Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10101996 Min Ag let . -e CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Amended) Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting October 10, 1996 1. ROL'¡' CALL IT. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 26, 1996 ITI. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail N. OLD BUSINESS A. Assisted Living Concepts, PUD/Conditional Use Permit #LUP96-00040 1. Staff Report, (Tim Woolett) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Welch/Boles) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Rosewind PUDA Scheduling V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 17, 1996 Special Hearing on Phase I Development Regulations (parking, fences & hedges, home occupations) October 24, 1996 Planning Commission special meeting to consider the public testimony and formulate findings and conclusions and recommendations fòr a decision by City Council regarding parking, fences and hedges, and home occupation ordinances. October 31, 1996 Planning Commission Workshop on Phase I Development Regulations (if needed) VIT. ADJOURN __._c:i' ..- . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting October 10, 1996 I. ROLL CALL IT. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 26, 1996 lIT. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail N. OLD BUSINESS A. Assisted Living Concepts, PUD/Conditional Use Permit #LUP96-00040 1. Staff Report, (Tim Woolett) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Welch/Boles) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 17, 1996 Special Hearing on Phase I Development Regulations (parking, fences & hedges, home occupations) October 24, 1996 Special Meeting to formulate findings and conclusions and recommendations for a decision by City Council regarding parking, fences and hedges, home occupations October 31, J 996 Joint City CounciVPlanning Commission Workshop on Phase IT Development Regulations VIT. ADJOURN " · · · . .j; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting October to, 1996 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.. by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Linda Clifton, Mark Welch, Cindy Thayer and John Boles. Karen Erickson was excused. Staff members present were Dave Robison, and Tim Woolett. II. AFPROV AL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of September 26, 1996, as written and amended was made by Enarson and seconded by Clifton. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Assisted Living Concepts, PUD/Conditional Use Permit #LUP96-00040 1. Staff Report (Tim Woolett) W oolett introduced the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and associated Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which is proposed to be located within an R-I Zone and subject to the 1981 City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. He said the City is requesting enhanced landscaping and buffering. He indicated the property slopes downward to the east, and that a preliminary stormwater management plan has been reviewed by Public Works and found acceptable. He noted a correction in Finding #14, line 3, to add the word tall, to read çç. . . thirty (30) feet tall. . ."; and a proposed change top of Page 8 to read Ç'development is anticipated to be carried out. . ." He said Staff recommends that the PUD/CUP be granted as conditioned. Sherwood asked if there is any special handicapped parking requirement for this type facility? W oolett said they will impose it if required. Enarson noted a discrepancy in the 119% impervious surface. Woolett also noted it. Thayer stated regarding Recommendation # 17, "become void if the applicant fails to obtain building permit and/or occupancy. . ." that a building permit and occupancy are two different things. Robison recommended deleting the reference to occupancy. Welch asked if widening Discovery Road had been taken into consideration. Robison said it will currently remain a 2-lane road. ., · · · ", Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Page 2 Enarson stated Recommendation #6 would require one off-street parking space for each 3 units which would total 12 parking spaces. She noted the proposed development provides 18. Robison said the site plan will take precedence which will provide a surplus of parking spaces. There was discussion related to parking requirements of units vs. room in various references. Robison said the parking code is antiquated, that references should be the same as what the parking code uses. Boles spoke of a 5% grade on the property and asked what elevations will be on that property. Woolett indicated that is not yet clearly defined. Boles asked regarding calculations; Woolett said they take into consideration access on Haines Street. There was discussion regarding food preparation vs. delivery of food. Applicant Representative: Mr. Gerald Rehm introduced Architect Forrest Shannon with Kirkwood Architects. Mr. Shannon gave the background of Assisted Living Concepts facilities and care provided, stating it was started in 1994, by Dr. Karen Wilson. He said they have a number of facilities in the State of Oregon, that their mission is to provide for moderate and low income elderly. He said to date they have over 50 facilities across the country, and by the end of 1996 they expect to have tOO facilities, targeting smaller to mid-sized communities. They provide assisted living with meals and help with daily functions such as bathing, personal