Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09282000 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Councü Chambers, 7:00 pm September 28, 2000 I. Call to Order ll. Roll Call ill. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: September 14, 2000 V. Unfinished Business VI. New Business IA.SEPA Appeal Port Townsend Assisted Living Facility -LUPOO-039 lB. Port Townsend Assisted Living Facility - LUPOO-039 Consolidated bearing of IA and IB: A Staff Presentation - John McDonagh B. Developer Presentation C. SEP A Appellant Presentation D. Public Testimony E. Staff Response F. Commission discussion and conclusions on SEP A Appeal G. [If SEP A Appeal is denied] Commission discussion and conclusions on CUP VIT. Upcoming Meetings: October 12, 2000 Vill. Communications IX. Adjournment . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2000 I. CALL TO 0.RDER Vice Chair Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 7 :02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Karen Erickson, Christine Ota, Jerry Spieckerman, Bernie Arthur, Jim Irvin and Frank Benskin. Also present were BCD staff members Jeff Randall and John McDonagh and City Attorney John Watts. City Council representative was Alan Youse. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of September 14, 2000 as written and amended was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSOLIDATED OPEN PUBLIC RECORD HEARING OF SEP A APPEAL AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PORT TOWNSEND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, LLC -- LUPOO-039 1A. SEPA APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PORT TOWNSEND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, LLC -- LUPOO-039 2A. PORT TOWNSEND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, LLC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- LUPOO-039 At 7 :05 p.m. Mr. Harbison opened the combined, single open record public hearing on both the SEP A Appeal and Conditional Use Permit (LUPOO-039), Port Townsend Assisted Living, LLC. He asked for the signing in of witnesses and established rules of order for the meeting: Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 2 · ~ Everyone will be given an opportunity to be heard; ~ All comments will be made from the speakers lectern; ~ Any individual making comments will first give hislher name and address; ~ Speak loudly and clearly for the official recorded transcript of the meeting being made-- ifthere is an appeal the court must be able to make its decision on the basis of what we say here tonight; ~ If anyone requires a particular accommodation to speak, please let us know and we will make those arrangements; ~ In fairness to all in attendance, each person will be given the opportunity to address the Planning Commission for an initial period not to exceed 3 minutes. Staff may speak for up to 10 minutes; the applicant shall be given 15 minutes to make their initial presentation. The SEP A appellant will be given 10 minutes, since the appellant will be addressing only the SEP A appeal and not the application as a whole. If more time is needed, it will be made available for anyone who wishes to speak after everyone has had the opportunity. It was requested that Planning Commission members hold their questions of the public until everyone has finished speaking. It is not necessary to speak as a proponent or an opponent. ~ Please refrain from demonstrations, clapping or cheering during or at the conclusion of anyone's presentation; ~ This is the time for the presentation of testimony only; there is no debate allowed. · Mr. Harbison noted that rules are intended to promote an orderly system of holding public hearing, to give every person an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure that no individuals are embarrassed by their right to exercise free speech. He introduced City Attorney John Watts who swore in collectively those who had signed in and wished to testify. Mr. Watts asked them to stand, raise their right hand, and he then asked, "Do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth in this proceeding?" Their response was affirmative. Mr. Harbison stated this hearing is quasi-judicial in nature, and therefore the rules of appearance of fairness and conflict of interest apply. He explained that quasi-judicial actions are defined as actions ofthe Planning Commission which determine legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties in a hearing; the public hearing must be fair in three respects: 1) form; 2) substance; and 3) appearance. Mr. Harbison asked for all Planning Commission members including the chair to give consideration to whether they have had the following: ~ a demonstrated bias or prejudice for or against any party in the proceedings; ~ a direct or indirect monetary interest in the outcome of the proceedings; ~ a prejudgment of the issue prior to hearing the facts on the record; ~ ex parte contact with any individual excluding administrative staff with regard to an issue prior to this meeting. · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 3 He then called for any Planning Commissioner to disclose ifthey have had any appearance of fairness or conflict of interest issue. Mr. Spieckerman responded that he is Vice President and Board Member of the Jefferson County Economic Development Council (EDC). He said concerning this matter, the Director ofthe EDC advised him earlier that day that the EDC has provided investors in this project economic and demographic information as well as review of appropriate zoning for this project. He was also informed that a member of the EDC Board asked the Director to support this application. He stated that in his position as Vice President and Director, he has had no personal role in providing the demographics or has never met with the investors. He has not met with or spoken with the investors nor with the Board Member that requested the EDC support concerning this application. He said he did not believe his association with the EDC would affect his ability to judge the matter fairly. Mr. Harbison asked if there was anyone in the audience who objected to his participation or the participation of any other Planning Commission members in these proceedings. Mr. Ted Shoulberg raised the only objection. City Attorney Watts called for Mr. Shoulberg to come to the lectern, state his name and the nature of the objection. · Mr. Shoulberg told Mr. Spieckerman it was very good of him to reveal his association. He went on to say the nature of the Economic Development Council, the culture ofthe influencing ofthe organization -- that Mr. Spieckerman is a part of that organization and part of that culture, and he felt for obvious reasons Mr. Spieckerman should excuse himself. City Attorney Watts replied that he had reviewed the matter with Planning Commissioner Spieckerman earlier that day. Mr. Watts concluded that in his view there is no conflict of interest based on Mr. Spieckerman's association with EDC. Mr. Shoulberg questioned the appearance of fairness. City Attorney Watts also replied he does not feel either the appearance of fairness or the conflict of interest rules are violated or involved because of the remote nature ofthe association with the EDC. He determined there is no monetary benefit between what the EDC is doing and Mr. Spieckerman's participation in this Planning Commission work. · Mr. Harbison asked for other concerns from the audience. There being none, he explained the purpose of this hearing is for the Planning Commission to hear and consider pertinent facts and to take action relating to the SEP A Appe~l and Conditional Use Permit application for the Port Townsend Assisted Living facility (LUP #00-039). He outlined the order of speaking, slightly changed from the agenda: ~ Staff presentation on the SEPA Appeal as well as the Conditional Use Permit; );- Developer presentation of the SEP A Appeal and Conditional Use Permit; Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 4 . ~ Presentation by the SEP A Appellant on the SEP A appeal; ~ Public testimony on the SEP A Appeal and Conditional Use Permit; ~ Response or rebuttal by the Developer; ~ Response or rebuttal by the SEP A Appellant; ~ Staff Response; ~ Questions from Planning Commission members. City Attorney Watts gave preliminary remarks reiterating what the Chair had stated, that this is a combined, single public hearing on both the SEP A Appeal and Conditional Use Permit. He said this is being done for purposes of efficiency in the conduct of the hearing. Regarding the order of speaking on the SEPA Appeal or the merits of the application, he indicated it would be helpful to state what the speaker's position is. Mr. Watts explained that at the conclusion of public testimony, the Planning Commission will first take action on the SEP A Appeal. Under the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC), the action of the Planning Commission tonight is a recommendation only to the City Council. He said under the PTMC, the options for the Planning Commission on the SEP A are either to 1) affirm the SEP A decision; 2) modify the SEP A decision; or 3) reverse the SEP A decision, and he repeated that . this is a recommendation only to the City Council. Mr. Watts said as stated in his memo which is part of the Staff Report, the burden of proof in the SEP A appeal is on the appellant, which means that for the Planning Commission to reverse the SEP A decision, the Planning Commission must be persuaded there is an error made by the Responsible Official, BCD Director Jeff Randall, in rendering the SEP A decision. Ifthe Planning Commission is not so persuaded, the Planning Commission should affirm the decision. Both in state law and the municipal code, there is a requirement that the Planning Commission give substantial weight to the decision ofthe SEP A official and give deference to that decision. Once the Planning Commission decision on SEP A is made, the Planning Commission would go forward and make a decision on the merits of the Conditional Use Permit. Even if the Planning Commission reverses the SEP A decision, namely upholds the appeal, the Planning Commission would still take action on the merits of the Conditional Use Permit. City Attorney Watts again said both decisions, the SEPA Appeal and the decision on the merits ofthe Conditional Use Permit, are recommendations that go forward to the City Council. The action by the City Council tentatively scheduled for October 18th is a closed record review which means no new testimony, no introduction of exhibits or introduction of documents would be allowed at the City Council hearing. He said it is important that whatever testimony or documents are sought to be produced or introduced are done so tonight. Mr. Harbison asked for the Staff Presentation. . · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 5 1. Staff Presentation on SEP A Appeal and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) -- Mr. John McDonagh, Staff Planner Mr. McDonagh presented Exhibit L, Revised Site Plan and stated the revisions to this site plan, brought in by the developer tonight, concur with a number ofthe draft findings and conclusions in the CUP. Revisions involve location of the road serving the project. Site plans in Commission packets only include revised elevations of the east and west sides of the building; the revised site plan also has north and south elevations. He explained that there may be some overlapping of both of tonight's processes although he will attempt to keep them as segmented as possible. On June 9, 2000, Port Townsend Assisted Living, LLC applied for a conditional use permit and multi-family design review to construct a 74 unit congregate care or assisted living facility within the R-II zoning district. He said the site is located in what is informallý known as Happy Valley, located north of F Street, south of Tremont Street, east of San Juan Avenue. It is an approximately 12.2 acre site, that is currently vacant with the exception of an old wooden shed that has long since outlived its useful purpose. The new facility would be const~cted within a sort of topographic depression ofthe land on the southern portions of the 12-acre site in two phases: Phase 1) 54 units on approximately 41,000 square feet; Phase 2) 20 units on approximately 11,000 square feet -- bringing the total to 74 units with approximately 53,000 square foot of building. The project involves significant preservation of open space, approximately 6 acres. A brand new multi-use regional trail would be constructed as part ofthe project. The 6-acre northern portion of the site would be preserved in perpetuity. Mr. McDonagh said the conditional use and construction of the facility underwent SEP A review; a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued by BCD and the Responsible Official on August 16, 2000. This MDNS contained 21 mitigating conditions. He said if you look at those mitigating conditions, they are largely the same conditions that are in the findings of fact and conclusions on the CUP. The mitigating conditions identified probable adverse environmental impacts of the project, and conditioned against them. An appeal of the MDNS was filed on the last day ofthe comment and appeal period August 31, 2000 by Colette Kostelec. The basis of her appeal is that the BCD Director and SEP A Responsible Official didn't follow all of the adopted codes in the review processing of the application. In her appeal she maintains that the Port Townsend Municipal Code specifically limits the number of dwelling units that can be within a single R-II zone structure to four -- reference PTMC 17.16.030, Residential Bulk and Dimensional Set Back Requirements set forth in the zoning code. Given this restriction on the number of dwelling units, the appellant concludes that the proposed 74-unit structure can't be approved through a CUP because it has more than four dwelling units. She suggests or proposes several alternative methods for reviewing the project, e.g.: ~ Withdrawal of the MDNS and issuance of an environmental impact statement for the project, i.e., that it doesn't comply with the codes and the project itself constitutes some sort of adverse Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 6 . environmental impact to the community. ~ Planned Unit Development (PUD) and binding site plan be done for the project as well. Mr. McDonagh said it is clear in the zoning table that a CUP is required for this, but the appellant feels that because it is going to have more than four dwelling units within one structure, the only way to achieve that is through a PUD. He said the PUD section of the zoning code requires that any time you do a PUD, you should process along with a binding site plan, a short plat, or some sort of plat division. ~ Comprehensive Plan amendment to rezone the property entirely from R-II to R-III where a congregate care facility would be permitted outright; ~ Propose a zoning code text amendment to clearly allow congregate care facilities within the R-II zone. He reviewed for the Planning Commission that the CUP process is a Type III application which requires review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then forwards a recommendation to the City Council. Merits of the SEP A Appeal Mr. McDonagh highlighted salient points from the September 21 , 2000 memorandum to the Planning Commission from BCD Director Randall regarding the response to issues raised in the . SEPA Appeal: ~ Issue 1: Are congregate care facilities subiect to PTMC 17.16.030 limiting the number of dwelling units in anyone structure to four? He spoke ofthe memo's reference to its history and said it was clear to Staff when they were looking at the definition of a congregate care facility. He read for the record, " 'Congregate care facilities' means the building or complex of dwellings designed for, but not limited to, occupancy by senior citizens which provides for shared use of facilities, such as kitchens, dining areas, and recreation areas. Such complexes may also provide kitchens and dining space in individual dwelling units. Practical nursing care may be provided, as well as recreational programs and facilities." Mr. McDonagh asked that the Commission work through if these units are in and of themselves dwelling units, and that they look at the definition of "dwelling unit." "Dwelling unit" means a building or portion thereof providing complete housekeeping facilities for one family "Dwelling unit" does not include motel, tourist court, rooming house, or tourist home. BCD position on this matter is that since each ofthese individual rooms in the proposed facility will either be