Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08141997 Min Ag · e e; CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting August 14, 1997 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 31, 1997 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Assisted Living Concepts, Conditional Use Permit #LUP97-00040 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report, (Randall) Public Testimony Commission Report (Boles/Erickson) Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings August 28, 1997 (Pope Marine Park Building not available on this date) September 11, 1997 September 25, 1997 VII. ADJOURN . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting August 14, 1997 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Pope Marine Park Building by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson, Lois Sherwood, John Boles, Craig Johnson and Joseph Finnie. Staff member present was Jeff Randall. Chair Thayer introduced new Commissioner Joseph Finnie. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of July 31, 1997, as written and amended was made by Boles and seconded by Enarson. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail ~ Notification of American Planning Association Audio Conference Training Series. ~ Chair Thayer pointed out that up to approximately 6 months ago the Commission was receiving copies of City Council Minutes. She asked that be resumed; Jeff Randall will make that request for the Commission. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Assisted Living Concepts, Conditional Use Permit #LUP97-00040 Randall advised that the first item of business is to determine if this first amendment constitutes a substantial or non-substantial change. He went on to explain Assisted Living Concepts is a Planned Unit Development for the purpose of building a single-story 36-unit assisted living care facility, approved last year; construction start was Spring of 1997 and construction is still underway. Randall commented that originally in their environmental review, Assisted Living Concepts noted they had plans to add three units, and that they left room in their design for those additional three single units. He said Assisted Living Concepts has now proposed adding the three units during the construction phase, requiring a Planned Unit Development Agreement (PUDA) amendment of what has already been recorded. He noted the PUDA was approved under the old zoning code, and therefore it is up to the Planning Commission to determine if the change is substantial or non- substantial. . . . \ Planning Commission August 14, 1997 Page 2 Randall said that although the amendment to add the three units appears to be minor, since it will not be significantly observable, the overall project was allowed to exceed the original density of the RI zone. The additional units will add further density. The BCD recommends that it be determined a substantial change, and the public hearing be held. The hearing has been duly noticed. MOTION Find this a substantial alteration, and continue with the public hearing Enarson SECOND Johnson Discussion: Enarson noted she felt uncomfortable having both this vote and the hearing within the same meeting. VOTE Unanimous, 5 in favor 1. Staff Report (Randall) Randall said the proposal, for all intents and purposes, has not changed. To remain unchanged -- ~ Amount of parking (estimated 1 % of tenants drive; no additional staff; 18 spaces planned are already in excess of the minimum requirement) ~ Drainage plan ~ F or the most part, the same building footprint Staff recommends approval of the three additional units. Letter from neighbors, Bud and Sunnie VanDerVorst -- concern regarding the screened sidewalk abutting their property: Site plan (Exhibit A) shows a shaded, 5-foot sidewalk to connect to the bus stop. ~ Developer has proposed and discussed with the VanDerVorsts a new design (Exhibit G) to bring the sidewalk directly from the bus stop with a switch back going down to the access of the parking area directly across from the front door of the facility. ~ Public Works has no problem, if there is wheelchair access. ~ Developer has indicated they will meet all ADA specifications. ~ Does not appear to be a problem with the landscape plan. Randall distributed a revised draft of Findings and Conclusions which accommodates the VanDerVorst concerns and adds Conclusion 6 to reflect the new sidewalk location. . . . Planning Commission August 14, 1997 Page 3 Boles asked if Exhibit G is referenced; Randall pointed out Exhibit G is referenced in Findings of Fact 4. The Commission took time to read through the changes in Randall's revised draft. Ouestions: Q. Enarson: Applauded the spirit of cooperation between the participants. The conditions of this PUDA were voted on before the City Council adoption of engineering design standards, which require sidewalks to be built along the right-of-way. Is this why we can have this option in Exhibit G? A. Randall: The only reference to the sidewalk, from the bus stop to the facility, in the PUDA basically says the developer will install a sidewalk parallel alongside Discovery Road and a sidewalk for access from the facility will be constructed from the bus stop to the front of the facility. We don't need to go back and modifY it. Q. Enarson: Believe the current standards require a sidewalk along the street. A. Randall: They are putting a sidewalk along the entire frontage of Discovery Road. Q. Boles: The statement that the developer estimates that 1 % of the residents operate vehicles -- there is no condition to that; we do not know that? We don't have any condition or clear specification of movement other than the occupants, i.e. staff coming and going? A. Randall: Staff does not know. Q. Thayer: Asked if under Conclusion 3C, why it states it is affordable housing if it is not subsidized housing? A. Randall: The applicant can clarifY. 