Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07311997 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND . PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting July 31, 1997 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 10, 1997 III. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER Joseph Finney IV. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail V. OLD BUSINESS A. Application by Glen Norcross and Neil Cavette to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map (LUP97-0oo33) 1. Staff Report, (Bruce Freeland) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings August 14, 1997 Assisted Living Concepts, Planned Unit Development Application #LUP97-00040 (Boles/Erickson) August 28, 1997 (Pope Marine Park Building not available on this date) VIII. ADJOURN .. ~... · · · -. .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting July 31, 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, and Craig Johnson. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland and City Attorney Tim McMahan. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of July 10, 1997, as written and amended was made by Boles and seconded by Sherwood. All were in favor. III. lNTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER Introduction of Joseph Finnie was delayed. IV. COMMUNlCA nONS: Current Mail ~ A letter received today from Lillian Small, owner of Block 178. ~ Entire new chapters of Title 17 and Title 18. ~ Memorandum inviting the Commission to discussion of Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit concerns August 6, 1997, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. It was noted Lisa Enarson will represent the Commission on the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee of the City Council. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Application by Glen Norcross and Neil Cavette to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map (LUP97-00033) Chair Thayer stated for the record that Neil Cavette had been a client for an agent in her office, although not personally her client. She asked if there were any objections to her participation in the hearing. No objections were expressed. Johnson, said that prior to his appointment to the Planning Commission he had conversation with Mr. Cavette on the subject, with no depth. No objection was expressed to Johnson's participation. Boles asked to recuse himself in the appearance of fairness, and was excused from the remainder of the meeting. Copied to Couno:l1 9/9/77 S'S · · · Planning Commission July 31, 1997 Page 2 1. Staff Report, Bruce Freeland Freeland discussed the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map, pointing out that State law makes provision for amendment once per year. He stated since this is the first year after adoption, the whole process will not be done now. He outlined the future process noting opportunity for private individuals to request zoning changes. Freeland indicated this private request before the Planning Commission is the only one that has been received, and the only amendment to be considered this year. The application consists of Blocks 177 and 178 of the Eisenbeis Addition lying between 13th and 15th and between Rosecrans and McClellan and asks that the current density ofR-IV be changed to R-III. He stated that R-Ill is a somewhat lower density and allows multiple family as well as single family development; R-IV minimum density excludes single family residences. He went on to explain that the issues surrounding designating properties with these densities were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 1996, as shown in excerpts ofthe minutes ofthat meeting (Attachment D). He indicated it appears there was a shift from an earlier meeting, and that a major choice was made on May 8, 1996, regarding designation of density for that particular neighborhood. A critical factor was R-IV, higher density, for blocks that were vacant and R-III designation for blocks with some development. Freeland then recounted the criteria for assessing Comprehensive Plan Amendments and responded to those criteria. Criteria for Assessing Comprehensive Plan Amendments: I. Is growth faster or slower than anticipated? Freeland--It is too soon determine. 2. Has the capacity to provide services diminished or increased? Freeland--Service issues in this neighborhood still remain, i.e. poor drainage and low water pressure. 3. Is there sufficient land zoned within the city to meet projected demand and needs? Freeland--Yes. More was designated than needed so as not to have an inflationary impact. 4. Were the assumptions upon which the plan was based invalid? Freeland--Some development had been vested on Block 177, between 14th and 15th; a Building Permit was pending at the time. 5. Have there been changes in community-wide attitudes? Freeland--Planning Commission will need to make a determination from supporting letters and documents. 6. Have there been sufficient changes to cause an amendment? Freeland-- There have been changed circumstances. A single family home has been built on a double lot of Block 177. Block 178 is vested with infrastructure development on adjacent property which anticipates shared costs. 7. Are there inconsistencies between City and County Plans? Freeland--Not applicable. · · · Planning Commission July 31, 1997 Page 3 Conclusions were discussed for Blocks 177 and 178 and Freeland gave the following recommendations: Staff Recommendation. Block 177 Change from RIV to RIII should be granted. Staff Recommendation. Block 178 Conforms to other designations and; ~ Should be denied; or ~ Commission alternately determine a significant change in circumstances with installation of infrastructure in McClellan and amend the Land Use Map and Zoning for the half block (lots 1 through 4) fronting on McClellan. Chair Thayer opened the hearing to Planning Commission questions. Planning Commission Questions: Q. Enarson: Description of the Proposal on Page 1 states that 4 lots of Block 177 are owned by Glen Norcross and 4 lots owned by the DeLeo family, but on page 3, it states, "The owner of Block 177, Glen Norcross, has begun the development of the block as a single family housing development." Do we have something from the DeLeo's that they support this? A. Freeland: Yes, DeLeos co-signed the application. Q. Enarson: The letter from applicants Cavette and Norcross, Attachment H, states, "What we are asking is that the maximum density of 24 units per acre remain, but the minimum density of 17 be eliminated, thus allowing this area the same flexibility as all other zones within the city." How does this relate to this application for a rezone to RIll? A. Freeland: The application came in as a change of reclassification from RIV to RIll; the supportive letter seems to address other avenues of getting the relief that is desired. Freeland said he and City Attorney McMahan met with the applicants to clarify the confusion. He also said the time to bring up a broader policy change regarding minimum densities would be at the time of the annual Comprehensive Plan review next year. Q. Johnson: Said he was confused by the terminology ofthe letter. A. Freeland: Said they met with the applicant because of the confusion. He stated that Cavette and Norcross signed the formal application and paid their fees to request a change of classification from RIV to RIll. The Chair opened the hearing to the public: Chair Thayer asked those who signed the roster requesting to speak, if they swear and affirm the testimony they were about to give is true, which was affirmed by Neil Cavette, Glen Norcross, and Carol Mihalow. · · · Planning Commission July 31, 1997 Page 4 Applicant Testimony Glen Norcross He said he was out of state when this was changed to RIV. He expressed difficulty at discussing this matter, because his attorneys said not to talk to anybody, but he indicated there needs to be clarification. He commented that nobody he knows faults Freeland or his staff. He went on to say that when the Planning Commission or Council make broad changes, some things are not considered, and spoke of how these changes affected the entire neighborhood. He referred to emergency action and rezoning that needed to be done very quickly for funding and to comply with the Growth Management Act, but alleged nobody knew it happened. He said he asked neighbors why someone had not gotten an injunction. He went on to say he knows everybody has tried to make the issue known, but it was relatively ineffective, or someone would have known. Norcross said he owns the first four lots and was pressed to buy the back four lots. He said that he really believes, if the City is going to make this change, he could build high density, but voiced, "You can't change rules in the middle of the game. A lot of people are affected by this." He said they could build apartment buildings, but he feels it is not good for the neighborhood; it is a good residential neighborhood. He recommended that if the City makes zoning changes, City Council go through the normal procedures. He alleged that people of the neighborhood were not represented; that it is a question of ethics and procedures. Questions: Q. Erickson: Asked if they were wanting to build high density? Á. Norcross. Said they had discussed a variance, but were told it would be easier to request a rezone to RIll. He indicated he was informed there was a good chance of getting RIll, but little chance of getting it back to RI. Applicant Testimony (continued): Neil Cavette made two points of clarification: ~ He is not the actual owner of Block 178; the owner is Lillian Small from Victoria. Cavette said he has been negotiating for about two years to put this together; he was going to build on the property before it was rezoned and it all went by the wayside. ~ Infrastructure is not now in but will be in within the next two weeks. He said all of these neighbors present represent their concerns. Public Testimony in favor: Carol Mihalow, 1307 Rosecrans. Property owner on the edge of Rosecrans; she has a Rosecrans address but does not front on Rosecrans. She owns two parcels that she and her grandmother bought in 1990. She claimed · · · Planning Commission July 31,1997 Page 5 she did not want the density, and that nothing will be built on one parcel of her land. She said the price of land has increased three times. She complained about inadequate services, that the inadequate water pressure had been the same for 7 years, and that for 6 years she had been charged double for a haul out fee. She indicated her two parcels are level with everybody's except on Rosecrans where she has railroad ties up against the bank, and said she did not wish to have other people's drainage. She said she doesn't have money to deal with problems of more people, and noted her property taxes had continued to increase. She indicated she did not know regarding the threshold of determination, but she does not want a lot of noise and sewage problems. She remarked she owns a business here, but would probably be driven out of town. Jeaane Willis-Long, 1303 Hancock. (Hancock and 13th.) Swore and affirmed the testimony she was about to give was true. She said she knew nothing about apartments until now; if apartments are to be built, she will be looking at apartments. She said the water pressure is nothing compared to what it could be; they were told it would be rectified when they bought the property in 1994. She said apartments would increase the problem of the muddy road on Hancock, and they are not happy with the situation. Mona Steffire, 1347 Hancock (Jeaane Willis-Long's neighbor) Swore and affirmed the testimony she was about to give was true. She said the street is no longer dead end, that she had been advised there would be single family homes and she also spoke of the impact of water pressure. She said this is not fair to people and questioned who is at fault, real estate people? James Davis, 1431 Sherman Swore and affirmed the testimony he was about to give was true. He asked what is the targeted clientele for apartments? Low income, elderly? He noted it is a good neighborhood, and he does not want to see that. He spoke of the water pressure, the wash out of 14th Street and that since 1966 it has basically been a swamp. He indicated the little work done on 14th and McPherson diverted the water down to them. He spoke of their money used for traffic and that it was not good, and for storm drains and that little or noting has been done for critical situations. He noted family dwellings and said he cannot see why they should change. He said these are issues that should be addressed before any density increase. Milton Powers, 1430 Sherman, across from Jim Davis Swore and affirmed the testimony he was about to give was true. Spoke of the run off from last winter's storms that they never had that problem before and declared it was because of houses being built above them. He said the street is inadequate for children, and now they are adding population. He said it requires infrastructure first. · · · Planning Commission July 31, 1997 Page 6 Gale Durham, 1236 Logan (corner of 13th and Logan; Rosecrans in rear) Swore and affirmed the testimony he was about to give was true. He said he is concerned with increased traffic; they would like it to stay single family. Chair Thayer closed the hearing to the public. 