Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07081999 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting July 8, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: June 24, 1999 V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) VI. Unfinished Business VII. New Business A. Robert Crist, Full Subdivision (LUP98-11) 1. Staff report (Jeff Randall) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Worden/Erickson 3. Commission discussion and conclusions B. Proposed Amendments to Chapter 13.22 PTMC Sewer Connections (LUP99-38) 1. Staff report (Dave Peterson) 2. Public testimony 3. Commission discussion and conclusions VIII. Other Business A. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Draft Supplemental EIS 1. Staff briefing (Bob Leedy) 2. Outline of response process B. Next Scheduled Meetings 1. July 29, 1999 2. August 12, 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (R Densities) 3. August 26, 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (C-III Boundary) IX. Communications X. Adjournment . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: June 24, 1999 V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) VI. Unfinished Business . VII. New Business A. Robert Crist, Full Subdivision (LUP98-11) 1. Staff report (Jeff Randall) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Worden/Erickson 3. Commission discussion and conclusions VIII. Other Business A. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Draft Supplemental EIS 1. Staff briefing (Bob Leedy) 2. Outline of response process B. Next Scheduled Meetings 1. July 29, 1999 2. August 12, 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (R Densities) 3. August 26, 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (C-III Boundary) Ie IX. Communications X. Adjournment July 8, 1999 . ~ . . '. / // CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting July 8, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison, and Len Mandelbaum. Christine Ota was excused and Lois Sherwood unexcused. Staffmembers present were BCD Bob Leedy and Jeff Randall; Public Works Dave Peterson and John Merchant. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the new agenda including Sewer Connections in New Business was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of June 24, 1999 as written and amended was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Harbison. AIl were in favor. V. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES (not related to applications under consideration) Chair Thayer stated that she and BCD Director Leedy attended the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan EIS meeting July 7th, and they would give a report later in the meeting. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Robert Crist, Full Subdivision (LUP98-11) 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) Chair Thayer explained meeting procedures and stated this will be the only open record public hearing and opportunity for the public to speak. She encouraged anyone wishing to comment to do so tonight. Ms. Thayer indicated this will go before the City Council, but as a closed record hearing. . . . -. Planning Commission Minutes July 8. 1999 Page 2 Mr. Randall. Staff Planner, began his report by saying just prior to the public hearing they received a letter from H, Fogg. Chair Thayer will be reading the letter into the record. He discussed Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Planning Commission dated July 8. 1999 and noted the SEPA review was completed June 24, 1999. The review included many mitigations to address potential environmental impacts of the project. Nine letters were received during the comment period, eight from neighboring property owners; most of the Concerns regarded potential impacts to Bell Street which currendy is the only way to get into the eastern portion of Fowler's Park. Cook Avenue and 53rd Street. Mr. Randall stated the Planning Staff is recommending the application as conditioned. He gave an overview of the conditions pointing out the following; CoU,Wtions of Ap,proval #2e Should be ". . , from Magnolia to Thomas Street." #3a To be added, that the stormwater facility should handle the future non-motorized trail through Thomas Street. #13 Alternative alignment. The available right-of-way is Mason Street -- all the City can require is Mason Street. The developer has indicated that as this project is completed, they may choose to only open a temporary gravel road at Mason Street and secure the paving improvements through a bond or escrow that can guarantee the City could build a street if the development failed to put it in. The development of that property has not yet been planned out There may be a more efficient route for the final street to better serve the area; the sewer will need to be run under the street before pavement; at this point there is no need for the sewer to go up there. It may be a gravel road for a period of time, maybe up to 6 years; a bond or escrow would guarantee the pavement will occur no later than 6 years on that street, or alternative alignment. Traffic calming will be worked out with Public Works. Add Condition #18 -- to read, "A no protest agreement to the future formation of an LID for sidewalk improvements along Mason Street shall be recorded with each lot." (In the R-I zone, the Non-Motorized Plan indicates that with lot sizes no smaller than 10.000 sq. ft.. sidewalks could be waived on our streets, but in lieu ofthat they did an LID no protest agreement. ), (Renumber remaining Conditions) New # 19 ~- Some requests were made for covenants; at this time BCD does not have the ability to require going beyond R-I zoning throughout town. Mr. Randall turned the presentatiQn over to Mr, Dave Peterson, City Engineer. Mr. Peterson commented about the long-standing stormwater problem on Seaview and that the City does not want to add to the existing problem. He noted the following concerns; þ, Water flowing down the street at the intersection of 53rd and Cook Avenue. not being caught well in catch basins and running onto some private properties. He pointed out the location of · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8. 