studio apartments or one-bedroom facilities, each will have a shower and a . bathroom, a refrigerator, probably a sink and perhaps a microwave. They won't have an oven or range or washer/dryer facility in any of them. Mr. McDonagh said not having any of those . · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 7 facilities means they don't have a full housekeeping unit; they can't function independently on their own for someone to live in, and, therefore, don't constitute "dwelling units." Mr. McDonagh said he was shifting gears a bit, and he introduced for the record issues ofthe SEP A checklist. ~ Issue 3: The SEP A checklist was not signed by the applicant when it was submitted. He entered as Exhibit M the last page of the SEPA,checklist signed by the applicant's agents, dated and signed the same day it was submitted, June 9, 2000. Mr. McDonagh said when you look at the definition of what a congregate care facility is and you look at the definition of what a "dwelling unit" is, it is clear that the individual rooms within the facility don't function like your house or my house does. This type of facility is a conditioned permitted use within the R-II zone. Congregate facilities aren't built and constructed in a series of four-plexes; they don't function that way. Ifthe zoning code had sought to expressly prohibit these types of facilities within the R-II zone, the Land Use Table would not have had a "c" in the column next to congregate care facilities; it would have had an "X " indicating they were prohibited. ~ Issue 5: Permitting of this facility within the R-II zone. (Mr. McDonagh said this is the first one under the current zoning they have had within the R-II zone.) The appellant has some fears; permitting this one opens the door and sets some precedence for others to come in anywhere in town. BCD response is that it will still require a conditional use permit and each proposal would need to be judged on its own merit and need to demonstrate compliance with the conditional use criteria, the chief one being ensuring it is compatible with its surrounding neighborhoods, that it is not going to produce some sort of adverse, injurious impact on its neighbors. Mr. McDonagh said Staff is recommending denial of the SEP A Appeal and approval of the congregate care facility, set forth fairly clearly and succinctly in the Findings of Fact in the SEP A reVIew. He discussed the merits of the project, pointing out: ~ It is approximately 12.2 acres in size, located north ofF Street, south of Tremont Avenue, east of San Juan Avenue and west of Cherry Street. ~ The building is nearly an H-shaped structure, approximately 28 feet in height (the height for the zone is 30 feet), and would be served by an individual road approach with separated driveway, approximately 680 feet in length. ~ Each facility would have individual showers, bathrooms in either studio or one-bedroom apartments. ~ Since the time of submittal the applicant has held its own community meeting and met with Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 8 . members in the surrounding neighborhood, as well as BCD, on a couple of occasions to ensure that the project would be as compatible as possible. ~ A couple of changes have since been submitted. This building itself has shifted on the property to take advantage of the sort of topographic depression. The surrounding topography, especially to the west, to the north and to the south is left largely intact. Only the upper portions of the structure would be visible from those locations. ~ To the east it looks down on the project; the landscaping plan has not been finalized, but BCD would ensure that screening would be provided both close to the property line and close to the building to try to maximize screening potential. ~ Revised since it was submitted, a reflection of how the applicant responded to community needs. The site is broken up into residential size units, the east and west particularly modulated and articulated to have portions brought out and others recessed. ~ A larger, more formal sort of driveway, a proposed tree-lined boulevard, covered turnaround "Porte Cochere " are aspects of the project which have been removed. The scale has been reduced down toa more pedestrian level and residential scale. Mr. McDonagh said the Findings of Facts he has prepared for the Planning Commission highlight how this project would meet the Conditional Use Permit itself. He distributed copies of Exhibit N, Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria prepared for Port Townsend Assisted Living, and stated this was part of the original application and should have been included in Commission packets. He highlighted some of the applicant's analysis ofthe conditional use permit criteria and asked that the Planning Commission evaluate this project against and summarize how BCD feels the project meets these conditional uses: . CUP CRITERIA A: ~ The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development of the immediate vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property? He said the intent of this criterion, and is the real crux of most conditional uses, is to ensure compatibility. Will this fit in the area and not cause undue harm to surrounding neighbors? Whenever you look at that you want to look at the surrounding development character where it is proposed. Happy Valley, as informally known, contains a mix of large, undeveloped parcels, some small scale commercial farming. (City Attorney Watts asked that Mr. McDonagh identify the areas he points to on the charts.) Mr. McDonagh concurred and identified the area as Collinwood Farms just north of F Street and west of the project boulevard stating it has a few scattered agricultural buildings, largely dominated by community oriented agriculture. To the north and west of the project are a couple of larger structures in an R-III zone: 1) San Juan Commons, government assisted housing, and 2) San Juan Court, an Altzheimers facility. To the east of the property, is a large 9 acre vacant piece of property interspersed between the project site and single family homes that lie beyond it. There is a separation of about 450 to 500 feet between the building e · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 9 and those single family homes. There are also single family homes to the north on Tremont Street; to the south is the golf course. Aspects of how BCD feels this can fit in: ~ An important aspect -- the site is gently rolling with a sort of depression area more closely aligned with the center ofthe property. There is not significant elevation there, approximately 6 feet elevation difference. One of BCD conditions is that the applicant provide them a topographic survey to ensure where they are now and that where they are going to be afterwards doesn't alter significantly. ~ The building would have horizontal lap siding. Being twò stories, the siding would be of different colors and widths. It will have trim board; cedar shake siding will be added for accent. Some proposed colors for the building are beige, a soft yellow and forest green. None ofthose colors are finalized. Upon completion of the CUP review, if approved it would still have to undergo final multi-family design review with BCD. Changes the applicant has made: ~ Relocating the structure to the center; ~ Removal of the covered turn-around; ~ Revisions to the access road to remove the divided boulevard appearance; ~ Bringing some of the landscaping closer in to the building to try to screen it more effectively from adjoining properties; ~ Revisions to the east and west facade; ~ Revision to the lighting plan. Originally there were 12 light poles proposed in the parking lot and now two; lights around the building would be bollard lighting 3 feet in height, rather than wall mounted lights. A key component in terms of compatibility ofthis 74-unit project on the southern 6 acres, is the open space preserved in perpetuity by one of two methods that are explained in the Findings and Conclusions. The remaining 6 acres of open space could no longer be developed in an R-II density; it would need to stay that way for good. Staff is emphasizing this key aspect in viewing compatibility of this project; if it weren't for this aspect, he did not think they would have been able to support it. CUP CRITERIA B: ~ The Conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities including streets, fire protection, water, sanitary sewer, and storm water control. Each of these public facilities is being provided for and met by the proposal. Water will be connected to via a Francis Street right-of-way on San Juan Avenue. Sewer will be connected to the existing city line that runs along the west of the property, essentially. Fire protection -- a project of this size that exceeds 50 bedrooms or 50 units would require a secondary means of access. The first means of access would be via the driveway; the second access would be provided with the multi-use trail that the applicant would construct from F Street north to Tremont Street. The trail would be paved to fire access standards and would provide the Fire Department with the secondary access they would need. As part of the engineering design standards review, the Fire Department would have opportunity Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 10 to indicate the location of hydrants around the facility. Storm water control-- the applicant has also submitted a preliminary drainage plan that would capture, collect, treat and disperse storm water on the site via oil/water separators and infiltration trenches. The public facilities aspect of the conditional use permit criteria is actually met fairly easily by the proposal. CUP CRITERIA C: . ~ The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel. This gets back somewhat to the compatibility issue. The project includes preservation of significant portions, over half of the 12-acre piece. Th project finally has to go through the multi-family design standards review conducted by BCD. BCD has already done a fair amount of preliminary review with the project and feel they are very close to having the standards they would want for the project in terms of its esthetic character and landscaping. CUP CRITERIA D: ~ The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole. BCD feels that by serving the residential needs for the elderly in a dignified, compassionate and supportive manor, the community as a whole will benefit. Preservation of open space and establishment ofthe non- motorized trail will also benefit the community. CUP CRITERIA E: ~ The conditional use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. This comprises a large section of Findings of Fact and Conclusions, but the primary elements deal with land use, housing, and the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. Mr. McDonagh said regarding being designated and remaining open space, this was designated as potential open space in the Comprehensive Plan and never formalized as a permanent open space. It was clear in the Comprehensive Plan it was set out as a conceptualized type of tool; there were a number oftools that were to be examined and utilized to look at these broad areas identified on the land use map and how they might go about acquiring them. Since that potential park and open space was not formalized by actually making it permanent open space, the underlying comprehensive plan zone for the property is residential-- the goals and policies ofthe land use element and housing element and Non-Motorized Plan support the project. CUP CRITERIA F: ~ The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. The application meets the bulk, dimensional and set back requirements of the underlying zoning district. Mr. McDonagh said they are hoping the Planning Commission concurs with Staff s recommendation regarding the SEP A appeal that this does not constitute more than four dwelling units in one structure. The project will be required to meet the city's engineering design standards for its connections for sewer and water and provisions of fire services and sanitary storm water control. The project will undergo a final multi-family development design review. CUP CRITERIA G: ~ That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to · · · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 11 the cumulative impact of similar actions in the area. Staff s contention is that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect with the approval of the proposed conditional use. The project will provide decent and dignified housing for a segment of the city's population that has a special need. In doing so, a large portion of urban, open space is permanently preserved, and a non-motorized transportation facility for use by the general public is expanded. Impacts to the surrounding lands are minimized through the use of multi-family design. Regarding the cumulative impacts in the area, Mr. McDonagh said, as he discussed earlier with the appellants of the SEP A appeal, similar actions or proposals in the R - II zone would have to be evaluated and judged on their own merits. Each of them would need to demonstrate compliance with the criteria just highlighted. Mr. McDonagh noted that in essence BCD feels this is a good project. 2. Developer Presentation on SEP A Appeal and Conditional Use Permit Mr. Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning, 1256 Lawrence Street, Port Townsend WA Mr. Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning, pointed out they are land use planners representing the project. He stated their presentation would involve a variety of individuals with specific expertise in different aspects ofthe project starting with the project proponent, Mr. Bill Fronk: ~ Mr. William Fronk, Project Manager -- Background on the proponent; other projects done elsewhere; project genesis and description; need in the community for this kind of facility. ~ Mr. Dave Ruggles, Project Architect -- Design; problematic specifics of the project; site proposals ~ Mr. Rich Sepler, Madrona Planning, Land Use Planner -- Response to conditional use requirements ~ Ms. Ande Grahn, Madrona Planning -- Specific responses to issues and conditions contained in the Staff Report ~ Mr. Phil Olbrechts, Attorney -- SEP A appeal Mr. Sepler said they believed the Staffhas done a thoughtful and good job in reviewing this project. They support the Staff Recommendation, albeit with two minor exceptions they will give during their presentation. Mr. William Fronk, 4610 N.E. 77th Avenue, #100, Vancouver WA Representing the Development Group -- a second generation company based out of V ancouver, Washington. He said they are involved in a variety of development, including single family, multi:- family, commercial, and senior housing. Regarding senior housing, which they are presenting this evening and assisted living, they have a variety of assisted living facilities throughout the northwest. The current resident average age is 84 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 12 years. Out of 450 rooms they have one resident that drives; they provide a bus to their residents to bring them to community activities and wherever they shall or need to go. They have very neat rooms with common kitchen facilities in the main core of the building. A small under-the-shelf refrigerator is provided to residents so they will be able to store a late-night snack or something, and a small microwave so they can warm that snack. Other than that, there is basically a bed, a bath and a small sink in those facilities. Market demand in the area for this type of service: there has been extensive background research conducted on this project determining the need of the community. They currently show over a 283- room demand within this trade area; 189 Medicaid units and 94 private pay units. The existing supply in town is 39 rooms, leaving a shortage of 244 rooms currently, not accounting for the boomers coming through and the influx of senior citizens into Port Townsend. He presented a letter of support from the Port Townsend Family Physicians Group indicating the strong need for this project. The letter was entered as Exhibit O. Mr. Fronk reported that as further evidence of need, they had been contacted by individuals in the community, including Ian Keith who would like to locate his parents up from San Francisco both of whom Mr. Fronk believed to be 84 years old. He suggested this is another criteria to look at, what they call the adult trail of children within the trade area, those children being between 45 to 64 years of age. He said they often found they try to bring their parents as close as they possibly