2. Public Testimony Gerald Rehn, Rehn + Skorheim, Agents for Assisted Living Concepts Swore and affirmed the testimony he was about to give was true. Affordable housing: Because of his lack of involvement in this aspect of the project, he was unsure concerning the reference to subsidized housing, but he indicated the type of construction is being done in areas not really expensive, e.g. Bellevue, etc. He said a certain percentage of occupancy would include MedicareIMedicaid residents and this facility would probably fall between the low-income and mid-income range. Building footprint: He stated Assisted Living Concepts is building 200 to 300 across the United States and indicated they are a developer for Assisted Living Concepts and are only doing six within the Northwest. He said the actual footprint is the same for 39 units as it would be for 36, that the area within the facility is open space and they are asking to work some of that area into the additional three units; nothing is changed in the way you will see it. . . . Planning Commission August 14, 1997 Page 4 Parking will remain the same; they don't anticipate an increase in resident parking, nor an increase in staff, and do not anticipate any difference in traffic. He said data indicates the average across the United States, is about 1% of residents have cars. He noted they have provided more parking than required and declared there is more area available for parking. VanDerVorst concern and perception of the area. Assisted Living Concepts responded by moving the sidewalk to the front of building and increasing landscaping in its original place. Q. Boles: Exhibit A. Asked if the area proposed for the additional three units was intended to be open to the outside? A. Rehn: It was never intended to be open to the outside. He said this closed area assists residents who veer off and cannot find their way. They can access from the hallway to the courtyard. Q. Boles: Estimate of 1%. Do you have any data based on the performance from your other facilities -- family member visits. A. Rehn: He said there is that data available, but he did not have it with him. He indicated the average resident is approximately 87 years old. Parking by family visitors -- at different parts of the day, the parking lot is pretty empty. In making comparisons, he said he believed the code allowed 200, or 20 single family residences; traffic is significantly less. Bud VanDerVorst, 415 26th Street Swore and affirmed the testimony he was about to give was true. Their home backs up to the facility. He said he wanders through the construction site, and he said he can say where the hallways and doorways are and that there is access for everybody into the inner courtyard. He said there are exits going outside, an exit door but not readily available for the elderly to wander out and get lost. He went on to say the neighbors as a whole are in agreement with the project. The additional three units, based on his experience having had an elderly person in such a facility, will not increase traffic in any significant manner. He said as a neighbor to this facility, he is all for it; go for the three units and get on with the project. He said he was in total objection to have the sidewalk run down his back yard and wrote the letter to the City. The firm sent their representative; he came through his house (their living space is in the rear) saw where the sidewalk would be right along across their windows, and they came up with new plan, which he is all for and will not affect the project in any way. He thinks the new sidewalk location is also better for the people; they will exit the sidewalk right across the front door, rather than having to go way across the parking lot as required previously. As a resident, he wants the sidewalk changed if at all possible, but also feels it is a good project for the City. He said those three units are not going to have a significant impact. . . . Planning Commission August 14, 1997 Page 5 George Avis Swore and affirmed the testimony he was about to give was true. Spoke in support of applicant. He noted the cry of need for an assisted living facility throughout his tenure of 7-112 years as Administrator at Kah Tai Care Center and subsequently 2 years as manager of Discovery View Senior Apartments. He stated the additional three units are welcome and appropriate, and the construction time is ideal to add them, that the space is needed. Sunnie VanDerVorst Swore and affirmed the testimony she was about to give was true. She said the parking spaces are primarily designed behind their lot and the lot immediately adjacent to it, Lot 6 and Lot 5. She said because of the level of the parking area which is sunk down significantly below the level of their property, and because of the landscaping that the developer has been very accommodating in providing to adequately screen them, she does not feel the coming and going will make an appreciable impact on them. 3. Commission Report (BolesÆrickson) Boles spoke