care, hair dressing, laundry, and cleaning. Services are customized to individual residents, from those who are independent to those needing more services. The average age is 86 years old and best described as frail elderly who don't move very fast and don't get around very easily. He said they often stay within protection areas; some may be early Alzheimer residents. This provides a safe place, not a prison. The proposed building has 36 resident units, roughly 20% are I-bedroom units (no 2- bedroom), the rest are studios. They include bath, sleeping and kitchenette (microwave only). Residents typically do not prepare full meals; there is a common dining room and a common living room downstairs. Statistics show only 1% own a car; and those who do own a car don't drive far, very often. The front portion faces Discovery Road; back wings are residences. There is room for expansion. Construction is wood frame, composition roofing, vinyl siding, and vinyl single- hung windows. Exterior paint choices are cream, light green, or light grey. Welch asked regarding external accesses for residents. Mr. Shannon said they have only emergency access. Enarson asked for the east profile of the structure. Mr. Shannon said from Discovery it is cut fairly steep to create a large flat building then slopes down to 6 to 7 feet above ground. A portion of the 30' front ridge is higher, to screen from the street. The dining room and living room have cathedral ceilings. Ceiling heights are 8' throughout that portion. · · · " Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Page 3 Boles asked regarding the height in back. Mr. Shannon said the building will be flat, 22' slope, then a cut. Boles asked about the elevation in back. Mr. Shannon said approximately 22' to 23'. Sherwood asked if there are delivery trucks for food preparation. Mr.. Shannon said their facilities typically have one food delivery per week plus a couple others for service. Boles asked for clarification regarding staff Mr. Shannon replied, typically there are 16 to 18 staff. He said the largest is day shift, that they anticipate 6 to 9 in the day time. Boles asked if there are shift changes at night. Mr. Shannon said the shifts are staggered, but he is not sure of the of the timing of the shifts. Boles asked if the density is too high: have they considered anything else. Mr. Shannon said no, they use one overall design for savings. Clifton asked if they have a facility constructed nearby. Mr. Shannon said they have several in Portland, and that there is one under construction in Bremerton. Boles asked if they have concept designs. 2. Public Testimony Ms. Jane Rebelowski, 24th Street. Requested during construction they limit access for construction equipment and workers to Discovery Road only, and, if at all possible, do not use Haines Street as an access. She said overall she is happy with the proposal. Mr. Bud V anderV orst, 26th Street. He said the proposed sidewalk is up to the edge of his property, and asked, "What will they expect of me?" He spoke regarding auto traffic into the facility itself; every auto that comes in and turns, the headlights go into his house. He said they have reverse living (in back) and requested a visual barrier for the lights, noting the effect of the use of deciduous trees for a barrier when the leaves are gone. He said he would like to see it guaranteed that everything that is planted is old enough to give barrier. He said he has no problem with the use of property. Ms. Linnea Patrick, 26th Street. This is optimum use of this area of anything she has heard. She noted concerns for privacy and quite and asked regarding night shift employees using the gravel road, especially between 11 :00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. She spoke of privacy barriers, that she had expected to see a hedge or fence. She said she has really strong privacy issues, and reiterated concern for nighttime noise, that she does not wish to see that happen. Mr. Dana Roberts thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to supplement his statements already filed. He said staff comments are reasonable. He spoke about lighting and related screening, the berm along Discovery. He asked that they think about some creative planting. He recommended to Staff they encourage use of native species, that do not take as much water for exøtic plants, and use run-off to help water the landscaping. He spoke about · · · " Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Page 4 comments of his August 19th letter regarding impervious surface and suggested there are two techniques that should be examined further: paving scheme and materials. He said they should encourage a possible condition, the use of permeable paving techniques on any of the hard surface ground level material. He suggested they consider the stormwater retention pond as a landscape and wildlife asset rather than a water garbage can. Suggested a sitting room where residents can watch the wildlife. He spoke about the reference to removal of existing small shrubs, etc. and encouraging in the landscaping plan what might be retained. He suggested they give careful thought to a planting inventory that might be retained. He suggested looking for larger tree species, not a full height now to complement the building mass, and give encouragement to think long term and select materials species that would get to some size. He referred to the song bird population and creation of habitat that can be an encouragement and