can to them when they get up into their older years; that profile has a strong representation in the Port Townsend community as well. 1h:ylme worked hard with the community throughout this process, having had a number of voluntary meetings with neighbors, the community and city trying to incorporate all the ideas and concepts into their site, to make it as beneficial and complimentary to the existing senior housing project and Altzheimers facility nearby to the northwest. He said they believe strongly it is a good project, and that it will serve the needs ofthe community. He thanked the Commission for their time. Mr. David Ruggles, Architect, Progressive Consultants, Vancouver W A Mr. Ruggles stated that his firm has done the preliminary site and building design for the proposed project. He gave an overview of how they approached the site design. The total parcel is approximately 12.2 acres which bottlenecks down to the south as it approaches F Street. The developer has chosen to only develop on the southern 6 acres of the parcel leaving the northern 6 acres undeveloped in a natural state and preserved. This is a very significant, positive aspect of this proposal, and he said he did not want to understate it. In locating the building, they have found the lowest and flattest spot of the southern 6 acres to accomplish: 1) greatly minimizing the amount of on site grading and filling that would be required for general construction to the site; 2) minimizing the visual impact of this project to the surrounding parcels as it will sit lower, as described earlier, than the surrounding properties. On the southern portion of the site, they have pushed the building as far as they can the south, again to minimize the visual impact to the residents along Cherry Street. He said they know their view into the field is very important, and they want to preserve that. He pointed out a larger drawing of the developed site showing the parking area and facility entrance at the southern portion of the building, the recycling area located at the eastern end of the . . e · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 13 parking lot, screened by a 6 foot wooden fence to minimize the visual impact to the neighbors to the east. He noted they had a much more formal entrance drive in the first proposals, a boulevarded entrance with a center planting strip, rather rigidly planted trees marching up toward the building entrance. He said due to some very thoughtful comments received at their neighborhood meeting a couple of months earlier, they have removed that and have incorporated a much less formal meandering approach driveway with a much less formal landscape plan to fit into the existing context. They have also greatly reduced the amount of lighting on the site and on the building, again due to comments they received at their neighborhood meeting. They eliminated all lights on the building other than at the entrance just for security reasons of night shift employees coming and going. They revised the lighting at the parking lot to have enough for security reasons. There will be a small amount of bollard, low 3' to 4' high, lights that will be distributed throughout the pathway, on a timing or a sensor device so at night they will be shut off. He said they know the nighttime sky view in this area is very important, so they wanted to preserve that vièw. Stormwater from the driveway and parking lot will be carried around the building on the west side, filtered though either a cleansing device or a biofiltration swale and be distributed, and percolated back into the soil through dry wells. The roof water will be taken directly into dry wells and distributed in the back waters. The main focus ofthe building design itself is to have the building fit into the R-II zone. The building is designed to break up the overall mass into smaller, residential size pieces using exterior treatments such as horizontal lap siding they feel will make the building very compatible in this environment. Mr. Ruggles showed proposed elevations noting the horizontal lap siding in differing complimentary colors based on the historical color chart of Port Townsend. Elements that again give a residential character, such as shutters on the windows, a double hung appearance of the window grids, all serve to give the building a residential flavor in respect to the R-II zone and have the building fit very comfortably in this environment. They have added other things like trellises at the corners of the building planted with flowering vines of some type to soften the building, bringing it down in scale and fitting comfortably in its environment. The rather large, bulky Porte Cochere that covered the facility entrance and extended out over the vehicular drop off was removed due to comments received at their neighborhood meeting. It has been replaced with a simple one-story type front porch to give the building a residential feel and bring the building down in scale at the entry, trying to fit the building comfortably into the exiS:ing environment. They feel the facility will be very compatible with the surrounding environment and will be a complimentary facility to the community as a whole. Mr. Ruggles submitted the boards into the record which were entered as Revised Landscaping and Site Plan, Exhibit P; and Revised Colored Elevations, Exhibit Q. Mr. Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 14 Mr. Sepler said he thinks Mr. McDonagh has done a fine job of summarizing the criteria on which the project will be evaluated. He reminded the Commission that conditional use does not mean it is outright denied or outright permitted; it is taken on a case-by-case basis. He said the burden associated with this project is to demonstrate that not only do they meet the criteria, but exceed them, there is some net benefit for the community, that it does provide a likelihood of success. He said they feel the project as proposed achieves that, and he focused on two specific areas he feels are pivotal in reviewìng this project: ~ Harmonious and appropriate design and character of the proiect. He said a great amount of sensitivity and time have been spent in trying to site this facility in a manner that is complimentary to surrounding properties and reduces impacts. In their community meetings they conducted to get feedback, many people noted concern with the case in project and the San Juan Commons senior housing. He referred to the exhibit that basically shows the view from Cherry Street looking down on the facades; he said the top one in grey is the San Juan Commons senior housing facade as it is viewed from Cherry Street. He also showed the facade ofthe proposed project to give a relative idea on how the scale is viewed. Another point of note is that significant Iimdscaping has been provided in the landscape plan of mature size to provide screening. In addition, this site benefits from topographic variation of the slope itselfwhich will serve to modify impacts, site view impacts. That is also addressed by siting the building closest to the road. One very important thing to note, open space is an important characteristic of the site; the proponent of the site has wished to maintain it, not just for the surrounding area, but for the future residents of this projects as this provides benefit to all. Mr. Sepler said they would like to see the center of that valley remain undisturbed for the future. ~ Public Interest: He mentioned the objection that this project should cause the substantial detrimental effect to the public interest. He said they have not noted tonight what the alternative to a project like this would be. He reminded that zoning would allow 106 single family homes to go into this area,·these 12 acres, and those single family homes after subdivision would be by right without landscaping specifically, without design criteria and without preservation likely of the open space. He said they feel in viewing this project, one of the key points is that it is planned -- you know what the outcomes would be; it provides predictability for the future. It would preserve the open space in a manner that could not be afforded and protect the public interest through any other means. Ms. Ande Grahn, Madrona Planning Ms. Grahn referred to two minor issues: ~ Condition added about roof lines -- flat roof lines and roof pitches, to be addressed through multi-family review. She noted that flat roofs are not always consistent with residential character; flat roofs tend to look more industrial and multi-family. She asked that the reference to flatter roofs be removed, that they would rather see the roofs pìtched as they proposed them ìn these drawings. ~ Staff Report. Finding 11. emergency vehicle service: She said it notes that emergency vehicle · · · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 15 service will be provided by the regional trail, ". . .secondary access for emergency vehicles will be provided from Tremont Street along the regional trail. . ." requiring that they increase the width ofthe regional trail to II feet. The Staff Report also noted that it is a requirement to pave that trail. She said it is not a Fire Department requirement for emergency vehicle access that the access be paved, just that it be provided at an 11 foot width. They have agreed to continue to develop through the street development process in determining the surfacing for the trail; they believe there are some good arguments, and that the users of the trail have some arguments against paving. She said they would rather see that worked out through the street development process as opposed to being prescribed. They would like the Planning Commission and Staff to note the error, in fact, that indeed the Public Works Department sets paving standards for roads and trails; the Fire Department just sets the width. She suggested emergency service access could be provided the other way. Mr. Randall noted the comparison chart presented by Mr. Sepler is being entered into the record as ExhibitR -- Comparison between San Juan Commons vs. P.T. AssistedLiving, and that Mr. Olbrechts would be entering Exhibit S into the record. Mr. Phil Olbrechts, Seattle W A, Attorney for the Developer Mr. Olbrechts said he is a former resident of the peninsula and is a land use attorney representing about nine municipalities as well as vat:ious other land use clients. He stated he is here to address the SEP A Appeal and thinks Staff has done an excellent job in summarizing the law on the issues and that he might be a little redundant. He made the following points: ~ Criteria for a SEP A Appeal. He suggested that lost in the process is, What exactly are you looking to determine? -- if it is correct or not correct. The decision before the Commission today is the decision to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS). He said the SEP A Responsible Official has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary for this project if certain conditions are met. By appealing this decision the appellant is basically saying they don't agree with the decision and they feel an EIS should have been issued or the alternative is saying other conditions should have been imposed. Those are the only two alternatives available when you appeal an MDNS. He told the Commission their job is to determine if that decision is correct; the criteria for determining that: does the project create probable significant environmental impacts. That is what it is all about, and is all it boils down to in the SEP A appeal -- does this project create that? He said if you have ever seen a SEP A appeal before, it is usually all sorts of assertions about impact -- it's creating a lot traffic; creating· stormwater runoff that is going to flood my property; it's a big ugly building, I don't like it -- that kind of thing. He asked them to note in this SEP A appeal there are no environmental impacts identified anywhere. The sole basis ofthe appeal is that it violates the code; violating the code does not automatically mean you have a problem with significant adverse impact. So, there is a slight problem there; there is nòthing wrong with raising that issue, but not in the context of a SEP A appeal, that is really in context of your conditional use permit review, and that is really Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 16 where you should look at it. He said, just because he is a lawyer, he has to make these kinds of objections for the record. Since the appeal doesn't list any environmental impacts, it is not appropriate to bring those up at this late date; because, your code says you have to list the basis of your appeal on your written document. He said that hasn't been done here, so on its face that SEPA appeal just doesn't fly. ~ Dwelling unit issue: -- a central part of the SEP A Appeal. One of the primary issues with this project is esthetics, the way it looks. Esthetics is really a touchy issue in the State of Washington. The State Supreme Court has basically said they are not even sure if esthetics is the proper basis for aregulation, actually; although most cities, your city included, has design review guidelines. He said he thinks they are all taking a risk in using those. Also the State Supreme Court says if you have a problem with esthetics, you will have to have very specific guidelines to regulate them. So, it is not enough to say we don't like the way this building looks; an EIS should be required. It doesn't work that way; for one thing, what in the world did the EIS review in terms of esthetics? but, another what are your specific guidelines? He said, in fact, we do have some specific guidelines -- the multi-family design guidelines which the project applicant is voluntarily agreeing to comply with (It is really debatable whether this qualifies as a multi- family project.), but they are, and he thinks compliance with that basically addresses the esthetic concerns. You can't go beyond that and say in terms of an environmental review, this requires an EIS because it is too large a building. He said he really doesn't see how you could do that, and he thinks that is what some people have in mind. ~ Density issue: Regarding a code violation itself, he said that is really not a SEP A appeal issue, but conditional use permit process does say in one criterion that you have to comply with the code. He said they need to address that important issue; what the SEP A appellant is saying is that this building contains more than four dwelling units and therefore it is prohibited. As Staff very well explained, these are not dwelling units. The code very explicitly defines a dwelling unit as having a complete housekeeping facility. The testimony before the Commission today is that these little bedrooms in this unit are going to have small a undercounter refrigerator, not a two-door j~b, a small microwave and a sink -- that is it. He said that certainly is not a complete housekeeping facility by any stretch of the imagination. He noticed there was a letter in the record that talked about not intending for these multi-family units to be in the district when they wrote this ordinance or whatever (apparently someone who had been involved in the process). The courts are very clear that if you have plain language in your statute that requires something, you don't look at legislative intent; if you can figure out what you are supposed to do from the code, and there is no ambiguity, the inquiry stops there. He said he thinks it is important for everyone in the land use process to have a land use code that is easy to understand, that you will be able to look at it and say this is what you need to be able to do, or don't need to do. Citizens and everyone else who come to your community should not have to guess what the legislative intent was 3 years ago. It should be there in the code, and it is in this case. There is no room for argument there when you talk about a complete housing facility. He said in the document he gave to the Commission he cited a Washington case (there has only been one) that dealt with the . . e · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 17 issue of what constitutes a dwelling unit. It was a kind of case similar to this, where the Meany Hotel in downtown Seattle wanted to convert from a hotel to a home for the retired. The City of Seattle said they could not do that because they qualified as a residential building, and therefore they need to have all these big side yards; they have to have a lot of space around their building if they are going to turn into a residential building, and the reason why they are turning into a residential building is because they have dwelling units. The court looked at the definition of dwelling units in Seattle, and said you have to,have kitchens in these rooms in order to qualify as dwelling units -- it was a home for the retired and they didn't have any housekeeping facilities, didn't qualify. He pointed out that you have a very similar issue here; kitchen -- housekeeping, what is the difference between them? He said there is no case in Washington State about what a housekeeping facility is. He actually found something in Kentucky where there was a group home, basically for 20 nurses that shared a kitchen facility; the whole thing only qualified as one housekeeping unit, because the individual rooms didn't have kitchens. It came back to the issue of kitchens again. He said this makes a lot of sense; if you have a house with three bathrooms, you are not going to say it has three dwelling units and is subject to a denseI requirement and all sorts of things. You have to look at whether they are self-sustaining units. What makes a unit self-sustaining is the kitchen itself. He asserted there are not kitchens in these units; so in the plain meaning in your code, therefore, these are not dwelling units and the four-dwelling rule does not apply. ~ Mr. Olbrechts said the density issue is almost a non-issue for you; they just had to preserve it in case the issue came up later on, or the conditions got changed, etc. Staff is saying this building does not have dwelling units, but for purposes of density, which requires X space per number of dwelling units, they are dwelling units. He said the proponent is saying you have to be consistent, if you are saying they are dwelling units within the building, dwelling unit also applies to the density which is only one dwelling unit for purposes of density and there are no density requirements that apply. He said for their project it is a non-issue, because Staffhas said you can call it density anyway because you are dedicating all this open space -- there are 12 acres here; so you comply. The project's applicants want to have that open space preserved; it makes the whole facility much nicer, much nicer for people using it to have dinner or lunch overlooking the wetland, etc. Nobody has a problem with that right now, he said he just had to preserve that for the record. 