of the issue of the sidewalk, an issue that came up after their deliberations. He applauded the developer on how they worked it out with everybody. Boles spoke of his understanding of chronically ill people. He focused his remarks on two issues: ~ The side of the building on which the three units are proposed was to be open, and that seemed to be more in the spirit of a residential area, an open space where people do things, either in the center part or had access to walk around the facility. He said these three residences will clearly take that option away. ~ It exceeds the density. He has a problem, that when you call people's attention you don't have assurance of the things they are talking about -- we don't know what the traffic impact will be. Weare just hearing that it is a better facility than if it were single family houses, but it is greater density on paper. He mentioned those who had spoken reflecting their sense of the spirit of the proposal and were not opposed to it, but he said he feels it should remain at 36 until they see the effect. He said he is not persuaded that ample room is available for needed parking in the future; he would hate to see that become a large enclosed building with asphalt around it. He said his position is that they should stay with the original proposal, that it may be possible in the future. He said he felt in the first place it was a borderline proposal with regard to density. . . . Planning Commission August 14, 1997 Page 6 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Enarson: Did not agree with Boles regarding parking; under the code she was not sure they have that justification since they are providing 18 spaces for a requirement of 13. She said she appreciated Boles' concern regarding open space and expressed her uncertainty in terms of the drainage on the east side of the building in relation to open space She said since the building footprint remains unchanged, she is in favor of the change. Boles: Pointed out it was stated there is no additional impact, but traffic is a concern. Thayer: Said she tends to agree with Enarson, to allow the three additional units since it will not change the building footprint. Regarding the provision of affordable housing for the elderly, and the desperate need for affordable housing for the elderly -- she said she has seen copies of Assisted Living Concepts brochures and there is nothing for subsidized housing which she said was presented to them originally. She requested removing the reference to "affordable" housing. She replied to a question from Boles that she felt to change wording to housing for the elderly or assisted care for the elderly is fine. She says she feels they are giving a perception that is not the case. Enarson: Did not remember it proposed as subsidized housing, but did recall it as affordable housing. She said in their discussion they were thinking of it as lower income housing. She said they could strike the phrase "affordable housing" but she did not think it would change anything regarding the cost of building the facility. Thayer: It is the perception, and sometimes these things are presented as affordable and she feels they need to be careful about using that term. She said she is absolutely not opposed to the project, that it is very much needed in Port Townsend, but feels the terminology is offensive. She replied to Boles that ~he sees affordable housing as being below a certain level, rather than as subsidized. Thayer: Suggested, Conclusion 3C -- Strike "affordable housing" to read "suitable housing". She asked regarding reference in Findings of Fact 3 to the VanDerVorsts feeling regarding the sidewalk. It was determined the statement provided history, and it was determined to leave it as written. MOTION Enarson Planning Commission recommend approval of the First Amendment to Assisted Living Concepts PUDA (LUP97-00040) as revised August 14th with small revisions: 1) Page 4, Conclusion 3C, strike "affordable"; 2) Findings of Fact 3 last line, delete "a" to read "indicated the developers. . . " SECOND Johnson Discussion: Enarson- With the addition of these three units, Staff did say it would not have a significant impact on traffic; we should take into account that all these people may not . Planning Commission August 14, 1997 Page 7 drive. Boles said for the record, his main concern is they don't know, that it is someone's opinion and on that basis is uncomfortable proceeding until they see how the initial project turns out. Boles suggested adding Exhibit G to Conclusion 6. MOTION AMENDED to include: 3) Conclusion 6 amended to read, "... should be modified by the Developer to retlect the new approved sidewalk location (Exhibit G). . . ." VOTE 4 in favor; Boles opposed V. NEW BUSINESS There was none. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings August 28. 1997 (pope Marine Park Building not available on this date) September 4. 1997. 7:00 p.m. Recreation Center Land Use revision workshop. . September 25. 1997 VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Enarson and seconded by Boles. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:15 p.m. ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker . ~. . e· Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Guest List fJ¿AA/#//V(; C(J~1/tf155111/r /)afPC/,'7r I~ /991 Name (please print) Address T A~timonv? YF~ ~ ,--"--' .--~,,- - -- ~. . ,.....",':;..¡:.';';"'"---" ---;--...:......-- --- - .__.-.~~"""