1999 Page 3 a high point and the slope of the rest of the development and planned way for flow of the stormwater. that they think they can get the catch basins to catch the water and direct it to end ofthe property, He said evenwally the water flows around through Winona and gets back into the drainage basin, The stormwater plan has not been finalized; however, they have concluded that through the SEP A process and part of the preliminary plat. the City's regulations are strict enough that they can mitigate the problem adequately, He spoke of conditions for further analysis to show that they are not changing the hydrology of the wetland by the stormwater, He explained the city's design standards. and Puget Sound Stormwater Manual both require that, . The trail in E, Caroline Street He pointed to the portion Public Works has proposed to be asphalt paved to provide safety for kids, rather than a black rock trail like some of the trails they have done in other places, . Traffic calming. He noted there are a lot of ways to calm traffic. Planning Commission Ouestions of Staff: Mr. M~ndelb~um; Asked if the southeast wetland is the small wetland that was constructed, not the major wetland, Mr. ~nd~lI; Said there is a pocket of wetlands south of Fowlers Park. that it all ends up in Chinese Gardens~ it is all natural - none is artificial. There is a sewer line that was constructed in that area, a stormwater pond built as part of Fowlers Park on East Sapphire Street, but it is not a natural wetland. Mr. M~ndelb~um; Asked ifthere were SEPA review comments about some ofthe objections people are making here. the impact of the development on the wetlands specifically, Mr. ~nd~lI; Said ba$ically it was stated that the final stormwater plan would provide for quality protection from water that would be entering the wetland, that the hydrology would not be changed~ the amount of water going through that wetland would not be increa$ed. The stormwater plan basically involved constructing a pond at the back of lot 13 that would capture water and would have an overflow pipe. It would be a detention and have treatment occurring in bioswales along Mason Street M~. Th~yer; Asked Staff but said the applicant may want to respond. Understood that lots in Block 47 were required to be sold as 20.000 sq, ft. parcels because of the wetland and buffer to the wetland, She asked if that is the intent in lots 10. 11. 12 and 13 being such large lots? Mr. Rand~lI; Suggested having Mr. Seplar answer that. but that was probably a consideration in not trying to develop Thomas Street~ you would have to d.evelop Thoma$ Street in order to split those lots in half, but you are getting closer to the wetland, The wetland is much closer to lot 47; the wetland buffer may enter into lot 47, Part of the SEPA for that lot said to develop the west half, and leave the east half in natural tree vegetation, MIJ. Th~yer; Mr, Sep1ar may want to address lots 6. 7. 8 and 9 being smaller lots. · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Petel'$Qn: Indicated it was not ~hat they are larger because of a wetland requirement, but becau~e of acçess, Mr. WQrcten; Referenced Mr, Leedy's Amendments to the Environmental Checklist and Threshold Determination and said it includes many items, most significantly the specific design of the stormwater facility, design of paths. walkways and trails which Mr, Randall said will be specified through the preliminary plat approval process, He asked if that isn't what they are doing tonight, the plat approval, and they <lon't yet have those? Mr, Randall; Replied they are phasing this; some of the finer <letails of the engineering plan an~ being put into the street utility development permit proçess. It is normal that ç¡t the preliminary plat stage you have gQod conceptual plans, bµt not <letailed final plans. Some of that work involves going on the site and doing more testing, etc, He said this is consistent with how they normaIIy do it. but it may be he was a little more specific in some details, Mr. WQrden; Asked Mr. Randall for more details about the easement on lot 13 for the detention pond, and how that works for the owner of that lot. Mr, Randall; Replied that was something they brought up wi~h the developers, if they understood that may possibly impact 1/4th or more of that lot, and asked if they were OK with that; that is one reason they offered the use of some portions of Diamond Street, because it is acting as somewhat of a regional stormwater facility, They indicated they felt the lot was large enough and in an area where it could be designed to be an amenity to appear as a wetland. They were not concerned about detracting from the value of the lot. He said Exhibit A, Sheet 4 identifies the proposed easement. a very conceptual eç¡sement line; the final stormwater easement boundaries will be determine<l and shown on the final plat. It is a very large easement. They only need 10.000 sq. ft, to be a buildable lot. and are starting with 20.000 sq. ft. He <lid not see a problem, Mr, W Qrden: Asked if it is the property owner's responsibility for maintaining that; there is a statement in here that individual property owners are responsible for drainage facilities, Mr. RandaU; Agreed that they would have a maintenance agreement with the property owners. Mr. WQrden; Thought they needed to add a requirement in the findings offac~, some~hing to designate that, and that an agreement for maintenance fees be signed, Mr. Ranctall; It will be recorded the plat. He agreed they should be more specific; basically, they are approving a preliminary plat. The concept will be, "A stormwater easement shall be shown on the face of the plat conforming with the final stormwater plan, and a maintenç¡nce agreement for the perpetual maintenance of that stormwater facility shall be recorded with the plat," That probably should be added to Condition #12, The face of the plç¡t shall note stormwater easements. Mr, WQrden; One thing required to be completed at the time of the preliminary plat is that the hydrology analysis demonstrates that the impact on ~he wetland is not significant. Indicated Mr. Peterson stated tonight that he was çonfident that can be done, He was CQncerned that if the hydrQlogy analysis shows it can't be done. and they have already approved the plat. He · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 5 felt he needed assurance the engineering says it can be done Mr. Peterson: We are confident it can be engineered. Maybe they would need more ofthe lot for runoff than is shown; it is typical to have a detention pond with the type of infiltration they need. The question is how big do you have to make those facilities; backup calculations have been requested. He said they potentially might have to consume one of the lots. Mr. RandaJl: The statement that the final stormwater plan has to work, is a condition of the preliminary plat approval. If they can't make it work, they have to come back for a modification. Mr. Worden: Said he was still confused regarding process. If they make a recommendation to approve this, and Council accepts their recommendation, isn't that the approval? Mr. Randall: The preliminary plat is approved, but the final plat can't be recorded until all the conditions of the preliminary plat are satisfied. It would never get to final plat if they can't show they have met the conditions. Replied to questioning that they will add Condition #18 and renumber the remaining. 