3. Appellant Presentation on SEP A Appeal (only) Ms. Colette Kostelec, Appellant, 540 Benton Street, Port Townsend W A Ms. Kostelec stated that she is a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Washington and runs her own consulting engineering business in Port Townsend. She said she personally doesn't have anything against congregate care facilities in Port Townsend, and this facility in particular. The real basis of her appeal is on ensuring consistency in Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page' 1 8 the application of city codes. She said she thinks that is just critical, that all of the citizens of Port Townsend deserve to know that City Staff are applying our codes unifonnly and fairly for all of the development projects that come in. She started her presentation referring to BCD Randall's memorandum of September 21,2000 addressed to the Planning Commission, Conclusions on Page 4 as to why the Commission should deny her appeal. She said she felt it is pretty clear, but her appeal was based on the fact she believes the bulk and dimensional requirements in the R-II zone do apply to congregate care facilities and could have been applied to this project in particular in that there are significant environmental impacts with not adhering to our codes in the review of the project, and that does set a precedent which is required by SEP A review. Looking at the Conclusions on Page 4 ofthe aforementioned memorandum, Mr. Randall concludes the Commission should deny the SEP A appeal for the following reasons and she added her comments: 1. Congregate care facilities are listed as conditionallv permitted uses in the R-II zoning district. She has never denied that congregate facilities are a conditional use in the R-II zoning district. She also thought it helpful to look at what a conditional use is, and the definition of a conditional use -- special degrees of control are needed in order to ensure that the development is consistent and compatible with the underlying zoning. As opposed to an outright permitted use, it is recognized that these uses have something about them that make the need to apply special controls to ensure that compatibility. She reiterated she had never argued that they were a conditionally permitted use in the R-II zone. 2. The proposed congregate care facility is consistent with the definition of such facilities contained in the zoning code. She did not deny this either; she thinks this facility is a congregate care facility as defined by the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC). She did say that the PTMC definition for congregate care facilities, besides justa single building, also includes the option of a complex of dwellings, that someone did consider that congregate care facilities could be located, not just in a single building but in a group setting of buildings. She said she would argue, in this case, that would be more compatible and consistent with the underlying R-II zoning, and that should have been a condition applied to this development through the SEP A review. Shesaid she did not deny it meets the definition of the facility, but she feels this facility would meet the definition of a congregate care facility that was more appropriate in the R-III and R-IV zone; a congregate care facility split up into a complex of dwellings would be more appropriate in an R - II zone. 3. That either the limitation' upon 4 dwelling units in a single structure contained in PTMC17.16.030 is applicable to congregate care facilities or that the units in this particular congregate care facility do .not equate to "dwelling units" as defined bv the zoning code. I) Regarding limitation upon 4 dwelling units in a single structure. . . applicable to congregate care facilities: She didn't think the City had presented any specific section ofthe code that exempts congregate care facilities ITom the bulk and dimensional requirement, namely the number of dwelling units allowed in a structure in an R-II zone. She referred to a section of the code that she said clearly exempts a specific use from a specific bulk and dimensional requirement and · · · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 19 asked the CO,mmission to compare that to the bulk and dimensional tables for our R-II zones so they would see that there is no specific, clear, unambiguous exemption of congregate care facilities to those bulk and dimensional requirements. She handed out tables that were entered into the record as Exhibit T. She said on the back page of the first table, Bulk and Dimensional Table for C-I and C-II/MU Zones, the footnote to the table specifically exempts storage areas from the bulk and dimensional requirement, listed above, of a maximum of any individual leasable commercial space in that zone, which is an indication of how easy it is to identify exemptions to bulk and dimensional requirements. If you look at Table 17.16.030, you do not see any sort of exemption of congregate facilities, either in the text or in the table. She said she did believe the limitation on 4 dwelling units per structure applies to congregate care facilities. 2) Are these dwelling units as defined by the code? She thinks you have to ask yourself if a person can live in one of these units and never make use of common dining areas and laundry facilities, if the person chose to eat, sleep, bath, wash in one of these units. With a refrigerator; a cooking appliance, mainly a microwave; she assumed electrical receptacles; sink; bathroom -- she believed the answer to be, "yes." She said she had lived in plenty of these units that never had washer and dryer facilities and still considered herself to be living in a dwelling unit. She said again for consistency she would like to share a memorandum, a Staff Report prepared by Jeff Randall in 1997 for the addition ofthree units for the assisted living facility on Discovery Road. She said the facility was permitted under the old code, so she went back to see whether or not the definition of dwelling unit had changed with the adoption ofthe comprehensive plan and new code; it had not, it is the exact same definition. Back in 1997, Mr. Randall referred to the addition of three dwelling units to this facility; further down he says, ". . .The facility is designed to allow residents to live a relatively independent life without the strict institutional requirements of nursing home care. All apartments will be provided with a kitchenette and private bathroom. . ." She said she thinks they are striving for consistency, and hope for consistency when each new applicant comes to the city with similar projects. She highlighted Mr. Randall's comments on the back, ". . . Dwelling units and density, one ofthe more controversial issues involved in any development application. . ." She said she would agree with that and would suggest that it is made only more controversial by inconsistent application of the same codes to similar developments. She reiterated the idea that bulk and dimensional requirements don't apply because there is no limit on number of units allowed in these buildings; she agreed that the only thing limiting the number of units in a congregate care facility is the underlying base density, in this case 8 units per acre, in the size of your parcel. She suggested it is not consistent to say that we are well within the limits of the allowable density of units in this structure, because we only have 74, and then to say these aren't dwelling units for the purposes of applying our bulk and dimensional requirement criteria. There is an inconsistency there. That her appeal is not well-founded on SEP A issues, she said she suggested in her appeal, and she maintains now, that there are significant adverse environmental impacts associated with Planning Commission Minutes· September 28, 2000 Page 20 approving a development that is in direct contravention of our bulk and dimensional requirements, and that sets a precedent for future development in any R-II zone ofthis type of development, that SEP A does require a review of precedents set by a development like this. She said she thinks her appeal does have merits based on SEP A. She concluded by saying again that she really does not have a problem with the congregate care facility being located on this site in Port Townsend, and feels that since the site is zoned R-II, that it is more appropriate for this congregate care facility to be designed as a complex of dwellings, which she imagined these very professional planners could do quite nicely in the R~ II zone. Otherwise, she believed the site should be rezoned to R - III multi-family to reflect the nature ofthe development as it is being proposed. 4. Public Testimony on SEP A Appeal and CUP At 8:35 p.m. Chair Harbison opened the meeting to hear testimony from the public. Ms. Katherine Jenks, 635 'u' Street, Port Townsend W A This is a wonderful opportunity to help our community come to a good conclusion. She noted that 41 ,000 sqft is 2, 000 feet less than Safeway before it was remodeled. She said to her as a citizen with personal esthetic issues, she would be affected by having to look at such a large building in a zone in which the underlying zoning does not permit it. She spoke of some SEP A environmental issues she would like to raise. She noticed there is new information; this is an open record hearing, and she said perhaps she is putting some new comments into the record. Ms. Jenks turned to a board exhibit and indicated it is shows an Alpine retreat. One ofthe major points of the presentation from the proponent and Staffwas a requirement of compatibility with the neighborllood. She said if you look at that drawing, if you were in Bavaria, it would be great. But the drawing shows a building with no other buildings around them. She claimed this drawing does not reflect the neighborhood at all; each ofthe drawings shows what looks like mountain peaks and tall fir trees. She said this is an idealized version of a location and does not reflect the potential for compatibility. She said she would hope that the Commission consider that these drawings have been entered for the record -- they are not accurate. Regarding stormwater Ms. Jenks said this is a SEP A issue, and she begged ignorance that she did not know how well it had been dealt with in the Staff Report. She said she is just bringing this up as a citizen with some experience with stormwater in the town, and continued that directly across the street from this proposed location is the golf course pond. She asserted that the golf course pond is the major drainage catchment for both sides ofthe hill, F Street down and Discovery Road down. She said in fact in the 1986 Stormwater Plan from CH2M Hill, it was recommended that as development occurred on both sides, the stormwater would increase so much to the golf course pond that it would have to be pumped to Kah Tai Lagoon. She said luckily that Plan was abandoned for a better system, but, that was basically referring to the impact of increased impervious surface to the · · · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 21 bottom ofthe basin; that is on the F Street side. On the other side, it is exactly the same elevation as the golf course pond; it is at the bottom of the hill. If you put a building with increased impervious surface in the lowest part at the bottom of the hill, you are creating not only the problem of its own infiltration, but the problem of all the stormwater that is draining down the sides of the hill. Where is in going to go now that the building is there with its impervious surface? She said she does not know the answer to that question. Ms. Jenks said she was on the City Council when they did the comprehensive plan and did this zoning. At that time she referenced the fact of increased impact to the hospitals ofR-III zoning in congregate Care and assisted living facilities with elderly people in them. She said that quite honestly her fellow Councilmembers felt she didn't have a good point, that there was no reason to bring in that factor with so few assisted living facilities, that it would be an impact to our emergency services, our ambulances and our hospitals. She said she is a jeweler by profession and has a customer who is an emergency room nurse; she was at Ms. Jenks' house the other day, and was complaining about how difficult it is in the emergency room to deal with one elderly patient after another, because there are so many new elderly patients in town because of these congregate care facilities. She was not denigrating, she was merely expressing the fact that she felt overworked. As a policy issue, with your conditional use permits and also with SEP A, she sincerely· requested that they examine impacts to the health care services of the increased needs of very elderly people, which we understand. Our hospital which is already under stress is going to be further impacted when you decide on further permitting of these facilities. To address the zoning issue, and the underlying zoning of R-IV, she said she heard Mr. McDonagh say tonight, as Ms. Kostelec said, that there is a microwave, a fridge, a shower and a bathroom in these studio, or one bedroom units and he used the word ''units,'' not bedrooms. She said she could live there; she thought she had probably lived in worse, quite frankly. A lot of people live all the time with a microwave and a fridge, so she would have to agree that to her that would be a dwelling unit. Earlier tonight Mr. McDonagh also said these would be studio or one-bedroom apartments, those were the words that were heard on the record at this hearing; he said apartments. She said an apartment is a dwelling unit; the Staff seems to be having a hard time even accepting these are bedrooms. She said she thinks the idea of calling a 74-bedroom unit, a 74-bedroom house is a ludicrous way of getting around this zoning, and she hopes that they do not approve this permit without further examination, and uphold the appeal. Ms. Valerie Brewster, 1036 Tremont Street, Port Townsend WA Ms. Brewster said she was very happy when she heard about this appeal. She had some questions when she first heard the development group was buying this property; she immediately thought they would have to get a zoning change, because this is R - II, residential zoning. All along in that process the answer to her question was that it is a tradeoff between the open