development consists of 34 multi-family units and 66 single-family units constructed on a 23 acre site. The lots would be privately owned with certain shared land held in · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1995 Page Two common. About 2.5 acres (11 %) of the site would be devoted to active recreational uses (e.g., trails, playfield) and 3.5 acres (15%) to passive open space (including the stormwater detention pond). Surber distributed "Revised Project Take-Offs" which was entered as Exhibit O. The property is located in the central valley of Port Townsend on unplatted and undeveloped land. It is approximately 1/2 mile south. of the Jackman Street/49th Street intersection, 1/2 mile west of San Juan Avenue, southwest of the Jefferson County Fairgrounds in the. City of Port Townsend. The applicant has submitted a petition dated 12/21/94 to amend the zoning map with a PUD overlay zone and for preliminary plat approval. Development would be constructed in phases over a period of 10 years. Clearing of the site would begin as soon as possible. The multi-family units and a stormwater detentiòn pond are to be constructed in the first phase with anticipated completion in 1996. In the following phases, the applicant proposes to construct an average of 10 single-family units and associated infrastructure each year. Total buildout is projected for the year 2005. In response to the question of who owns the Happy Valley wetlands, Robison said he believes it is owned by the Happy Valley PUD. It is not owned by the City. He doesn't know who is responsible for the pond as it was done a long time ago before new environmental regulations. In response to the question of why the Commission is presented with a conceptual plan only, Surber explained it is too expensive at this time of the process. They have complied with all the basics and they have been reviewed by the City. It is quite likely that during the permit process there could be some recommended changes or requirements. The preliminary engineering studies indicate the conceptual plan will work. New nuances will be worked into the final design. 2. Public Testimony A video of the proposal site was shown and Rick Sepler described the scenes on the video. The applicant's representative, Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning & Development Services, stated that the documents and plans submitted are conceptual in name only and the project proposal is very well developed and thorough, not only in theory; it is down to the actual minor construction details. He acknowledged that the site is special to the community, neighborhood and the applicant, and gave an overview of how they arrived at the proposed PUD. The site was looked at in its context with the neighborhood. This was done before any program, design or any specific solution was considered. It is very close to the new school. The City's Comprehensive Plan (most notably the land use and housing elements) · · · , . , .' Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1995 Page Three was reviewed for consistency with the proposal. This is the urban growth area at this point, and can be expected to accommodate development and city services are available. Trail use is preserved and open space far exceeds any minimum criteria in the state. There is 25 % open space which is a lasting contribution to the community. The density in PUD' s is usually greater than what they are proposing. The plans were revised after concerns were raised by the public. Air quality in the area is a concern and no wood burning apparatus' will be permitted. The resulting project does address specifically an existing need for housing in the community as noted in many documents. Sepler stated that Campbell is a local builder who has been building in the area for many years. Sepler made one correction to the staff report. The topo map indicated a greater slope than there actually is. He circulated a map which describes the revised topo. The corrected contour map was entered as Exhibit R. He explained that the error was a mechanical reproduction error. As noted in the SEP A checklist, there are slopes of up to 22 % on the site. Mostly the hillside is 15 %. The applicant has agreed to revise the configuration of lots at the south end of Holcomb Street because of the error in the topo map. Sepler made an additional correction to the SEP A staff report reo the distance from structures or utilities in which trees can be removed. He said they support the staff report and recommendations. Sepler said he would be happy to answer questions and reserved the right to comment on concerns which are subsequently identified in public testimony. Questions and concerns expressed by the Commission include: 1) an explanation of the 15% slope; 2) does the proponent intend to clear at the beginning of the project (Sepler confirmed that paths will not be cleared out until needed for each construction phase); 3) correction needed in CC&R' s as to the distance from buildings and utilities in which trees may not be removed (15 feet); 4) an explanation of getting permission from arborist for cutting a tree; 4) what is a tot-lot (play area for toddlers that don't go to school, focused play for pre-school age); and 5) it appears that a good part of the southern part of the site does not drain toward the proposed storm pond, how is it arranged that the runoff goes into the stormwater pond (there is no uncontrolled drainage on the site, topo review of the profiles and proposed drainage facilities would direct the runoff to the pond). Sepler said there is a community concern that the wetland would be starved of water. The water level of subsurface and surface water can be measured and documented. In addition, the surface water level of the Happy Valley pond can be measured. The applicant proposes to monitor water levels over a three year period. Experts and the City Engineer have said that the number of units permitted during the 3-year study would not impact the wetland. The on--site detention pond not only will be designed to accommodate the entire site at the outset, it is being designed to include an additional 18 acres. A SEPA addendum could be required upon completion of the 3-year study if it is needed. · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1995 Page Four The applicant, Joe Campbell, spoke in favor of the proposal. He said that he and his wife have lived and built in the area for 21 years. He builds affordable homes for a living. This project was started by his father-in-law 16 years ago. He also bought the Happy Valley PUD section. His father-in-law