2. Public Testimony Chair Thayer opened public testimony and asked for the applicant's presentation. Dr. Bob Crist, Port Angeles, Applicant Grew up in Port Townsend in a family of four children. He introduced his sister Beverly who with her husband is a resident of Port Townsend; he also introduced his wife and granddaughter. He explained that their parents acquired this family property in the late 1950's, early 1960's and pointed out infrastructure development gradually took place in the area and subsequent development. He commended Mr. Rick Seplar for his help in planning through the regulatory processes. He said they are gaining some cautious optimism and feel it is a good pròject -- good for the community and for the area, is in keeping and conforms to the pre- existing developments, not doing anything to change the landscape of the area. He felt they are fortunate to have the opportunity. They hope to proceed and have property for sale by early summer, late spring in year 2000. Mr. Rick Seplar, Madrona Planning, Representing the Applicant Mr. Seplar asked the Planning Commission to please support the application as submitted to them with the one exception. They felt competent, that the SEP A was extensive and addressed all pursuant problems, especially development of the site. He said the only concern and difference they have is with the Staff Recommendation, that they believe it is more in character with the community, and asked that Commissioners specifically address paving of that sectiòn of the trail. He said they differ in the sense that they feel an all-weather surface as at the Kah Tai Lagoon could be maintained and would serve the community. · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 6 He said in essence they agree with the initial conditions as proposed this eve~ing and have no trouble supporting them. He clarified the following: ~ Route to 53rd Street. In the view of Transpo, a fairly well-know transportation consultant firm, the functionality of the existing Bell Street adds to this project. That intersection has no warning for change, functions well within the city service standards and serves the community as well as the project. Nonetheless, to address other issues, they have agreed to extend Mason Street to find an alternative source of access to the property, but that extension is not primarily due to this project, but to the number of homes. He indicated their use is approximately 25 percent, but they have agreed to the extension to provide opportunity for the community. They want to thoughtfully evaluate new alignment to better serve the community and the development. ~ Traffic generation. They anticipate an addition of about 20 to 30 vehicle trips per day. That is not a dramatic impact; the road will be provided for that impact. ~ CC&R's. They support the concept of CC&R' s. ~ Stormwater. Drainage will be handled from the site completely southerly. ~ Larger lots. They felt with the character of the area a cui de sac would not be desirable. ~ Storm facility. This is twice the required size; they will attempt to make that a more pleasant place to be. Maintenance is required and will be required of the property owners. He indicated their objective is to make the property itself serve its function, a vested interest of the towns people. ~ Hydrology analysis. He spoke of analyses on other properties in the immediate area and that with intervention, detention can be be accommodated. They feel this pond can be reasonably sized to accommodate that. He said they acknowledge that if the stormwater facility is of such size that reasonable use cannot be accommodated on lot 13, lot 13 will not exist. Mr. Seplar said they believe the proposal as submitted is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. Regarding how this relates to those adjacent properties, this property is designed to be a continuation. It is actually designed to a higher standard, and is being held to the most current standards. He asked to reserve the right to respond to concerns or Issues. At 7:55 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for further public testimony. She read into the record Exhibit F, the H. Fogg letter of July 2, 1999. Mr. Henry Kimball, 2210 Seaview Drive When Mr. Peterson was talking about 53rd Street and stormwater. he said he "thinks." Mr. Kimball pointed to charts and noted his concern, that there are three catchbasins for all of · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 7 the stormwater coming down, going into the area where it dumps onto private land, and eventually finding its way back toward the bank. They find a great deal of erosion because of the stormwater coming back. One of the things they want to ensure in future developments is that they don't have that, until such time as the City corrects that stormline going down 53rd. He said otherwise they will have a continual problem, continual sloughing off the bank at their homes; many of them have continual water coming in their crawl spaces, and they want to alleviate any distressing situation. Mr. Ted Rogers, 2201 Cook Avenue He indicated his primary concern is with straight lines; engineers, cities and developers like to deal with straight lines. He indicated what is proposed is to make a straight line to 53rd, which does not necessarily mean a nice clean intersection. He noted his concern that in a time wben there are not many trees left, there is a nice grove of fir trees there, and this proposed extension will go right through the grove of trees. He pointed out and said to Dr. Crist that he understands he owns that unplatted land, and it seems if he really sets his mind to it, he could come up a non-linear interconnect with 53rd and perhaps develop some very nice lots for the future for his development. He said in Seattle they worked and got some changes, worked with the contours and landscape; he challenged Dr. Crist to make that kind of differentiation here. Mr. Phil Rich, 2300 Seaview Drive He pointed out a triangle on the chart and said that there are about two trees involved. He said it is the spot at the crest of the hilI, where the street comes up to 53rd, that you are only talking about two or three trees that would be involved. Mr. Glen Bagley, 2282 Seaview Drive He stated his concern is that they have so many water problems on Seaview. He said his neighbor two houses over lost an entire tree and 20 feet of bank down to the beach this year, and according to the neighbors, it was due to water on only