improve quality oflife. He noted the building mass and coverage footprint and asked ifthere is any consideration for residential staff to be housed on the upper floor. He said the target population is commendable. He said he really appreciates the exterior illumination which would not prohibit seeing the stars. He said that individual and group socialization and community involvement, to whatever extent they can, provide an edible garden, and that flowers be considered in developing the landscape plan. Ms. Candice CosIer, 26th and Haines, spoke about the peaceful neighborhood and said of all, this is a good option. She stated concern for access to Haines Street, for staff use, that it is close to residential properties. She asked if it would be possible to move parking to the back of building. She stated plantings need to be evergreen and of some size, that there could be wonderful use of native plantings. She asked about stormwater retention, that normally it is a fenced area. She said a courtyard could be good use of space with edible plantings. She asked about where the sidewalk is adjoining, the high traffic and poor visibility. She noted their basement is underwater four months out of the year, and that they might consider that problem. Mr. Mitch Poling, around comer on Landes. He asked if this is the first time the applicants have put their facilities in a residential area? He said they will be changing the neighborhood from R- I; it will change the place. He said he is curious about safety and fire. How can people get out that are too old? He asked the impact on the tax rolls, that it would bring in $3 million if they were houses. Sherwood replied they do not allow that in their consideration. Mr. Poling said the project will change the neighborhood. Chair SherWood closed Public Testimony. 3. Committee Report (W elchIBoles ) Welch thanked everyone for their effort and the public for their input. He noted the effect on the neighborhood, that it is a good opportunity to work with the neighborhood. He said he would like a condition that neighbors be consulted without veto power especially in : · · · " Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Page 5 cooperation with staff to develop landscaping. He spoke about the gravel access road, and said he would like to see grasscrete, or less impervious surface, or at least be limited to emergency access only -- reducing impervious surface wherever possible. Berming for landscape amenities where possible is also appealing. He said otherwise the project is in compliance and within the intent of the comprehensive plan and a real benefit to the community. It is good for both the neighborhood and people living there, and provides a mix of uses. Boles noted two concerns, the bulk and size of the building in the community and movement of residents. He indicated the slope made an uphill climb for people to leave from the entrance or terrace in back. He said he is not clear how to put a building that size on a flat surface. He stated it could be barrier to old people and is not persuaded people would be sedentary at an average age of 86 people. He said they have to look at this as a neighborhood unit, and they have to have some place to go and some place to move around. He said he is concerned with density and other ways to accomplish open space. He suggested having one end of the building be opened or H shaped. He expressed another concern -- screening, and on the south side, a 6', 10' to 12' greenbelt buffer in the service area of the road being knocked apart by service trucks. He suggested consideration be given to putting a parking lot in back. He said his final concern is a requirement for a sidewalk on Discovery. He said his first strategy for walking would be go out to Haines Street. Clifton spoke of access to the bus and a for a breath of air. Boles replied, then they have to consider the concerns of the neighborhood regarding access to Haines when walking. Thayer spoke about what people that age do for exercise. She noted this project is for people who need assistance, but that the area will allow people to be more independent than a nursing home, and said there is a lot of value to the project. She said as far as traffic, she doesn't foresee a lot of traffic and doesn't think those issues are that great. She spoke about buffering and landscaping and said she likes the idea ofberming, and evergreens for winter. Thayer said the way she interpreted it, where there is walking it will be level. She said there probably will be steps or some sort of slope going up to the walkway on Discovery. Boles asked regarding parking and traffic flow for just employees, etc. and asked if there is not adequate parking on-site where would they park? He noted there is no alternate parking in the vicinity. Robinson explained if they needed additional parking, they could expand on-site. Sherwood said she liked limiting construction access to entrance and exit off Discovery. She encouraged careful placement of parking lot lights and native plants. She spoke about community involvement and meeting neighborhood needs, especially for headlights. She indicated the facility serves a definite need in community. Welch said he would like to add a condition to limit the gravel road off Haines Street to emergency access. Robison suggested a condition to limit the road to emergency access. <' . . . " Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Page 6 Welch spoke of Conditions #9 and # 10, the landscaping