space and this building. She said she was very happy they have the opportunity to examine this issue more closely. She does not think this issue has anything to do with the great job the development group has Planning Commission Minutes . September 28, 2000 Page 22 done in working with the neighbors, as they have testified -- talking with them about the building, addressing their concerns about lighting, about landscaping. She said she doesn't think it has anything to do about that, and doesn't have anything to do with the warm, fuzzy feelings they might have when we hear the words assisted living or thinking this is some kind of great work they are doing for society by having this. She thought this all comes down to the fact that this is a big building. When she went to the development group presentation and saw (as it appeared in the drawing) the elevation she would be looking at from her house, which has a very unobstructed view of this, her first thought was that it is huge. She also pulled up Mr. Sepler's illustration noting that she thinks there must be something strange going on, that she looks at San Juan Commons all the time; San Juan Commons is 38,750 square feet, a three story building. This project is larger in square footage, 41,000 square feet, and it is only a two story building. She said it just has to have a bigger footprint than this; this has to be a high view projected off the wide view. She said that is the only way you can see this tiny, what appears to be something maybe only less than half the size this of this building; this building is larger as far as square footage goes. She called that as a question. The intent of the code says fourplex. All this talk about stoves or refrigerators -- she said it reminds her of an apartment where she lived in California. Her landlord would drive up with his . truck and take out her stove and refrigerator when the city came around to inspect the property, because he wanted to hide the fact he had a mother-in-law apartment. She said there is no hiding -- it doesn't matter what is going on, whether someone is eating or sleeping. There are people who have stoves and refrigerators in their apartments and never eat there. So, it is not about that; it's about a big building. She said she believes the intent of the code doesn't have anything to 40 with whether people are eating, cooking, using microwaves or using full size ranges; it has to do with the size of the building. They said fourplex because they meant fourplex scale. They didn't mean 41,000 square feet and possibly up to 55,000 (or 53,000 when they put the additions on this project). She felt that building has a big environmental impact. She looks at this right now -- when this got built, she began feeling she lived in an outbuilding of a chateau; now there will be another one and she will look right at that also. She said earlier someone said the architect broke it into residential size pieces. She does not see residential size pieces; she sees a big building, and this is not harmonious. She also said the specter of 100 houses out there at some level is not bad to her. She looks right at this piece of property, and since 1997 has been trying to preserve it She said if it were all residential, that might be fine, especially if it we can't keep it preserved. Finally she wanted to talk about the issue of preservation of open space. The developers earlier today said they are preserving in perpetuity, this half ofthe property, which sounds really great and would be a really great thing. She said they need to see that in writing somewhere; we are all having this happy wish that this is going to be preserved, yet nothing says right now they can't sell that, or that they can't develop it -- who knows what? Ms. Brewster said again she thinks the Commission should look very carefully at these issues. . · · · - Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 23 Mr. Pete VonChristierson, 1229 29th, Port Townsend WA He expressed thanks for the opportunity to comment, and said SEP A requires that not only the environmental impacts of a project be analyzed, but the social impacts must also be analyzed. M V onChristierson said in the checklist report before the Commission items 74 and 75 deal with social services. He did not believe the fees that would be collected would cover those services. For example, fees collected-- the project is planned for an assessed value of$2.8 million, multiplied by a $.50/thousand service fee equals an annual charge of$1 ,400 per year. He referred to Victoria House, another assisted housing facility up the road a bit, and said to look at their usage of the emergency system, 911; over the past quarter they have gotten 8 calls (annually that would be 32 calls). He said if you pro rate that up by the number ofliving units here, versus those in the other assisted housing, that is 61 calls per year for the larger facility. He went on, dividing the $1,400 city revenue by 61 calls you end with $23/call; that barely covers the .cost of a call let alone anything that goes out to the site. He said he did not what the total cost would be, probably $200, $300, $400. The city at that point, and he did not know concerning the county, are losing money. He said the report says it would be a minor increase; it would not exceed the service capacity that we have now, and the tax and utility revenue will offset the costs. He said, obviously they are not, and that needs to be modified, and reviewed again. He continued, we already have a severe problem noted in the September 20th Leader with our emergency call system, the 911; this would certainly make the problem more extreme. Mr. V onChristierson referenced a statement "the highest and best of this site will be open space for the enjoyment of the entire community." He said many people say dollars indicate that this particular use would be the "highest and best use." He noted the importance that dollars do not always represent "highest and best use." A facility will always increase the land value higher than, for example, a park; if you ask the citizens which is the higher use for them they will always say a park. He thought the general plan delineates the area as potential open space; it should be open space -- it's an idyllic area, an open vista for many homes, in the middle ofthe city; it's accessible; it's an area that should be preserved as open space. He said it is a natural continuation of the Kah Tai Park and the golf course. Mr. V onChristierson said originally this was designated as potential open space by real visionaries; the Commissions at that point and the Council were real visionaries. He said he would like to see the Planning Commission continue that vision and suggest it to the Council. Mr. Mitchel Clanton, 1273 Tremont Street, Port Townsend WA He made the point that San Juan Commons, if anyone has ever gone by there and noticed that the roof is white, "It is white because of the Sea Gull crap on it, and it stinks." He said, especially if the place is bigger, he thinks they are asking for another white roof, and he doesn't think it is necessary. He said he thinks the emergency system is going to be over taxed; we have quite a few facilities in the area already such as Discovery and Victoria. He stated asking for more elderly to come into the area is not going to increase our tax revenues but put more or a burden on our community. Mr. Clanton said we are doing pretty well with what we have right now. That area could be Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 24 · served a lot better with maybe a park -- not as another big building. Ms. Julie McColloch, 1109 Hendricks, Port Townsend W A She thanked the Planning Commissioners for all their hard work saying she knows they have a hard job and are called on to make many difficult decisions on behalf of our community. She said she is speaking tonight in support of the appeaL Her objective was to call on the Commissioners to make a faithful interpretation of our comprehensive plan and our zoning code. She reminded that the comprehensive plan was a community driven document guided by many, many countless hours of public process and input; it also carries the force oflaw. Ms. McColloch said this project as with many proposals that come before the city, has elements to recommend it and elements which create concern. The purpose of our comprehensive plan and our zoning districts are to create predictability for our residents and property owners; this becomes especially critical in substantially undeveloped neighborhoods. Although, this facility strives to provide a much needed service, her primary concern is an apparent reinterpretation ofthe definition of "dwelling units" in order to permit a facility ofthis size, scale and density in the R-II zone. She said the purpose of the limitation of four units per structure in the R-II zone is intended precisely to restrict development of this scale in this zone. She stated her concern that if the city allows this project to go forward as designed through the use of a new variant interpretation of dwelling unit, the foot is in door and that we will open Pandora's box of definition-splitting. She claimed this means we fail to honestly address the impacts of allowing multi-family structures in all R-II zoned property within the city. Ms. McCulloch urged that they uphold the appeaL She said if this service and facility is truly needed, an asset to the city which she believed it is, let us address the impacts honestly and openly through use of one of the methods in the appeal-- either an issuance of an MDNS, or a remand to the applicant for reconsideration either with a binding site plan and a PUD, a comprehensive plan amendment, or a redesign of the facility. She thanked the Commission for their consideration and wished them good decision making. · Mr. Ian Keith, 1226 Garfield Street, Port Townsend WA He spoke to Mr. Fronk saying he is the Ian Keith who recently called him, that it is all true, except his parents are 88 not 84. Mr. Keith pointed out that certainly there is a need for this kind of facility here but not in a zone where it is not called for. He told the proponents their counsel said there is no ambiguity in a definition of "dwelling unit," and so it stops here. He thought they are seeing there is indeed ambiguity, and the ambiguity arises out ofthe use ofthe word "complete" in our definition. He said there is a lot of hair splitting going on; it has come down to what's in the kitchen. He said, joining in the hair splitting, the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) definition simply says "complete." Does that mean, as Mr. Randall contends, it has to have a range, and there has to be a washer and dryer? He contended, clearly not, because the City has approved an auxiliary · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 25 dwelling unit with exactly what is proposed in these units, i.e., a sink and a microwave in the kitchen; that is considered a dwelling unit and has been approved and signed off in the city. Mr. Keith said another way oflooking at this, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) adopted by the City is more specific. He quoted from 1997 UBC 301.7, Efficiency Dwelling Units, paragraph 3, "The unit shall be provided with a kitchen sink, cooking appliance and refrigeration facilities each having clear working space. . ." He said surely a microwave is a cooking appliance; ifthe ICBO that writes the building code had meant require "range" they would have said "range." They didn't; they said "cooking appliance." He said to approach it from another direction (he entered excerpts for WAC 388,110.02 and the 1997 UBC as Exhibits V and W), the applicant intends to operate an assisted living complex. The closest thing in our code is congregate care, but the applicant will have to operate under state rules for assisted living. He said references to congregate care were removed from the WACs in 1977, but in WAC 388.110.02, definitions, paragraph 4, is the statement, "Assisted living services include housing for the resident in a private apartment-like unit." He declared that is the WAC section under which this facility would have to operate. He said, "So, enough hair splitting." He stated that to approach this decision in this way is to ignore the elephant in the living room; he contended the clear intent of the zoning code and the Use Table is to limit the bulk of buildings in the R- II zone. Mr. Randall points this out himself in his quote from Planning Commission minutes at the bottom of the first page of his memorandum of September 21,2000. It suggests there are, ".. .limits on the maximum number of units allowed in a multi-family structure to avoid large, bulky buildings." He said Mr. Randall makes a point about whether this was a new requirement or an old requirement, but it seemed it is moot -- it is a requirement. . Mr. Keith stated he was on committees working on the Comp Plan as it was developed. He was on the Planning Commission when the Comp Plan came through there, and was on the City Council when the Comp Plan was adopted, so he has a reasonable amount of background on this. Congregate care -- the intent was to allow small scale congregate care, up to four units, just as the table states. He said if the applicant feels it is impractical to operate a congregate care that is broken up as our definition into a complex of buildings, then the approach should be to ask for a change in that definition, or a change in the bulk and dimensional -- not to attempt to circumvent the clear intent of the code by the twisting the definition of dwelling units. To address the precedent question -- nothing is being said in this CUP application about specifics, about this site that makes it different from other sites in the R-II zone. Following BCD's reasoning, any two-block site, of which there are many in the R-II zone, would be an appropriate site for a 16 unit assisted living complex. He said hè did not think this is what the R - II zone is for, and it is clearly not what was intended. He said, finally, to step further back again, he quoted from PTMC 17.84.050, paragraphs a and e, require that a project "must comply with the goals and policies of the Comp Plan" in order to win CUP approval. On the land use map, the subject property is R-II zone, overlay with potential parks and open space. He noted that several people had previously brought this up; the overlay was part of the vision of this whole district. The same property to the east, where San Juan Commons and the Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 26 Altzheimers Unit are located, was upzoned to R-III with the adjacent space helping to compensate for that higher density. He suggested they now have to think about cumulative impact; they balanced the increase of density against open space next to it. Now they ate proposing in what was hoped for as open space, a use which is more dense (not on a more dense per unit/per acre basis), a higher impact use than the underlying R-II zoning allows. He said unfortunately Ms. Jenks and he were not able to win support on the Council for acquisition of this parcel when they had the opportunity, and of course the underlying R-II zoning does control; however, to allow a use that exceeds the limits of the R-II zone is moving in the wrong direction. Mr. Keith urged the Commission ro recommend denial of the CUP application. Denial would not necessarily be the end of the project; it could proceed as a PUD or as a rezone with a higher level of scrutiny that it requires. He said to acquiesce in the auspicious reasoning of BCD would be to do a disservice to the city. Mr. Ted Shoulberg, 1511 19th Street, #5, Port Townsend WA He too supports the appellant's position to deny this CUP and remand it for whatever the Commission has to do with it. He said he doesn't think it needs to be processed at all. He said his contention is that this Staff could have deemed this application incomplete right up- front, and none of the community would be going through this agony of these definitional constructs of hair splitting. He said he did not know why they are here. He feels it is against the Comp Plan, against all the things many of them worked for in this community when they were on Council and Planning Commission. He said they knew the legislative intent, although now the lawyer is trying to say the legislative intent doesn't matter. Mr. Shoulberg contended it does matter when you have ambiguities as they are trying to point out; there are ambiguities in this situation -- they are creating the ambiguities. He said to him it is very clear; he has a masters degree in planning and he is a