about 100 feet of street that then pours onto the residences on Seaview. He noted there was some new development that has severe water problems. People can't walk onto their rocks without sinking in because of the water. He indicated it is all going in a circle and not being taken care of It seemed to him that as the project is described, there are too many "maybe's", "in 6 years", etc. that is going to allow more drainage. He pointed out the direction of the drainage and said he would like something to be very specific about no more stormwater damage on these properties on Seaview. Mr. Tom Riley, 2146 Cook Avenue Lives at the intersection of Cook Avenue, 53rd and Seaview Drive. He referenced a letter he wrote March 22, 1999 to the City Manager including color photos of water accumulation over approximately a five-month period and said that letter is on file. He stated · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 8 there is no question about how much water accumula.t~~ th~re, or wher~ the water j~ going aTld wbereitjs~tanding, He~aid tbe water cowing down 53rd Street is supposed to go into çatcbt>a$in~, aTld about 63 perC~Tlt of it does; there is a total of four çatchba$iTls, and after going throughas.~rjes of pipes ~!Opiies OTl the ground, perc()JaljTlg, anq., after go~ng pastþis pmperty, goe~ over the bank. He estiwated that over th~ Past 15 years, they have probabJy lost 8' feet of property, and it wiU get worse. He said the wore that is þµi1:(, tbemwe property win be lost. Mr. Rich Seplar replied On behaJf Qfthe applicant and addressed the following issues; . Stormigsue -- wj: ')ied out the drainage .f'low. Be said aU the drainage jssues for ibis project where the water couJd wtentiaHy gO are on a sQon section of road to 53rd, It was his understand.ing what they proposedaTld agreed iojs to take ihaismaH piece ofr()ad and the impervio~ surface and drain it as he pointed out. He said there wiU be no water frow this project; there wiU be water fr()!O 53rdas js now that wiU exacerbate that issue ever further, and said with great certainty fr()w aU their statistics there is no poteTltial of water from this project goiTlg oyer the hUt It aU dnljnsto a q.ifferent Þasin; they wiU work with the City t() ensure this segment i~ designed iT} a wanner that water is not a proÞJew, He said it i~ not the reswnsiþiJity of this prownent to.tix an existing problem they did not cause, but they win not exacerbate it. . Break in linear. They agree and have requested an alternative alignment in design of Seaview; however, considering the timeframe involved, and the fact this was..a dedicated public right-of-way, they decided to proceed with this, reserve the right to work with Staff and see what they can come up with alignment. They did not wish to hold up pr.ojec1., Discussion ensued: ~r. Tom Riley Questioned the difference between the altitude where this prowsal is being built as opwsed to lots # I or #2. (It was determined to be less than 3 feet) He said there is a good chance of hitting hard pan. Mr. Dave Peterson, Staff Engineer The stormwater plan the applicant prepared was for this part of the development. The requirement for the street came later through SEP A. The applicant is required to amend the stormwater plan to address the run-off as pointed out. He said he understands some hesitation of approving the project before these issues are addressed. If this were prior to April 1997, the City would be concerned too, but they have new engineering design standards they feel adequately protect them. He said one of the requirements now of stormwater plans adopted for the Puget Sound region is you have to control run-off to pre-existing, pre-development rates. He said not to say this would happen, even ifthis were to go that way, it would have to be infiltrated and · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 9 couldn't add any more. It is a requirement of our standards that we can't have any more flow that way. It appears to be 10 feet higher and this water could actually be intercepted in a catchbasin and have the water flow at reverse rate; but they have to demonstrate that. Approval of the stormwater plan is a condition ~of the final approval. He indicated to·fix the existing stormwater problem would take money budgeted for it, but said this project win not add any more water. He addressed bonding; the developer must do a report of how the infrastructure will be installed. One option is a bond; they would have to have an approved schedule of when infrastructure is going in, what is going to trigger it, and how it is going to happen. You have to bond for 125 percent. Within the last three years they have made the bonding requirements stricter. The straight line issue -- another way of traffic calming is to have a curved road. This is the only right-of-way right now, and the city cannot require that. Ms. Erickson: Asked Mr. Peterson to again explain why he feels the need for the asphalt requirement on the pathway on E. Caroline. Mr. Peterson: Replied his opinion is that an asphalt pavement would have a longer life and better safety for kids -- a sure path that is going to last, an off-road safety place for people walking along the street. The black rock trails are good trails; they won't grow weeds as long as we use them. If we have a path through the woods, and weeds grow and narrow the path a little bit, we are OK. Asphalt pavement is going to stay 5' wide longer and make sure we are going to have a safe path for people walking on the street. He said he is looking at longevity and minimizing maintenance. Ms. Erickson: Said to Mr. Peterson he keeps saying safety, and asked if it is safer to have asphalt rather than gravel. or is it more maintenance and will last longer. M~r. Peterson: Affirmed. Ms. Erickson: Responded, then safety isn't the issue; asked if they have to provide maintenance. Mr. Randall: The city proposed a trail maintenance agreement. It is not a condition, and said he is not sure whose maintenance responsibility it is for trails and rights-of-way. Mr. Peterson: He thinks it would be a little hard to have the applicant go back and maintain that trail by the side of the street. There is city code for sidewalks; homeowners or proponents who have sidewalks are required to maintain their sidewalks, and we can go back and have them do that. It is a little more troublesome to do that here. The only safety idea is having it last longer and not be so narrow because the pavement will last longer. Mr. Harbison: Asked if the asphalt pathways sit 1" above grade and have rounded shoulders? Mr. Peterson: The street has to have curbs, so it would be up offthe street 6"; usually a trail or asphalt pathway would be a little above the adjacent grass line, so it is a little bit higher. Mr. Harbison: And the crushed path sits flush? Mr. Peterson: Crushed rock would be constructed at similar elevations. It is just that we see weeds springing up on some of those gravel pathways. . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 10 Ms. Bobbie McMahon, 4750 Magnolia Street Asked that they explain what the Diamond Street path would look like. Mr. Randall replied that basically was a proposal. He said when that map was created tihey did not have design standards~ basically they wilJ be clearing back the vegetation a little bit to create the 5' of path and the standard improvement minimum is 5' of Mats Mats crus~ed rock surface, Magnolia to Thomas Street. : Mr. Jerry Spickerman, Magnolia Street Asked if they are defining that as a primary neighborhood connector or a secondary street. Mr. Randall: It will be the middle one or better. The middle one is basically 4' wide gravel, Mats Mats crushed quarry with I' shoulders on each side, a 6' area with a 4' trail. He also responded to questioning that it is supposed to be within the Diamond Street right-of-way. Ms. Thayer: Affirmed there is a trail there now. Mr. Spickerman expressed his çonCern that if you get too grandiose by doing a favor and getting it a too-well paved road, there are beautiful trees in that area. Mr. Randall: Answered it should not require cutting trees. The trail will be in the right-of-way. Mr. Spickennan: If you look at it, most ofthat trail now is on private property. Mr. Randall: It will be in the right-of-way; it shall not be on private property. Ms. Chris Lo~he), 4734 Magnolia Street Pointed to the chart and asked if this is going to connect all the way through on Mason Street. Mr. Randall stated that the street itself will stop, an asphalt trail will continue -- only emergency vehiçles will pass through there. At 8:25 Chair Thayer closeQ. the Public testimony and called for the Planning Commission Committee Report. 3. Committee Report (W orden/Erickson) Mr. Worden reported he looked at the documents thoroughly and appreciated the good information tonight. He felt the subdivision to be entirely in conformance with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. The density is actually lower than what is allowed by the zoning ordinance. The SEP A process has been completed, and he said he · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 11 tbinks the applicant has agreed to a number of conditions and addition.at requirements that satisfied bim about most of the things he was concerned about in walking around the trails, etc. He said there are a number of comments that have COme by mail to the Planning Department regarding esthetics of the site, wildlife, and degree of vegetation on the site. Resaid he is also very concerned about these things, but thinks they have to realize we are in an Urban Growth Area, and have a Comprehensive Plan and zoning map which take account of resources; he does not think there is anything about this proposal that compromises the decisions that were made. He indicated he believed there is a very good chance tbat people who live in the Fowler Addition would find development of this location very, very similar to what they will see in their own lots. He said he had a few reservations, but is happy with the Staff report. Ms. Erickson reported she had gone through aU the concerns in. all the letters and found that the applicant and Staff had dealt with just about every concern; she thinks they did an excellent job. The applican.t seems to want to be a good neighbor with this development. She. said she probably has some concerns and as they go through this may make some changes. Sbe had no problem with this development~ it seems as if the last couple of short plats they have done had started with a tremendous drainage problem, no matter where it was in town. She said hopefully they can get some type of monies so Council will have Public Works work on some of these problems they can't seem to do anything about. Ms. Thayer said her only question is the requirement of the Engineering Staff to have that trail between Magnolia and Mason on East Caroline paved. The applicant has asked that we not request that. She would feel comfortable with it graveled if there were some sort of maintenance agreement, but she did not know if they could do that and have it a gravel path. Mr. Randall said the applicant proposed a trail maintenance agreement. He said they can ask the developers if they have any opposition. They have private streets which occur in public rights-of-way that are privately maintained, so he did not see a reason why they could not do tbat on the trail. Ms. Erickson said she did not have a problem with gravel, and said she did not know if she would particularly require maintenance. If there is traffic, it is going to stay a trail. Ifwe require maintenance and nobody uses the trail, it is going to grow up. She was that the existing trail, the pathway, is too wide and inundating the area. She was also concerned that it might be too fine; there are so many things that we want natural; we don't want to look like BeUevue -- we want trees, little pathways that we can use, but we don't have to have a 5' blacktop. She thought the smaller the trail where everybody can use it is all that is needed, especially if that is how it now exists; neighbors don't want aU the trees and brush cut. She suggested the proponent work with the neighbors and come to an agreement~ smaHer might be better- Mr. Randall said as the Staff Report as written now, basically it leaves some flexibility for Public Works. Public Works is very sensitive to the needs. · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 12 4. I Commission Discussion and Conclusions Paa:e ~y paa:e cJiscussion of chanaes: #2 Mr. Worden: Item 5. Delete parenthetical section, because it does not accurately represent the trees on the site; it has only a very small portion of the trees that are there. He does not think they should use that as a standard. Mr. Randall explained it shows the trees are not in the right-of-way and are not threatened. Ms. Thayer questioned if the reference is needed. CONSENSUS: Delete (see ExbibitA6, significant trees shown) #3 Mr. Worden: Item 10. To be more specific ". . . wherever possible" change to, "on a11 ofJot 13, approximately one..third oflot 12, approximately one-third or more oflot 11, 80 percent of lot 1 O~ a large portion of lot 8 would be cleared completely" for either fin~ stockpile or cut according to this plan. He said he does not want anybody to be deceived into thinking they are preserving most of the trees. Mr. Randall replied his understanding is that the area of fiU