plan, having some verbiage wherever possible beyond native and drought resistant species, if feasible and possible, incorporate reduction in impervious surface and increase in habitat and wildlife. Sherwood asked if they wished some kind of survivorship for landscaping. Robison said they could discuss mature species, evergreen, and drought tolerant in consultation with the neighborhood. He said they could be put in as performance stanqards under Condition #9. Enarson said she would like to be more tolerant. Welch said it should be up to the Planning Director. Robison suggested setting a meeting with the landscaper and neighbors to review the draft landscape plan. Enarson indicated she did not want to micro manage the project and the discussion was to leave it to the Planning Director to determine the neighborhood and process. Enarson spoke about the vagueness of comments regarding limiting impervious surfaces, and the expense of grasscrete. Thayer noted this is a low income project. Welch suggested reducing impervious surfaces and changing the roadway for emergency acCess. Robison said the Planning Commission can direct Staff to contact the Fire Department to reduce the emergency access to 10' to 12' . Robison asked for clarification about landscaping the detention pond. Enarson said the detention pond needs to be landscaped for safety and for wildlife. Thayer said she would like to make that a condition of approval. Enarson said there are many qualified people who could assist with the process. Enarson said she does not agree with all exiting off Discovery Road rather than Haines Street during construction because of the cost. Thayer asked if access is limited from Discovery, would it be a big problem during construction? The proponents said it would not be impossible. Enarson said she would like to maintain some area for walking out to Haines and said that not all plantings should be required to be native. She had concerns regarding Recommendation #11 and recommended it be stricken. She said Conditions #3 and #4 address those issues very specifically. Robison said the intent of Condition #3 is also covered under the Uniform Building Code and could be stricken. The Planning Commission all agreed to delete Recommendation #11. Clifton asked if they needed a reference to this predating the new Comprehensive Plan? She said it is also much in spirit of the new Comp Plan, for mixed use, low income, special facilities for special needs, and more of the neighborhood character. She said she thinks it is going to be really well done. Enarson asked why Recommendation # 18K is needed, and what do the special conditions mean? Robison replied under SEPA the review is broader and it becomes more specific as they go through the permit process. , .'.,. · · · . " Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Page 7 MOTION Recommend approval of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. 36-Unit Assisted-Living Care Facility Application No. LUP96-00040 as amended and conditioned Welch SECOND Boles Discussion: Robison said Staff will review Condition #9 with the members of the Review Committee before passing it on to the City Council. VOTE: Unanimous: 6 in favor, 0 opposed. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Sherwood asked and discussion followed regarding barbed wire and electric fences, in 17.36.040, th~t they decided to scratch barbed wire and electric fences. Thayer asked if they are going to get a new packet before the October 17 meeting. Robison said it is in tonight's packet and they would have this change attached to it. Enarson said they did not take the issue of grandfathering. It was noted there will be opportunity to modify. Boles asked regarding the meeting Monday 9:00 to 3:00 p.m. Robison suggested they come for what they can. The Joint Meeting with the City Council has been canceled. B. Rosewind PUDA Scheduling Robison said they are looking at moving one of the setbacks 10 feet closer to the trail that goes through. He said it looks like a minor change, but he does not have authority to make these changes. It was scheduled for October 24, 1996. V. NEW BUSINESS Robison spoke about the Pre-hearing Conference for the appeal of the Comprehensive Plan, and that they feel very confident. He said they received a letter from the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development where they talked about the hard work the Planning Commission did over past year or two. He said this conference will narrow the scope of what the Hearings Board is looking for. He said Toews indexed 514 documents, documenting our public process so at least it cannot be said the City had a limited public process. .. .~ . · · · . ." Planning Commission Minutes October 1 0, 1996 Page 8 VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 17. 1996 Special Hearing on Phase I Development Regulations (Parking, Fences and Hedges, Home Occupations) October 24. 1996 Planning Commission special meeting to consider the public testimony and formulate findings and conclusions and recommendations for a decision by City Council regarding Parking, Fences and Hedges, and Home Occupation ordinances. VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting wa.s made by Thayer and seconded by Enarson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:30 p.m.. ~ 0' ><f~~ . Lois Sherwood, Chair ~~ Sheila Avis Minute Taker · · · Guest List Meeting of: Purpose: Date: I Name ....... .""" I Address I T~=~iO~~ I L.-- ,/' 4 ~8- ~2- f'\ _'. "'r,*",,",