developer in this town. He said he is one of the few people who has gotten a rezone in this town in the last 10 years, if not the only one. He has just finished a self-help housing project under the new codes, and he too would like to see consistency in the application of these codes. He said it was almost hopeless; we have this array over here of powerful attorneys, consultants, the Staff, the lawyers -- he asked, "Who speaks for the public in situations like this? Does the public have to come en masse and plead with you to protect our community? I don't know where else we can go, but to you. So I am asking for your help in denying this application." Ms. Shirley Rudolph, 2137 Washington Street, #16, Port Townsend WA She said she is one-half of the listing agent on the property. She explained the marketing background on the property, that when the property came on the market, 2 to 3 years ago, they were aware that many people wanted to see the property as open space. She contacted the City. As Mr. Keith mentioned, the City considered at one time trying to do something, but was not able to; they contacted other entities in the community that would be interested in the community benefit, and they were not able to. She was contacted by many of the · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28,2000 Page 27 · neighbors who were concerned about the change in the open field and said she would try to keep that in mind in anything that came along. She pointed out that these folks from the Development Group came along, were looking for some property, and she asked them if they would consider putting some of this property in open space in return for being able to do their project. She had read in the Leader maybe there would be some consideration for clustering or density in keeping some of the property in open space. The Development Group responded that they would consider it. They did consider it and have actually paid more then they expected in order to provide this property as open space. She explained she is also a person that has a parent she brought to town; unfortunately that parent has passed the ability to be able to stay in a facility like this. She said in real estate she runs into people all the time that are elderly; they are living in their homes -- they are here already. She agreed there will be a lot that will want to bring their parents here that will require a little bit more burden on the health facilities. Ms. Rudolph pointed out, however, that there are many here already, living,.in their individual homes, that will be needing the care. They are alone; they are needing a facility like this, and they can't find one to get into. She said she thinks that will alleviate some of the burden on the social and the medical, because they are scattered over a large distance and a lot of little homes. Being in a single facility where they are together socially and also in one place close to everything, close to the hospital, she thinks is a good thing. There is a big need for it since our average population is now about 74 years old. . · Mr. Richard Talbot, 540 Benton Street, Port Townsend W A He noted that at the very beginning Mr. Watts instructed the Planning Commission that for them to find or make a decision to reverse the MDNS they had to find or observe that the appellant showed an error had been made by the Responsible Official in making his judgment. Mr. Talbot said there had been a lot of information in these presentations that talked about the legislative intent of codes; obviously, there has been a lot of discussion about the shades of meaning that can be applied to terms like "dwelling units," etc. He said his only concern here is, not to go back over that, but to suggest to the Commission that they are now faced with a very difficult decision of what constitutes an error. He said he hated to suggest that either the Staff or these consultants are incompetent and can't make an interpretation of the code; I think that is inappropriate. They have looked, and they have made a decision -- is it an error? He said what he is asking the Commission, having received this instruction from Mr. Watts, is whether you are clear about how you can make those judgments on the interpretation of codes, the use of codes; should a code be subject to a simple interpretation by the average person, who does not have the background of some of these other people? What should we as citizens expect from the code? He said he is posing this to you, because you were issued this fairly clear instruction; it is not clear to me how I as an appellant could necessarily define a clear, clean error in judgment on the part of the SEP A Responsible Official in a case like this on the issues that were discussed. He wished the Commission well. Planning Commission Minutes . September 28, 2000 Page 28 Ms. Catherine Robison, 1070 Tremont Street, Port Townsend W A She is a neighbor to this property and the proposed project. She said she supports the appellant in what she has said and agrees with the people who have spoken before herin support ofthe appellant on this project. She did not want to reiterate any of those things but posed questions she is remaining with after listening tonight. One concerns the environmental impact on our services in this community. It has been mentioned that 911 services are threatened at the moment. She said, granted that could be rectified, but it could be threatened again at any time. Our hospital services are in difficulty right now; this kind of facility, these residents will added stresses to those systems. She wants to know what responsibility the developers of this project, who are the owners of the building and the business, what responsibility they have to the impact on our community services -- what financial responsibility? what kind of relational responsibility? what kind of participation do they in have in increasing, supporting the services we all rely on that are stressed right now and probably will be into the near future, if not the longer term? Another thing, it has been mentioned several times by different people -- the approximately 6 acres of open space, that the land is not needed for the project because the density attached to that land is being used in the cluster in the other 6 acres, that 6 acres will be open space and it will be open space preserved in perpetuity. She still questioned, how? Nothing has been mentioned of how . this is going to happen. She asked that they put the condition on this that it be specified, that it is absolutely clear and irrevocable as part of any agreement you make with this project. She said without this there is no guarantee that at some later date the zoning of those 6 acres couldn't be changed, and the density (single family, anything) could be put in that space. She wants assurance that is open space in perpetuity as they have said, and she wants to know how that is done. She said her last point of concern is, they are assuring us their business is viable in this community, that they can make it go in this community. She said they have quoted statistics hIt not said where those statistics came from, how they derived those numbers -- whether it's based in calls they have from this community or where it is. But, they have assured us they have a viable business. All of us know situations of all kinds of businesses that have built buildings, rented property, assured the community they were viable as a business and then gone bankrupt or had troubles and had to leave. She declared if that happens in this case, we are left with a 41,000, maybe 55,000, square foot building that is empty. She referred to San Juan Commons we have already, and said it is a huge building; next to that an Altzheimers care facility, San Juan Court, that has been on the property for 1 year and is empty because they do not have people 10 put in that building. Ms. Robison asked the Commission to consider this very carefully and support the appellant's appéal on this project. Chair Harbison called for anyone else speaking and asked that they limit their remarks to something that has not previously been in testimony. . · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 29 Ms. Lori Bernstein, 1300 Pacific Street, Port Townsend W A Ms. Bernstein said she supports the appeal. She said she was not sure if it would account for anything or not, but if it does, she has stated it. Mr. Dana Roberts, 438 - 22nd Street, Port Townsend W A Mr. Roberts addressed the Chair. He said bearing in mind what the Chair had just said about adding something new, the very recent comment, with which he heartily concurred, that the need for solid, permanent commitments assure the carrying out of what is referred to in the August 15th CUP, his comments. concern only the response to that document, page 5, Section 10. Mr. Roberts said the comment states, "A key component of the project with regards to compatibility is the applicant's intent to preserve the northern six acres as open space. . . " He then asked if the northern six acres go out of open space status or condition, will the conditional use permit be no longer valid? He said he was reminded of the old maxim, that the road to hell is paved wÌth good intentions; it seems to him that is all this application carries within it to assure that open space will be so maintained. · Ms. Kostelec addressed the Chair arid asked to speak to the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Harbison granted her permission to speak. Ms. Collette Kostelec, 540 Benton Street, Port Townsend Ms. Kostelec said she wished to make it clear on the record she is also speaking against approval ofthe Conditional Use Permit, because once again, and briefly, she believes the application of the proposal cannot meet approval criteria fromPTMC 17 .84.050.f -- that conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards ofthe PTMC. She said it is in direct violation of the bulk and dimensional standards related to the number of dwelling units in a structure in the R-II zone. Ms. Jenks requested to speak a second time. Chair Harbison asked City Attorney Watts for direction. Mr. Watts concluded it would be the decision of the Commission whether or not to allow second testimony. Chair Harbison again reminded the speakers to limit their comments to new testimony. Ms. Katherine Jenks Ms. Jenks said during testimony she had asked Ms. Rudolph, the listing agent for the property, if the proponents actually own the property. Ms. Rudolph responded that the transaction is not yet closed; the proponent does not yet own the property. · Mr. Ted Shoulberg Mr. Shoulberg stated that if you find the conditional use application is not valid, or you find Appellant Kostelec's request to create an environmental impact statement is valid, you can direct the City Attorney to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions. He said he could remember many times Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 30 sitting on the Council and listening to all the testimony all at once, and not having the correct legal way to frame the arguments. He explained that you can ask that you substantially find the following. . . . and please fill in the blanks; you can ask the City Attorney to fill in the blanks. You can get help on the spot. You don't need to actually craft the legal opinion; you can ask that it be substantially done by the City Attorney afterward. Mr. Shoulberg said if you follow the logic of the application, there is no amount of units or non- units that you can build in a building in an R-II zone. What is the purpose of the zone if it's not to control the density? He contended by their definitional constructs, you could build 1,000 non-units in this; the only thing that would stop it is the bulk and dimension requirements. Y sm could keep going on. There is no way to get hold of this project the way they are describing it and fit it into the codes. He said as a developer he wants to have consistency; I struggled with it when I went through my self-help housing project, and I think it is very important for all of us in this town.. At 9:25 p.m. Chair Harbison closed the meeting for testimony from the public. He called for the applicant to speak in rebuttal, asking them to remember not to introduce new material. DEVELOPER'S REBUTTAL -- Developer Response on SEP A and CUP Mr. Phil Olbrechts, Attorney Mr. Olbrechts said he would be calling up various members oftheirteam to discuss various parts of the project in response to comments made this evening. He thinks it is extremely ironic that a lot of people are asking why so much time is being used to talk about dwelling units, splitting hairs, when the dwelling unit issue is the only thing in the code that the opponents can find as reason to deny this project. He said, because if that 4 unit per building doesn't apply to this case, there really isn't anything else you can point to in the covenant; you look at the conditional use criteria, of course, but he felt we all think this a very well designed project with lots of open space to buffer the impacts of the bulk and density of this project. He said really it is the opponents' argument that rests on whether or not density applies here. Mr. Olbrechts again discussed plain meaning and asked that they use a little common sense this time that actually sometimes applies in the interpretation of law, whether or not this is really an obvious term. He called them to think about the project, an assisted living facility. That means people obviously who need assistance in living can't do it on their own. If you put these people in a room with a complete housekeeping unit, they are going to have problems -- they can't survive on their own; they need help. The whole point of an assisted living facility, is that they have common dining areas and facilities like that, so these people don't have to live on their own. A self-sustaining unit just isn't necessary for them. The microwaves and the hotel refrigerator are just amenities -- that is all they are. He said if it takes having a condition saying they can't have microwaves in the units, they will gladly do that That is just fine -- now we don't have a complete kitchen facility according to definitions. He said by common sense definition, these aren't complete living units. He repeated · · · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 31 that is what assisted living is all about. To understand how assisted living operates he called on the applicant, Bill Fronk to describe what it is like to live in these. Mr. Bill Fronk, Development Group He first touched on the discussion of the practicality of breaking this building into a variety of buildings on site. He said this basically and wholly flies essentially in the face in the concept of assisted living and congregate care. One of those main concepts is providing care in an interaction environment with a variety of individuals who interact with i.e., other seniors. If they break up the building and put only eight seniors in a building, for example, oftentimes about three or four ofthem will be on their activities; so, you would have only three or four residents at the maximum in any common area at anyone time. He said there would be a complete lack of interaction, which is one of the main components in providing care and improving acuity levels in our elderly. Mr. Fronk said also it would become economically impractical to design assisted living or congregate care in a broken up format, because, in turn, it would increase the overall costs, thus increase the overall rates, and assisted living would become unaffordable to the senior citizens of our community. He thought this is best reflected through a duplication of resources perspective. He pointed out in their facility they have a bather tub that is quite elaborate, it is over $15,000 just f.o.b.; many of their residents are unable to provide bathing for themselves. He said it would be completely impractical to put a bather tub of that nature in all of these structures -- that is just one component. He also touched on one topic raised, economic viability of the project and where they derived the numbers they have iterated. He said this is something they have been doing for numerous years, in which they have a good track record, and they have a lot of independent, third party assessment of their projects prior to even being introduced. He stated that specifically one of the initial feelers is community need; people in the community are unable to house their parents here. He thought that was a good indicator, in and of itself. Their lenders take a very hard look -- they are not going to lend multi-million dollars