constructed the pond that is presently there and which has been used over the past 10-15 years. Campbell stated that he built 10 houses in his best year and this project will be done in phases. This enables him to build a low income end, a higher end and apartments in the middle. He does not intend to sell undeveloped lots, but may possibly sell an apartment site. Other than that, he plans to sell each lot with a house already on it. Campbell explained that it is difficult to acquire buildable land inside the city limits that is close to recreation and utilities. This site is in close proximity to parks, trails, schools, water and sewer. City staff has reviewed this proposal for a long period of time and is in agreement with the proposal. Every issue has been addressed. The drainage plan will serve as a regional facility. Campbell said that he has never been out of work since arriving in this community and building homes is his existence. He wants to prove himself by continuing with this project. Those speaking in favor of the proposal were: Ed Hawley, George Thomas and Phil Arnold. The points they wished to make were: 1) Campbell's reputation is good; 2) he has complied with every regulation; 3) he is an honest man; 4) this is a good development proposal; and 5) Campbell is a hard-working contractor. Those speaking in opposition to the proposal were: Catherine Kane, Dennis Cooper, Cindy Brown, John Jones, Alan Youse and John Wohlhaupter. Recurring comments and concerns include: 1) flooding and ongoing drainage problems; 2) what protection if renters do not obey the CC&R's and existing houses are flooded in 3 years; 3) wants the city stormwater plan in effect before this project is approved; 4) there are 5-6 houses shown on the topo map located inside the natural flow of water that goes to Chinese Gardens, are provisions being made to provide for them; 5) topo map is not up to date; 6) the drainage for the nearby new school will be monitored for the next 5 years, this project should not be approved until after that study is completed; 7) speculative approach to building; 8)wants a moratorium on developing this site until the school's 5 year study is completed, so that drainage and air quality can be studied; 8) the air pollution will be worse; 9) opposed to the 43rd Street alternative fire access and additional traffic; 10) two houses constructed in the past 10 years by the applicant are of shoddy workmanship; 11) there are already too many homes on the market; 12) San Juan is already heavily used by cars and dump trucks, and the 25 mph speed limit is not observed; 13) concern that there will be loud diesel trucks running on San Juan Avenue for the next 10 years; 14) wants the applicant to take responsibility for existing homes that may be flooded in the future; 15) this proposal is only one of four large projects being considered by the City at this time, there will be dramatic changes if everything is approved that is proposed; 16) A petition bearing 400 signatures has been submitted in opposition to this project; 17) if access is created for emergency vehicles, how do you keep people off of it; 18) wants partial reforestation after the development is completed; 19) requirement that all landscaping require low water maintenance and Only natural species of plantlife allowed; 19) · · · Planning Commission· Minutes June 29, 1995 Page Five does the City have enough water; 20) RV lot should be designed to protect against pollution; 21) proximity to wetland; 22) leave the trees on the trails; 23) only native trees and wildlife around and in the pond; 24) burning at the construction site; and 25) is there some kind of filtration that goes to the wetlànd. Catherine Kane entered Exhibit S showing where her house is located. Sepler responded to the comments by saying that careful reading of the SEP A will show that many if not all concerns have been addressed. The moratorium is not appropriate at this time. The applicant did not propose access from 43rd and 45th Streets. The transportation study was based upon a standardized use pattern and has also been used by the City for its needs on San Juan Avenue. It has always been the intention of the developer to contribute a fair share to the San Juan Avenue street improvements. Testimony at the SEPA meeting was given by a number of very happy people who own Campbell homes. The runoff water will be extensively treated in the biofiltration swales. 3. Committee Report (EricksonlEnarson) Enarson stated that all of the Commissioners have visited the site. She said she sympathizes with opponents of the project and understands their concerns. The process has gone well and the petition was appreciated. The SEP A mitigations addressed the concerns of the petitioners. Enarson said that her experience on the Capital Facilities Committee is that growth is coming and you cannot simply stop growth but can try to manage it and mitigate its impacts. In those communities that have tried to stop growth the price of housing has skyrocketed. We don't have a lot of platted lots that are easily built upon. She said that stormwater issues have not been fully resolved and wants the Planning Commission to postpone making a conclusion. She also expressed concern that the fire access should be delineated more clearly. Enarson described that if platted sites to the west· of the site were allowed to be built upon by several different contractors and the houses each created less than 2,000 square feet of impervious surfaces there would be no protections against clear-cutting, drainage problems, no protection from wood smoke and no requirement for fair share contributions for San Juan Avenue improvements. There could be no open spaces, trails and playgrounds. The City would have to maintain the streets. She said she supports the proposal in general but has serious concerns about stormwater and feels it has not been fully addressed. Erickson stated that most of her concerns had been addressed in the SEP A. She said that the housing maps have been updated that were in the Commission packets and that more street trees are being planted than will be taken out. She has no concerns about the trees that are being removed, and said she is hopeful that all the trees in the 8 foot wide pathway could be preserved. The pathway doesn't necessarily have to be straight. Erickson asked how the CC&R's are enforceable. · · · " . Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1995 Page Six Tim McMahan, City Attorney, said that CC&R's are potentially enforceable by the City if a provision is made in them. Each property owner can be held accountable for overall assessments, he has seen that in other CC&R' s. The City could retain some enforcing as far as private infrastructure being developed. The City doesn't necessarily want to police the development. The City only wants teeth, but not too much intervention because we may then have to manage the whole development. Robison pointed out that we have conditions reo the infrastructure through the SEP A determination, as well as the PUD which are also repeated in the CC&R' s. Per the SEP A determination if there are flooding impacts, the developer can be made responsible. Baird asked if the liability follows the ownership of the property. McMahan explained that during the term of development the contractor is liable but after the lots are sold he is not. Thayer added that as the development proceeds the builder will still have an interest in that development so he will be partially liable until complete buildout. We need some method of protection when the developer is finally out of the picture. Robison pointed out that it is important to realize that at time of the 46th building permit we will be re-evaluating the impacts. If impacts occur before construction of the 46th house, we will look at the situation earlier. He displayed a picture showing all of the structures within the City anä said there are not very many places where there are large open parcels, so we are getting incremental development. With incremental development we are not really doing comprehensive infrastructure development. With incremental development, infrastructure will have to be addressed at some later date. With this proposal we are looking at a very large parcel and building the infrastructure into it. There will be adequate services and a guarantee of open space, etc. It is a trade off with growth. Thayer added that a majority of Port Townsend was platted 100 years ago. It was platted without taking into consideration topography. She said it would be better if Port Townsend had been planned along lines like this proposal. She would like to see more of this type of development rather than what is existing. Welch stated that since Port Townsend was platted long ago without consideration being given for topography and swamps, the fact that this particular site was not platted originally does not indicate that it was a swamp. Baird said that it seems like a lot of thought has been given to collecting stormwater on site and if 43rd and Haines Street residents already have flooding, how much do we know now about the general context in which this is happening. The existing problem may be exacerbated - do we have enough of a handle on stormwater in this drainage basin to know that the stormwater proposal is workable here. · · · . ." . Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1995 Page Seven Robison explained that the Land Use Committee and WETSW AC over the past two years have been working on storm water management. This is a great challenge in. the future and presently. He explained the direction the City is trying to take in the areas of poor soils so that impacts do not go throughout the neighborhood. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Baird asked if we could say, with any kind of certainty, what the effects of this collection pond would be on the downslope property. Robison responded that the Commission needs to hear from the City Engineer and the consultants who prepared the study. He said this is the best studied site of any that has come before the City to date. Sepler stated that they share the concerns of the neighborhood and that impacts offsite will not exist during the first 45 homes. He said that according to the experts many of the neighborhood problems are not coming from the project. Andy Grahn, Associate Planner with Madrona Planning & Development Services, offered that she assisted in the preparation of this application and that one of the functions of the storm water plan is that it needs to accommodate more than the existing flow on the property. The system has been oversized greatly. Enarson asked why emergency over-flow was allowed for two year storm event instead of 25 years. The Planning Commission wants more information from Public Works about where the water is coming from and how do they see it in relation to this project. Also there are a number of small issues to talk about. One of the considerations to be l()oked at is that the developer runs the risk of being accused of being the cause of existing flooding problems. Other concerns that need to be addressed are clarification of fire and emergency access, and five years for all infrastructure requirements. McMahan clarified that prior to final plat approval either all the infrastructure needs to be established or it can be bonded. This is in the subdivision statute. Motion to continue this hearing to 7/13/95 was made by Enarson and seconded by Thayer. All were in favor. Issues not raised at this meeting can be raised at the continued hearing. B. Third Amendment to the Port Townsend Business Park Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) · ~. ~~ , Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1995 Page Eight 1. Staff Report (Surber) Surber described the amendment to postpone improvements to State Route 20/Sims Way to avoid construction during the peak tourist season. The required highway improvements would be completed prior to the rainy season. 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions The Commission clarified that this only involves the schedule, not City participation in improvements. Motion to approve the third amendment to the Port Townsend Business Park Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) was made by Thayer and seconded by Baird. All were in favor. VI. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS The Queen of Angels School, Conditional Use Permit Application #9505-04 which was scheduled for 7/27/95 has been postponed until further notice. The applicant has requested · time to address concerns raised by public comments. Enarson announced that she most likely will be out of the area at the time of the 7/27/95 meeting. · VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Thayer and seconded by Baird. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 13 PM. ~/~ Sheila Spears . Community Development Assistant - ,>'"~ " . Guest List Meeting of: PI. A4A/tfI/A/rJ CONAf/55'/OQ Purpose: snú/J pat) Date: r;,--- - - Name {please print Address o Iµþ vV~ \.l:1" '1 (..\ A \µ'E:.( 'I J ~ \-\AV\-O-'J M\"1 c ( ~LL. v . t../' v ~ ( ( r ( g~(, ~ "("If) .......fd.V J' ~ ~3Ç. ~ 4-3 v ¿...-- L/' .