is they are not going to be taking the trees down for fill, that they are going to be dispersing soil in a fairly shallow manner and may have to reseed with ground cover or grasses; future property owners or the developer may have to remove a tree here or there to create a building pad site. Mr. Worden said he may be misled by the word "stockpile" that suggests you might have to do something more. Mr. RandaII noted the stormwater drainage plan is a little more specific about how that is going to occur. Mr. Worden rescinded his change. Mr. Randall referenced the implementing condition on page 11, Item 6. He spoke of places where there are trees and where it might be a concern that to stockpile soil, trees might be kiIled~ and in light of the comments. Mr. Randall asked the developer if it is a possibility to try to spread the soil over property that has no trees (the north side of East Caroline is not part of this project but has no trees at all). Mr. Seplar replied they will try to minimize this~ and said it is in their best interest to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Worden agreed and said it is not something they can really make a judgment about. Mr. Randall suggested they might be able to add a sentence at the end ofItem 6 to the effect that areas where soil is stockpiled shall be chosen to minimize the impact of significant trees. Ms. Thayer noted it is fine with the applicant. (See #11 for change.) #5 Correçt typo: (b) last sentence, add the word "be" to read ". .. along Mason Street should be recorded for each lot;" #6 Correct typo: (Transit, line 2)~ change to read, ". . . The closest bus stop to the site. . ." Mr. Worden: Asked if they reached a conclusion regarding the paving, top of page 61 He said they do have a no protest agreement, if sidewalks become necessary; all of the pedestrian traffic is going to be in the street. · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 1.3 Mr. Randall: Pointed out where there will be swales. He said along lots 4,5, 12 and 13 they are proposing to have swales; the rest will have cwbs and gutters. Mr. Worden: Commented it would be possible to walk along the side of the road.. Ms. Thayer: East Caroline win get more traffic. That was Mr. Peterson's reason for asphalt, but if it is going to get more traffic, it is not g()ing to grow up as much. Mr. Worden: Recommended leaving as it is. #7 Corr~t typos: (Required ,wewer ,werv":;e, line 6, change to ". , , moved south. . ," (Required sewer ,service, line 9, change to ". . . will need. . ." Mr. Mandelbaum: Stormwater -- had concern regarding responsibility on lot 13, if that is central to drainage maintenance. Said he assumed the eventual owner wopJd accept the easement, would accept the amenity as described, but questioned what they would be accepting responsibility for. He said be understands there is an easement, and as a lawyer does not und.erstand what can go wrong and who is responsible. Mr. Peterson: Replied the easement is not ownership by tbe city but gives full rights to that being a stormwater system and having to be protected. All of the property owners of the development are responsible for maintaining it. When the person buys that property, that ea,sement comes with it, and they don't have any choice but to have the easement and to let people ()n it. Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked if the easement imputes an obligation to maintain it. Mr. Peterson: Replied the easement imputes the right to be able to access the property to maintain it, the responsibility to maintain it for all of the property owners of that development, not that individual property owner. Mr. Worden: Thought that was a different answer than before, that it was said the property owner would be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Randall: That is not what they intended to say; no more so than any ofthe other property owners. Mr. Seplar: Indicated it would be equally divided, that they will contribute on all 13 lots until aU are sold. Ms. Thayer: If it turns out this stormwater problem is bigger than is intended, it would not get a building permit. Mr. Seplar said ifit is bigger, the applicant is willing to sacrifice that lot. Mr. M.andelbaum: Stated his concern was after the permits, down the road who is responsible. Mr. Randall: Agreed that it would be some SQrt ofhomeowner's association responsibility. Mr. Worden: Said that is obviously what they intend and suggested it be added to the conditions that maintenance of trails and stormwater will be shared by the community. Mr. Randall: It is addressed on Page 12, Item 12, last sentence. It might be helpful to add something that would state, "A stormwater easement for tbe stormwater facility shaH be shown on the face of the final plat." CONSENSUS: (See #12 for change.) · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8~ 1999 Page 14 #8 Correct typos: (first paragraph -- third sentence from the end) change to read, "Public Works has concluded that 1hk applicant, . ." (Fire Suppression -- Existing conditions) Add the word. "of' to read ", . , exists at the corner of Mason and, . ." #102.e. Ms. Erickson: Eliminate last sentence; it was just stated they will be designed to city standards. Mr. Randall: Said, actually the developer is proposing to construct a trail from Magnolia to Thomas Street. If you are going to say asphalt the rest of Mason and gravel east of Mason you might want to insert the trail standard at this point; asphalt versus gravel -- Public Works request for asphalt over Mats Mats quary. Ms. Thayer: Thinks they need to clarify, since the City Engineer stated they prefer asphalt Ms, Thayer would like to have it in the record. Mr. Randall: Suggested wording. CQNSENSUS: Change last sentence to, "Trails may be constructed of Mats Mats quarry." #11 Item 3.a: At the end add wording, ". . . and a featured. nOR-motorized trail on Thomas Street." Correct typo to "created" ltem 6: At the end, add. a senteRce to the effect that, "Areas where soil is stockpiled shall be chosen to minimize the impact of significant trees." #12 Add sentenc:e on Page 12 at the cORelusion of ltem 12, "A stormwater easemeRt for tbe stormwater facility shall be showB on tbe face of the fiBal pJat." #13 Add Condition 18: A Ro-protest agreement to tbe future formatioR of an LID for sidewalk improvemeBts aloBg MasoB Street shall be recorded witÞ eacll block. Subsequ-cRtly renumber aU relQaining paragraphs. Expiration: Delete tile first senteBce. Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked Mr. Randall regarding lot 13, if the City regularly inspects such facilities. Mr. Randall: Said he is not sure they regularly inspect them, but d.o if they get a complaint for overflow Of a design problem. Mr. Ma.ndelbaum: Said he thinks it is awkward that a homeowner's association not really tied together to do this kind of function has the responsibility to WOfry about this. Ms. Thayer: Indicated you can't have the city maintain them all. Mr. Randall: Replied it is rather the reality of our soils around here that it doesn't go in the · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 15 ground and go away. You pretty much have to have to put it back on the homeowners to take care of it. Properly designed, it should be more of cleaning out pipes and maybe some vegetation maintenance. Mr. Worden: Indicated that often they go dry for a long time in the summer, alders take over and pretty soon you have an aider forest. He said it is not impossible to fix that, but it is a lot of work and has to be done pretty frequently. Thought it was the reality of being in a tier 3 area~ you don't get city help, you pay your way. Mr. Randall: In some larger regional stormwater facilities the City does take care of them and do a lot of work with vegetation; most ofthese smaller ones will be a private matter. Mr. Mandelbaum: Said he wasn't concerned about the homeowner's association being helped by the city, but was concerned about what improper maintenance might do to the wetland area; he wasn't concerned about the homeowners.. Ms. Thayer: Felt it was something like building without a permit, or violating like that. There is a complaint and the City responds. Ms. Erickson's made a motion which was amended to correct the application number. Page #1: Change to correct the number, Application LUP No. 98-11 MOTION Recommend approval of the Crist Preliminary Plat Application LUP No. 98-11 as corrected and amended. Ms. Erickson SECOND Discussion: Mr. Harbison Mr. Mandelbaum noted he is comfortable for the reasons given by Ms. Erickson and Mr. Worden as what he sees in the design. He further thought on some issues he agreed with Ms. Erickson that it would have been appropriate and probably helpful tor the developer and some of the neighbors who have raised interesting points that don't seem to have been discussed, for them to be discussed in an appropriate setting, but he did not think that affects the heart of the application. Passed unanimously, 5 in favor VOTE Chair Thayer reported this would now go on to City Council for a closed record public hearing, probably the first of August Mr. Randall explained that normaUy with a closed record hearing, Staff gives a presentation to Council; Council can ask some limited questions that relate to the record but cannot discuss other than the record There is no public testimony. B. Proposed Amendments to Chapter 13.22 PTMC Sewer Connections (LUP99-38) 1. Staff Report (John Merchant) . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 16 Mr. Merchant pointed out the purpose of this ordinance is to facilitate implementation of the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. He said it has been very difficult for Public Works to effectively administer this section of the code, and, with the approach of the year 2000, the requirement for people to connect by that time. He discussed the following proposed changes: Proposed chan2es: ~ 13.12.010 A. Reduction to 260 feet - due to economic hardship on property owners B. Strike one-acre size -- mainly a septic system (the Health Department should regulate) B.4 New exception -- new family residences if location exceeds 260 feet from an existing wastewater collection line are exempt if adequately mitigated and conditioned through SEP A and/or ESA review C. Removing group systems C.4 Eliminate (language included in C.1) D. (Formerly E) Removed July 2002 -- changed to two years after notification Mr . Worden: Asked for clarification -- if two blocks away from the sewer system, and I build a new house, I would have to put in a septic system, if I meet county health standards. But, if subsequently somebody else extends so that I am only one block away, then I have two years. Mr. Merchant: Concurred and added, after notification, that year 2002 is no longer an element; they are trying to simplify. E. (Formerly F) If the system fails, reduced to 260 feet if possible to repair, with Health Department approval. 13.22.020 C. Language added. To abandon a system effectively -- pumped and filled, the City notified and provided with records $0 the Health Department can be notified. Mr. Merchant said if the Planning Commission is in agreement with the proposed language, they will align the Comprehensive Plan to meet the proposed changes. Ms. Thayer: Commented this is great in coming because as a realtor and having to deal with 2002, it is a panic for her customers. Ms. Erickson: Regarding #4, Exceptions, in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA). Asked if they are exempt from the requirement of hooking up if they are over 260 feet. Ms. Thayer: Replied they don't have to hook up if they are over 260 feet if they are in an ESA, provided the impacts of the onsite wastewater disposal system are adequately mitigated. Ms. Erickson: If they are in an ESA, you would not want them to have a septic system. Ms. Thayer: Provided they are mitigated and conditioned through SEP A or ESA review. · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 17 2. Public Testimony At 9: 10 Chair Thayer opened the hearing for public testimony. There being none, she closed public testimony and opened the meeting for Planning Commission discussion. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Mr. Worden: Do we have to make a recommendation for City Council? Mr. Merchant: We are looking for your changes to go to City Council. Mr. Worden: This is a needed change. MOTION Recommend to City Council tbe adoption of tbe revised ordimmce with proposed amendments to Cbapter 13.22 Sewer Connections Mr. Worden SECOND VOTE Mr. Mandelbaum Pa~ Unanimously,S in favor · VIII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Draft Supplemental EIS · 1. Staff Briefing (Bob Leedy) Mr. Leedy explained the reason for the briefing is to give status of the process and to apologize that there is no time or staff resources to have more than minimal Commission involvement ofthe review and comment process. Their preference would have been to have Commission review the draft supplemental EIS and forward recommendations or comments to City Council which was precluded by the July 30 response deadline established by the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Leedy noted that at their request Ms. Thayer had sat in on yesterday's interest group th.at briefed the City of Port Townsend on the supplemental EIS, and he offered to make available to Commissioners copies of either the DEIS or a shortened citizen's summary. He listed the four basic alternatives for action: .. No action -- Status quo (one UGA in Jefferson County, Port Townsend). .. #1 -- Maintaining the UGA configuration, but relying on the City of Port Townsend to make upzoning adjustments to accommodate an increased employment growth factor. .. #2 -- Expand the Port Townsend UGA to a lesser or greater degree into the Glen Cove area. · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8. 