to a project which they are not comfortable is going to be viable. He said MAl appraisers that are nationally recognized assess their markets for them prior to being introduced into those markets. Theyconduct their own internal analysis to check the basis of the studies the do receive. They also solicit the services of Marcus Milichap out of of San Diego. CA, who are the world leaders of senior housing markets; for example, if an REIT, real estate investment trust, wants to buy an assisted living facility, they go first to check with Marçus Milichap to make sure it is a viable investment for them. He said, as you can see, they have a variety of mechanisms to make certain they do have an economically viable service to offer the community. Regarding impact to the medical community and the hospital, he explained that the mission of assisted living is to minimize the care required, and in fact reduce the care required through therapy and full time nursing. He said their facilities have full-time nursing so little and non-catastrophic events can be handled onsite without having to take them to the hospital; their nurses also provide a medication and variety of other services. He asked would they be adding to the services? He replied most ofthe market they are targeting at this time currently lives within Port Townsend. He said they see the characteristics of the people here today; there is a shortage of over 200 units. He indicated Planning Commission Minutes . September 28, 2000 Page 32 these people would either age in place in the house, or they could age in place in this facility. Aging in place in their house in this town, they are still going to require those same services; they have paid their taxes for those services over their livelihood in the community. He said, actually, we would like to think we have reduced the impact to hospital and medical services in the community by having our assistance and care, and those seniors are no longer living in their house where they fall down the stairs and break their leg versus having an elevator or a nurse with a wheel chair. He said they also having problems taking their medications in time, or take the wrong medication, which puts them in an hospital for a variety of reasons. Their facility has medical disbursement which is part of the assisted living process, to make sure medication is administered in a proper fashion. In summary on the impact, he would like to think they actually reduce it. He said Mr. Olbrechts has touched on the dwelling unit. touched on a topic he is mainly concerned with. He said he thinks they need to take a practical look at this. Assisted living is for people basically 85 years or over who have one or more of the daily activities apparently they cannot do and the need assistance. He asked, could they live in their room? Absolutely not. What would the life-long spectrum be if they are stuck in a room eating out ofa microwave, for example? He contended that is not good nutritional health care and is not in the thought of minimizing their exposure. They need a common area to interact with their other colleagues to see activities -- you cannot do that by living in your dwelling unit; that would reduce your livelihood. They need .. assistance often, for example, with bathing; they need to go to a bather tub. They can't do that in their room. He said he would not like to think of his mother being stuck in a room, eating out of a microwave, and not being bathed. He does not call that qualify of life. . Mr. Fronk asked, therefore, could someone live in one of those? Absolutely not. Could they live in it in the standard they would live in a home which a dwelling unit is made to imply? No they couldn't live to those standards ifthey live in their home -- they need assistance. He said we need to take a practical look at that; I do not think we are splitting hairs; I think we are taking a practical look at it. These are not something someone could live in -- just one component of where they live. Mr. Olbrechts then called on Mr. Sepler to comment. Chair Harbison reminded Mr. Sepler this is rebuttal Mr. Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning He reminded the Planning Commission that wh~n this was introduced he noted very clearly it was the view from Cherry Street -- that is the area according to the legal record where they had the most concerns in terms of view impact. He pointed out the elevation and Cherry Street; he suggested looking at the maps. He said this is the elevation that faces Cherry Street that is parallel to San Juan Avenue, and he noted they are both 1/8 inch, and, yes, this building has a longer facade that goes perpendicular to it. He said they did not try to use smoke mirrors to cover that by any means, and, to be truthful, when this elevation was significantly smaller they used that back side, because you could see the end of the building. Mr. Sepler said he wanted to make another point. This application was not prepared . · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 33 surreptitiously in the middle of the night; this is not some attempt to review the code and find a loophole that could drive a large building through it. Thoughtful people have reviewed the code and identified the possibility, and over a process that included numerous opportunities for the public to participate, identified that this was the likely outcome based on what the code would state. He said, again, certainly he thinks it was noted that reasonable people can read these rules and come to different interpretations; however, it is their professional opinion, based on years of experience, that the interpretation that supports this application would prevail. Mr. Olbrechts, Attorney Mr. Olbrechts said he would wrap it up regarding a comment made tonight. A few people talked about needing some permanent covenants on the open space property to make sure it is never developed. He pointed out that has been taken care of by Staff. He quoted from Condition e, Page 11 of the CUP Staff Report that the open space would be preserved in one of two ways, ". . .a) recording an instrument with the Jefferson County Auditor that designates the area as a conservation easement. The language contained in the recorded instrument must be reviewed and approved by the BCD Director and City Attorney;" He explained that is going to be something of record; no matter who that property is sold to, it is still going to be at the Auditor's Office; it's going to prohibit development, and is going to be subject to the City Attorney's approval. He said when he approves these things, he always requires that they can't be amended or removed without the city's approval-- so, that is really taken care of. The other way it can be handled, ". . . b) transfer of the property to an established non-profit land conservation organization approved by the City, such as the Jefferson County Land Trust." He reiterated he thinks Staffhas done a pretty good job in addressing that one; he did not think they had to worry about that property turning into a McDonalds any time soon, or ever. Concerning comments made about hospital services, 911 services -- he said as a lawyer he would have to say, impacts on hospitals was not raised as an issue in the written SEP A appeal, so it cannot be considered in that part of it. He supposed if you can hammer that into the CUP consideration, you could, although he thought Mr. Fronk has pretty well addressed that issue and established that it is not going to increase that demand. Regarding a comment about using the PUD process, for increased scrutiny -- he said if any of you have been on the Planning Commission for any length of time, he thought you had to acknowledge that this project has gone through quite a bit of scrutiny, neighborhood scrutiny and several modifications. He said, again it is a very well designed project -- what in the world would a PUD process add to that? Nothing -- there is nothing in the PUD that gives it more authority to reduce the size of the project, and that is the only thing he thought left to regulate in this case. He addressed concerns about business viability. He asked, what can you do? You can't guarantee that any business is going to be viable. If that were a condition for zoning, you wouldn't have much business going on anywhere. He said he thinks here the applicant has shown a very dililgent effort ensuring this is a good, financially viable product. Regarding the comment someone made about being ludicrous to think a building this large was Planning Commission Minutes . September 28, 2000 Page 34 allowed in this area, he contended that it is ludicrous to think that the city would approve a congregate care facility but limit it to four bedroom units. They just can't operate that, considering how Mr. Fronk described what was needed there. He said, finally the appellant didn't identify any environmental impacts in her presentation; she just said because it violates the code, it creates adverse environmental impacts. He asked the Planning Commission, if their decision is to say the Responsible Official decision is wrong and requires an environmental impact statement, what impacts are they going to assess? They haven't been identified for you in the SEP A appeal. He said he thinks that is something very lacking there. Regarding the comment about lack of controls, how can we make sure this is compatible with the neighborhood if it's not limited to four bedroom units? -- he said the answer is that your conditional use permit process does require compatibility with the neighborhood, and that really was a driving force behind all this open space and everything else that was required for this project. If it weren't for the conditional use conditions, who knows. The open space wouldn't be there. He pointed out, you do have those controls in place. The whole issue is if you don't think there is enough strength there, by all means amend your code and make sure that for future projects you have more of what you want in the code. Right now, the only thing that limits the size is this alleged four-dwelling units per building. He said that is not there, so all you are left with is that some City Council members, etc. 2 years ago or so, thought that it would limit sizes -- you can't obviously. Mr. Olbrechts suggested to the Commission that they were not all lawyers, ob,:"iously, but he e. thinks it is pretty easy to see that you can't limit development by somebody's intent, 2 years ago; it has to be written in the code somewhere, and it's just not here. He said he thinks again, it is a great project, and asked the Commission to feel free to ask questions of him or any of the development team. Chair Harbison gave opportunity for the appellant to give rebuttal. He asked her not to introduce new material. APPELLANT REBUTTAL: Ms. Colette Kostelec Ms. Kostelec said she thinks it is interesting to just think about the intent of these congregate care facilities. Are they facilities that are designed as Jeff Randall once thought in 1997, facilities designed". . . to allow residents to live a relatively independent life without the strict requirements of a nursing home care . . "? Or are they in fact a lot more like the definition of a nursing, rest or convalescent home in the municipal code which says it's an establishment which ". . . provides full time care for three or more chronically ill or infirmed persons . . ."? She said it seems to her as though the City Staff has interpreted the code one way for permitting additional dwelling units in the assisted living facility on Discovery Road, and is now interpreting the intent of these sorts of facilities in the exact opposite ways to support the proposal that is on the table tonight. She said she heard the applicant say as he describes the project that these are old people; that they can't bathe for themselves; they can't cook for themselves; they require full time nursing care; they can't live in a . · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 35 room; the can't give themselves appropriate nutritional care with the cooking facilities provided. She said it just starts sounding a lot more like a nursing home facility to her. She pointed out that nursing homes are a prohibited use in the R-II zone. Again, regarding the issue oflimits on size ofthese buildings, by saying these are not dwelling units in this building, we are essentially saying this is one dwelling unit. Then the only thing limiting how many of these units we can fit on that 12 acre size is essentially lot coverage, 35 percent maximum lot coverage in the R-II zone. She said by her calculations (12 acres, 35 percent, and the size of this building), you could have 3-1/2 of these buildings on that same site. She did not really think that is what the city had in mind, or the applicant, or anyone when they talked about and wrote codes related to the R-II zone. As to the issue if she has made a case that there was an error by the SEP A Responsible Official in his Determination of Non-Significance for this project, she again said that by not recognizing the significant adverse impacts of non-compliance with the zoning code, and specifically the dwelling units per structure in the R-II zone, that the SEP A Responsible Official did not comply with SEP A requirements for evaluating precedents set by proposals, specifically WAC 197 .11.060Ad. She said she would just like to say that adopted codes and standards are in place, as she has said in her appeal, to ensure that if a development follows those codes and standards, that development will not pose a probable significant adverse impact. She said her appeal also included some recommendations for how this project could be approved on this site: ~ One was designing it as a complex of dwellings. She said someone thought congregate care facilities could be designed as a.complex of dwellings; she is sure it's been done -- she is sure it could be done. She said it may not be as economically lucrative to do it that way, but she thinks it can be done; the definition suggests that it can be done that way. Ifthat were to be done, and you wanted to cluster all those four-plexes on half the site, she believed that the only section in the code that speaks to clustering units on a site is the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the code. She thought if you don't go that way, the only other alternatives are: ~ Rezoning the property to R-III or higher, or ~ Applying through a Comp Plan amendment for a revision to the bulk and dimensional requirements for the R-II zone, specifically exempting these sorts of facilities, or ~ Changing the requirements by allowing multi-family development in the R-II zone. She suggested one interesting thing is to look at what would happen if someone came in with a single family residential proposal on this property. Again, if someone wanted to put 74 single family homes on this property, the first thing the City would say is you need to subdivide the property. If they wanted to cluster all those 74 units on half the site, the City would say they would have to do that through a PUD. She asked why with an outright permitted use would they have to go through those processes, but with a conditional use, which should theoretically have special controls imposed upon it, wouldn't we go through it the same. Ms. Kostelec concluded by saying that through a PUD, you are essentially rezoning the property; Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 36 it is an rezone overlay on that property. Chair Harbison gave opportunity for Staffto respond to any subjects raised by any speaker or make any additional statements. 