Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03121998 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 19, 1998 February 26, 1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Annual Comprehensive Plan Process March 12, 1998 1. Commissioners' suggestions for Comprehensive Plan amendments V. NEW BUSINESS B. Lloyd "Joe" Campbell Second Amendment to the Lynnesfield PUDA (LUP98-01) 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings March 26, 1998 April 9, 1998 April 30, 1998 VII. ADJOURN - . . . f' \\' ,,¡ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting March 12, 1998 1. 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, and John Boles. Commissioner Craig Johnson was excused. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland and JefIRandall. I ( ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MoHon to approve the minutes of February 19, 1998, as written and corrected was made by Boles and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor. MoHon to approve the minutes of February 26, 1998, as presented was made by Sherwood and-seconded by Enar-son. All were in fav{}r. I III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail A-survey addressed to the Chair to be completed and returned the LoealDovemment Institute concerning environmental issues. The survey will be copied for Planning Commission In,emberinput. IV. OLD BUSINESS - A. Annual Comprehensive Plan Process I 1. Commissioners' suggestions for Comprehensive Plan amendments - Consensus: - T-he Planning Commission bas nø substantive-'£hange8 tø the-CGlB:pFehens-ive Plan at this time. Boles expressed interest in the Glen Cove Study. Freeland said he will give a presentation on Glen Cove later; the County Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for adoption within approximately 1 month. V. NEW BUSINESS ( A. Lloyd "Joe" Campbell Second Amendment to the Lynnsfield PUDA (LUP98-0 1) Chair T¿yer recused herself and left, turning the meeting over to Chair Pro Tern Enarson who . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1998 Page 2 declared discussion could continue with the quorum of fo present. 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) Randall noted the Lynnsfield Planned Unit Develo ment (PUD) included a multi-family component on five of the lots, and the PUD specified that 4 multi-family dwelling units could be built and spread among those five lots. Mr. Campbell feels 6-plexes are not as marketable at this time in this location. Campbell proposes to create three additional lots in the same area, so that rather than four remaining vacant lots, he would have six remaining vacant lots, and he also proposes that 4-plexes could be built on each one of those lots. Randall noted this proposed PUD amendment would be under the old zoning code provisions. He indicated the Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not this amendment is a substantial change and if a public hearing is required. Staff analysis show there are not going to be any additional dwelling units than already allowed, but they are broken into more structures. Randall said the building set back and lot coverage for these lots was not specified in the PUD, and he said BCD Director Freeland made an interpretation to give some standards for such things as set back and applied the R-III multi- family standards, which Mr. Campbell agreed to and signed in a Memorandum of interpretation dated August 30, 1997. Randall went on to say 4-plexes of the size proposed by Mr. Campbell, 40 x 60 foot structures, could be built on all the lots, would meet the applicable set backs and would not exceed the allowable lot coverage. The density would remain the same. He said the infrastructure is in the ground; some additional utility easements across the front of a couple of the lots would need to be reserved to extend to the new lots. Randall said Public Works has indicated this is not a problem, that the additional stub-outs can be provided with the building permits, that the Service Development Charges are not paid until the building permits come in, and the stormwater facility has already been dealt with. He said BCD also has no problem with the proposal, that it seems to meet all the standards. Commission questions: Q Sherwood stated there will be more impervious surface and asked if there will be an analysis in terms of the level of storm water control? A Freeland replied he did not think the total building footprint is bigger. Randall said the stormwater run-off goes basically to the open space, and also explained there would not be driveways because parking would be on the street. Q Boles asked how this changes parking. A Randall circulated a drawing noting parking is on-street, that the required 51 parking spaces are provided for. Freeland noted the parking is unusual; it is perpendicular to the street. He pointed out parking was approved in the original PUDA. . .' . Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1~98 Page 3 Chair Pro Tem Enarson opened the meeting to the Pubiic and asked those commenting to swear and affirm the truth of their comments. Lloyd "Joe" Campbell--120 Curtiss, Port Hadlock -Swore and affinned-the comments-he-was abOtlt to give were true-to the-best of his ability. Mr. Campbell spoke of the good staff report and explained that the esthetics would be - better with single--family àwelling~. He said àrainage was-designed by-Clark and is sufflcientfor 1-1/2 times the area, that they take drainage ÍÌ"om the top of the hill and surrounding areas, including the San Juan A-venue side. He indicated the -drainage has been in for almost 2 -years and the impervious surfaces for almost 1 year; Public Works has made an inspection and the -¡xmd -levels are adequate. Mr. Campbell -said no more impervious sUlface i-s being--created and there is no more land area. Donald Grtiz-43{)3 Jackman Street Swore and affirmed the comments he was about to give were true to the best of his abiiity. He-said-he-boughHhe lastheuse befor-e the LynnsfIeld development; at the time he had thought it was a pretty private area. He said he just put his house up for sale, hoping he can sell .... .his-heuse befurethe rest of thedev-eleJmlent-gees.:up. He -expressed-concem for J*ifking in front of the 4-plexes, and asked where people would work on their cars. He also had concern for traffic, that it is a no-outlet street. He spoke of traffic Îrom the fairground, lots of children Îrom Blue Heron School and from the trail, of -safety and ther-e not beingcmsswalks. Chair Enarson closed public comment. 2; -Commission Discussion and-Conclusions Chair Enarson suggested calling for a consensus and whether to continue their discussion. -It was determined they would not have net mueh control over paFking at this time, the smaller buildings would be more appropriate, and the overall density would not be altered. Consensus: There is no substantive change in the amendment; proceed with tonight's discussion. Enarson: The only reason that the Planning Commission determines if the amendment is substantive is under the old Title 17; assume criteria is current, or should it also have been under the old Title 17? . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1998 Page 4 Freeland: Said he did not believe there were specific criteria, that the Old Title 17 relied on the -Planning--Commissioo. Enarson: The criteria we are given would be SEPA, etc.? . Randall: Basic-subdivision bndsof things. You aTe right on with your questions: services stormwater run-off, traffic, compatibility with the neighborhood, etc. Botes: Thought it would be appropriate to add, "This was submitted and approved on (give date), and therefore comes under. . . ." Randall: Will add. MOTION Sherwood The Planning Commission fmds no substantial alteration to the PUDA and recommends approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Second Amendment to the Lynnsfield PUDA (LUP98-01) as amended. SECOND Erickson Discussion: Amendments to the motion were discussed and approved by the maker of the motion and second. Amendments: ~ Title to be added to Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ~ Add to the end of Conclusion 3, ". . . nor will this create additional impervious surfaces." ~ Add to Conclusion 5, "Such revisions will be recorded with the County." VOTE: Unanimous, 4 in favor, 0 opposed VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings March 26. 1998--canceled April 9. 1998 April 30. 1998 Boles asked regarding RCW 42.36.090 - Participation of Challenged Member of Decision-making Body, and that member continuing to participate in proceedings. Freeland explained it as the Doctrine of Necessity and it only applies when you have trouble making a quorum, that the Doctrine of Necessity is greater than the Appearance of Fairness. He said the principle is that the government's failure to provide a set of decision makers shoWd not prevent someone from getting their action decided by that government. He said there is an option to ask an applicant if they wish a continuance. There was a short discussion of recusal vs. challenge. VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Boles and seconded by Sherwood. All were in . . . Planning Commission Minutes - March 12, 1998 Page 5 favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. &~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker v~ £, alAt>t1 Lisa Enarson, Chair Pro Tem . . . Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Guest List ßI1IV;1/ I/V G Có ;7jÆ1/5j/o/f,/ M/f/2c/-I k,l ¡qqf' I Name I,~..e ,'In"~ I Address I T:;~Tn~~ I ~ðZ (! ~~Vv'\.~ bL.l \ \ZD w-{-\ ~ S+ \ ?~t~! I t S~ '""f}/l- (~ ".--r- i 2- If < CI -<:, --rA, ý)fi'I A <;:.r :X, ,...j ! i J ~ I.... L .1