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Chair Thayer explained they understand people's concerns. She said the Planning Commissioners are all volunteers and they worked on the new Comprehensive Plan, hours and hours over a year's time. She indicated they gave as much information to the newspaper as they could, and tried to get public input; some of their decisions changed because of public input. Enarson pointed out the Comprehensive Plan process started in 1993 with the community 2020 Coffee Hours and that affordable housing was one issue discussed. During February 1996 there were televised workshops and they again heard of need for multi-family housing. She said the Planning Commission then held eight public hearings, had seven meetings 5 - 7 hours per night, and on four Saturdays. She reminded that citizens also have a responsibility. Assumptipns ~ Enarson said there is information they did not know. She recommend changing Block 177 from RIV to RIlL Sherwood reiterated that they did not have all the information. She said until she read the letter from Lillian Small, she thought it was fair, but now it seems it may have not been dealt with fairly. Erickson asked if Ms. Small came in for a rezone a year ago. Freeland said he thinks they felt it was RI. Infrastructure ~ Thayer asked about the water pressure in the area. Freeland responded there is a cap for low water pressure in that area. Erickson asked if that should have affected their deliberations when they zoned the area. Freeland said fire flow pressure should be met. Erickson asked if a developer can be required to meet the water pressure, and Freeland said that can be a requirement of the developer. He said there are a number of deficiencies in those areas. Erickson asked about the feasibility of infrastructure in the future and said one reason they went for high density there, is the whole block was undeveloped. She said there are not a lot of blocks in Tier I. If you have a lot of water pressure problems, it might be too costly. Sufficient land zoned ~ Erickson referred to Page 3, RIV -- 21 acres, and asked, "As we eliminate areas, are we still going to be left with enough?" · · · Planning Commission July 31, 1997 Page 7 Block 177 MOTION SECOND VOTE Block 178 MOTION Sherwood Recommend that change from RIV to RIll be granted in Block 177 Erickson Unanimous, 5 in favor Sherwood Recommend that change from RIV to RIll be granted in Block 178 SECOND Johnson Discussion: Change some conclusions per criteria: ~ Capacity to provide services. Sherwood and Erickson expressed concerns. Thayer: How can a developer rectify this? Freeland: Might have to expand a water main. Multi-family might be able to afford it better. Erickson: Might not afford infrastructure with single family. Sherwood: Could be better with RIll. ~ Sufficient land zoned. Thayer: Are there any multi-family permits? Freeland: There is a pending project on San Juan Avenue -- Assisted Living. ~ Invalid assumptions. Enarson: Infrastructure not installed -- change to "scheduled to be installed." Assumptions were slightly flawed; O.K. to change as long as other assumptions remain in effect. VOTE Unanimous, 5 in favor Changes: Page 1 Page 2 Page 5 Page 6 Delete the last sentence in paragraph 2 and change wording in the previous sentence to: ". . . would like to complete the development of the block with single family homes pending the sale oflots 1,2, 7, and 8 to Mr. Norcross." Change spelling of minuets to "minutes" in both the last line and the 7th line from the bottom. Criteria 3: Eliminate the second "has" in Line 1 to read: "Has sufficient land been. . " Conclusions Block 177: Change #2 last line from have been "know" to "have been known. " Conclusions Block 178: Strike paragraph 1 and renumber the remaining paragraphs. Change line 1 of existing paragraph 2 to read, "There was unknown information about water pressure and drainage in Block 178 at the time when it was reviewed. ." Change Conclusion 3 to read, ". . .that single family infrastructure is scheduled to be installed. . ." . . . Planning Commission July 31, 1997 Page 8 VI. NEW BUSINESS Freeland noted that Staff got ahead of itself regarding the Assisted Living Concepts, Planned Unit Development Application #LUP97 -00040 scheduled for deliberation August 14. He said the applicant is requesting three units to add to their development at Haines and Discovery, but they do not yet have a permit. Under the old zoning code, the Planning Commission needs to determine if it is a major or minor amendment, and, if major, conduct a public hearing. He noted Staff assumed it to be major and made public notice for August 14, but if determined to be minor the Commission can cancel it as a public hearing. He said they can take public comment if they wish. Erickson indicated she may not be present for the August 14 meeting. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings i\ugust 14. 1997 Assisted Living Concepts, Planned Unit Development Application #LUP97-00040 (Boles/ Erickson) August 28. 1997 (Pope Marine Park Building not available on this date.) VIII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Enarson and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. (1~ .I, ~ L ~ indy Thayer, Chair ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Guest List fJ?/lA/A/J.AlG CO#~/S5/òAl J¿¡¿v 3~ /997 I . Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Address Name (please print) /3éJ) H-ttV\c<!)c/c::. x X Go..: Q ))Jf1J lø<.4 ~ vi V xc- . ,f ..,.:.Vl(l./\/V'YL <"'--1--' .