1999 Page 18 ~ #3 -- Designating as a UGA aU of the Tri Area that is being considered for incorporation. Mr. Leedy said the Board of Commissioners can choose parts of any of those four actions. With an assumption the employment growth rate in Jefferson County is going to be in the neighborhood of 4 percent per year, there is going to be a need for modification. either upzoning the existing UGA or for expansion ofUGAs within the county. He said the City is not sure how the employment growth figure jumped from 3.2 percent to 4 percent They were told at the meeting that 4 percent was an agreed upon figure. and that it was provided to the economic consultant for their use. Mr. Mandelbaum questioned the analysis on such a significant matter. Mr. Leedy said he ventured that they had probably used standard industrial classifications codes to assign multipliers to population fixed on employment. and had pointed out to county staff and the consultants that over the extended 20-year planning period., the employment growth and real growth are going to catch up with each other. They are talking one and the same over a 20-year period. Ms. Thayer suggested the need for City Council to understand what has been directed by the State and what has been directed to us by the County. Some of this is mandated by Growth Management. 2. Outline of Response Process Mr. Leedy said there are windows in which you can adopt; the minimum is a 30 day review period which was adopted by the County. He pointed out that the City stopped short of finalizing its Comp Plan because there was reservation made for the potential need to expand into the Glen Cove area and for other zone changes needed to meet certain growth projections. Ms. Thayer suggested part of the reason the City agreed to use the 3.2 rather than 4 percent growth rate might have been to give justification for Glen Cove. Mr. Leedy explained the City policy process is for the three members representing the City on the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee to forward a recommendation to the full City Council prior to July 30th, for City Council to digest that material and forward the official City response to the Board of County Commissioners or to Jefferson County prior to that date. Mr. Mandelbaum said he is uncomfortable. not because the Planning Commission is not involved, but because he does not feel assurance that the City is really getting a measured, rational analysis to prepare the City Council for their action. Mr. Leedy replied that Staff has passed along a considerable amount of technical information and reports on technical review of the document in terms of utilities. infrastructure. etc. and pointed out areas that committ.ee members at this point need to be concerned about. Mr. Mandelbaum asked with the time pressure impeIJed by deadlines involving the incorporation issue. that the county is not likely to approve. is it possible for them to separate that decision, make an incremental decision, and allow more time for review of the other options. Mr. Leedy replied they would then have to move directly and immediately into · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 19 preparation of the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that has to be based on a preferred alternative; he thought a preferred alternative has to be arrived at prior to the incorporation issue. He indicated you cannot proceed with the final EIS until it is a firm decision; the draft has to be specific and contain a preferred alternative. The shortness of response time was discussed. Chair Thayer suggested Mr. Leedy give Commission members copies of Staff responses so the Commission can give input to Mr. Leedy. Mr. Leedy said he needed to meet with Tim McMahan and Bob Wheeler to see what they can reasonably put together. Mr. Mandelbaum went on record that he knows both Mr. Leedy and Tim McMahan and trusts their judgment, assuming they are going to the full extent of their judgment His indicated his suggestion is a way that they might help provide feedback or contribute another dimension in terms of the impact on the Plan that might be communicated in a slightly different way from the Commission through them. Ms. Thayer reiterated that there isn't time for a meeting. Mr. Leedy pointed out there would have be some process to disseminate what it is the Commission puts together, reassemble that and get it to the committee. Ms. Thayer suggested maybe Commissioners could come and observe their meeting. Mr. Leedy expressed appreciation for Mr. Mandelbaum's concern; Mr. Worden agreed and said he keeps coming back to this being probably one of the most critical decisions this City is going to make, certainly this year and maybe in the next 5 years. He said he joined the Planning Commission in the hope it would move in the direction of actually having a planning role, not simply an administrative one and thinks the Council has endorsed that. Mr. Mandelbaum said he thought in Mr, Leedy's meeting with Mr. McMahan he would appreciate his mentioning Commission's concern and thinking independently what would be helpful. Mr. Leedy concurred and said that was the reason for bringing it. It was determined that available Commission members could sit in on the meeting. It occurred to Mr. Worden that maybe what Staff should be addressing is whether it is appropriate for the county to follow that schedule, that this is pretty important. B. Next Scheduled Meetinis 1. July 29. 1999, Ms. Erickson will be excused 2. Au&USt 12. 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (R Densities) 3. August 26. 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (C-III Boundary) IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. X. ADJOURNMENT · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1999 Page 20 M~otion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. j¿¿á£tÌ/) Sheila Avis, Minute Taker . . . Guest List /J ,1-; . Meeting of: /-:'/¿l¿/'J~1~LA} {Ó--ZZL--J'1~~~/cÓ'-]/:-/ , Purpose: (í) C~- ~vGddÇl~--LÞ-';'/,-- (;.;~) ~¡;¿¿G¿t/ U-1{/11 Ü"!Cð-7L If/2d:.4cC~ H:/CL/ Date: 3-<1. IJ >; /tJtJcl Name (please print) Address D~· ~()ß\T Cf172-IS R\G~ S6P~ v ~ /' .)~Û I Ú;ùf( d.-/ 1-h i!ßo .:<. =Z-/ ð 5 ¿ q VIE:: <: IlL) GO@ ~ I I I I