5. Staff Response on SEPA Appeal and CUP Mr. Jeff Randall, BCD Director, Responsible Official. Mr. Randall thanked everyone for attending and for acting in the manner they have tonight. He said he thinks this makes it possible to live in a small town like we do and be as active as we are -- to debate things that come up in a manner that you have. He said he considers many present as friends. He said the discussion tonight makes it sound like this is a very complicated decision to make. He said when folks come into their office and want to make any kind of proposal, sometimes digging through the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) figuring out exactly what is allowable and what is not allowable and how it is to be done is no simple matter. He said those in their office and BCD strive to give folks very consistent information, make it as clear as possible and minimize unnecessary processes. He continued that when the issue came into their office, of what could they do with this property, it's R-II, you look in the Land Use Table and it says "congregate care facility"-- well, pretty much what you have to say is that congregate care is allowed as a conditional use. When you look at the definition of "congregate care facility," and it says one building, a number of buildings, dwelling units, non-dwelling units -- he said what that tells him is the definition allowed a lot of flexibility in those things that could be done, leaving it do a developer to identify to their clientele what their needs are. Maybe some individuals would like more of a full living environment, maybe with a little bit smaller scale, but where they could live completely independently and use/share recreation facilities, dining faciJities, if they so choose and visit with the neighbors in this complex. He said he thinks it also allows for one building with units that don't equate to dwelling units; he thinks there is a range in there implied, and it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said you do have policies in your Findings and Conclusions that refer to the Comprehensive Plan, and if you have read them, they talk that Port Townsend should provide multiple zones; providing for multiple types of housing; be flexible; provide for all the economic segments of our society. He said he thinks this is an example of this definition, allowing flexibility, allowing for variable uses. He said the fact that congregate care facilities is listed as a conditional use in the R-II zone, different from the R-III where it is permitted, recognizes that we are more concerned about protecting the single family nature of the R - II zone; that is why the conditional use is there. Because something is listed as a conational use, it doesn't mean you have to approve it. Because an applicant proposes this structure (he turned to the drawing) someone said looks like a Bavarian village, or a Bavarian large unit, doesn't mean you have to approve it. He said the Findings and Conclusions list · · · · · · Planning Commission Minutes Septe~ber 28, 2000 Page 37 a number of criteria. They talk about: compatibility; harmony with the neighborhood -- if you look at all those criteria and add them together, it does give you a lot of power. He said he thinks when you are looking at this you need to say, does it meet these? Ifit does not meet these, if you are going to approve it, condition it so it does meet them; whether that means breaking the building up; whether that means lowering because you have a specific concern that it's going to block, or if you feel that the structure is not compatible with the predominant building sizes in the neighborhood -- you basically have that power. Mr. Randall said looking at the application when it came into our office and applying our code, they felt that on the face of it, that because it says one building, they could be dwelling units or not be dwelling units, that this is consistent with that definition. He said there has been a lot said tonight to make it appear that BCD rather whimsically says things are dwelling units, says they are not dwelling units, depending. on who knows what -- whether we like or don't like it, or whether we are always just trying to make the applicant happy, who knows what the allegation is. He said, "Let me tell you, again it is a very small town." People all talk to one another; if you are calling something one time a dwelling unit and not calling it a dwelling unit at another other time, it would get around very fast. Here is our definition; it is not written anywhere, because again we have this definition from the code that talks about"complete housekeeping unit." He said how we define that on a day- to-day basis is as simple as this, does it have an oven range together with those other items, the bathroom, the bedroom, the living facilities? He said they have people come in every day -- he cited a recent example in the R-I district which requires you have a minimum 10,000 square feet. This person felt 10,000 square feet is a waste of land unless he builds as many buildings as he can; he wanted to build a single family residence for his ex-wife; he wanted to build a garage with some living space above it for an extra bedroom or something. He wanted to build a third building, and wanted to have kitchen and bathroom facilities and bedroom facilities in all of these. They had to tell him they were sorry, but the R- I only allows a single family residence and one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) if the primary occupant lives in the single family residence. It doesn't allow a single family residence, plus an ADU, plus another ADU, which israther what he was proposing. He wanted to know, where is that line -- what is a dwelling unit? what is an accessory dwelling unit? They told him their definition is, if it has the range in it, it becomes a dwelling unit. The one he had proposed as a garage; he pulled out the range -- it was still a bedroom and might have a refrigerator in it in the future, might have a sink in it in the future. He said they have other situations where people have their house, but they want their office in the back. Maybe they already have an ADU, but they want to have an office; they ask what they can have in it -- a sink? a refrigerator? stove? He said they have to draw a line; it is the stove, and that is where they draw the line. Others have brought up that they could live in one of these; "I could get by with a microwave and a fridge -- I could be happy." He said to tell the truth, if someone came into their office tomorrow and said they have a house, have an ADU, enough land and can meet setbacks, but wanted to put one ofthese things, a little building with a bedroom and a bathroom, a sink and fridge in it, can I do that? He would reply, the code allows them to have a single family residence and an ADU, that is all you can have, so, there can't be an another ADU. We would let him have it, because we wouldn't define Planning Commission Minutes . September 28, 2000 Page 38 it as a dwelling unit. He mentioned reference to a memo he wrote in 1997, 2-1/2 months after he started working for the City of Port Townsend, his first file; he did not do the rest ofthe file. He said he thinks this was an amendment to the original planning and development -- the assisted living concept now called Victoria House on Discovery Way. He referred to ". . . adding three additional dwelling units to a previously approved 36 assisted living care facility." He stated that the appellant referred to this letter, that for some reason referring to the dwelling units here for their benefit -- for our benefit, or for somebody's benefit -- and now not referring to them as dwelling units here, for again someone's benefit, he is being inconsistent. He spoke of the buildings physically and said he had been in the one on Discovery Way and has seen the plans for this project; basically, they are identical other than this one is proposed as two-story for 74 units, and he believes the other one ended with a total of39 units and is one-story. He said he guessed if you double it, it is basically the same building. They had the same thing -- one room with a bathroom and a little kitchenette (a small fridge, microwave and a small sink); they are basically the same kind öfthing. He referred to it as a dwelling unit here. He said it didn't give them any advantage; that maximum four dwelling unit didn't even exist at the time this applied. He stated what he was referring to was density, and he was speaking to their wanting more dwelling units; therefore, it would increase the density. That was consistent with the original PUD; the reason this triggered a PUD is because they were asking for more density than the .underlying zone allowed. . Mr. Randall distributed Exhibit X, A History of Senior Housing in Port Townsend. He explained that Kah Tai Care Center is really not applicable, because they were developed before code. He said what he is getting to is how they applied their code to these things (Kah Tai was done before our code existed in the '50s and '70s). He enumerated the following: ~ Victoria House -- 39 unit assisted living facility (same sort of thing). Zoning at that time, R-I. The category they had to put these into was convalescent facilities; there was nothing for congregate care facility. In order to get it, they had to do a PUD; it was an allowed use through a CUP. They did a PUD for it because they were asking for more density for what the underlying zone allowed, and they did SEP A. ~ Madrona Ridge was something that was proposed by Nancy Scott on Howard Street that hasn't been completed. It was in the R-III zone; it was originally going to require a PUD because the original zoning was R-IA which did not allow congregate facilities at all. They were going to do a PUD because it was a prohibited use. The zoning changed to R-III, made it a permitted use and the PUD wasn't necessary. He said that one could still happen at some point. ~ San Juan Commons is not assisted living. It is an apartment building designed for senior citizens. Apartments are a permitted use in the R-III, and they met the basic density requirements, so no PUD was required for that either. ~ Northwest Care Management is that Altzheimers facility which has been referred to as being empty. It is R-III and was permitted use also. Convalescent and congregate care are both permitted in R-III. . · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 39 · Mr. Randall said this project is listed as a CUP, so that clearly applies; a PUD we felt didn't apply because they are not asking for variance of setbacks, buildings, density, lot coverage, anything. He said the only thing -- are they dwelling units? He said as he explained, per the way they apply their code every day, these are not dwelling units. He said ifthe applicant came in with this project- - he takes the opposite tack and would say these are all dwelling units; the have full housekeeping facilities for a family. He said he would have a hard time making that argument with a straight face, because this whole thing is designed around a common kitchen area, a common eating area, a common recreation area, common washing facilities. He said the definition talks about these people as needing a certain amount of care; they have at least one physical disability as these folks have defined. He said with a straight face he could not say that. He said they strive for consistency; if they don't, in this town they are going to get burned. It is a small town, we have our reputation, and we want to be able to give straight answers to people. He said he is not saying this is an easy decision; it is complicated -- definitions are complicated; we have lots of bulk and dimensional standards so we can predict and take care of everything. He said to the Planning Commission he guessed the short answer is he feels like they are not dwelling units, but you have a lot of power to deal with the impacts of this project and he thinks these folks have raised a lot of very good questions about if this is compatible? can it be made compatible? He said you have all the conditional use permit criteria, all the multi-family design standards that talk about neighborhood scale, etc. to deal with this project. He said he guessed rather than trying to trip it up by saying they are dwelling units and the limited case law they have on these, the law probably wouldn't support that. He said he is recommending they do not go down that route, because it's not legally defensible; he thought we could get in trouble if we were the reverse case -- if the folks were appealing our determination that they were dwelling units. · Mr. Randall discussed a couple of other issues that were brought up: Stormwater: Our information in this general area from San Juan Commons short plat is that these are some of the best wells in town for drainage. He said they have no evidence at all that water is coming back toward the golf course. They have to comply with the state stormwater manuals, as well as the city's stormwater requirements. He said that our information so far is that we can make it work, and it's not going to impact outside properties. Impact to the hospital and emergency services: He said that is another good question. Right now under Washington State law, though we cannot charge an impact fee unless we have an impact fee ordinance. Right now we don't. Basically, we don't call them impact fees, but we have fees for water and sewer that we charge for every new residential connection to pay for future expansion. He said we don't have anything for emergency services. So, legally we can't do it unless they voluntarily offer to do so. He said they did circulate the application to the fire department, and they didn't get comments back about how this was going to negatively impact their service. Density: Several people have brought up the fact that we are being inconsistent because we are not saying they are dwelling units in terms of the definition of each unit being a dwelling unit, but we Planning Commission Minutes . September 28, 2000 Page 40 are saying they are dwelling units in terms of density. He thinks a lot of people have made a lot of good points that if you don't have some kind of cap on these kinds of facilities, they could be big as a mountain. What he is relying on, the Land Use Table when it talks about density says "housing units;" for R-I and R-II says ''units, and for R-III and R-IV it talks about bedrooms, which is a recent amendment. He said it is not saying "dwelling units" when it is says ''units.'' He said he hated to be technical, but he is going to be, it says "housing units." He said he would say these are housing units, but he is not saying they are dwelling units. So, that is how we are dealing with the density. We feel that gives us a cap on it; it applies to the housing units in the table, but as far as dwelling units in a structure, we don't feel that applies. He said he provided the Commission the history on this amendment, about how it came about in 1999 as part of an overall code cleanup. It was a code amendment of Eric Toews and Tim McMann who were on staff at that time and took that through; it was listed as a code amendment. He said the ordinance is about 1/8th inch thick. They moved definitions around, changed cross references and got rid of some definitions that weren't applicable anymore. They added that section about no more than four dwelling units allowed in a structure in R-I and R-II. What they said it was about is that it wasn't a requirement, it was referring to the general principles in the Comp Plan and the prohibition in R-I and R-II over anything that is more than a four-plex. He said, when he read that before that amendment was done, the code still said the same thing: up to a four-plex a single family dwelling was permitted; more than a four-plex, it was multifamily development and . not allowed. Congregate care facilities was a conditional use permit then; it's a conditional use now. There was nothing there saying congregate care facilities were limited in size other than you had a conditional use permit and you had multi-family design standards, which is what we are asserting we still have to work with. That new section should not be applicable. Chair Harbison opened the hearing for Planning Commissioners to address any questions of anyone who has spoken this evening or any questions they have, of Staff. He asked respondents to questions to please take the lectern to respond. Plannine: Commission Questions: Mr. Arthur: On the last to come up, Exhibit X, it says that Victoria House had to provide a SEP A and Madrona Ridge a SEP A, am I to understand that is a full SEP A review? Is that what these proponents have done? Mr. Randall replied that all those items: Victoria House, Madrona Ridge, San Juan Commons, Northwest Care Management, when it says SEP A it is referring to SEP A MDNS (Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance), a similar process except that some of those were administrative determinations and never came to a public hearing, such as Madrona Ridge, San Juan Commons and Northwest Care Management, while Victoria House because it was a PUD went to a public hearing. . Mr. Arthur: None ofthese went to a full SEP A Review? Mr. Randall replied as far as an EIS, none did. Mr. Arthur said he keeps hearing about the dwelling units. He said he is a little confused as . · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 41 is everybody as to what that means, so he asked, is there any reference in the codes anywhere to who controls the use of the unit? Mr. Randall replied, if he understands the question, "no." Mr. Arthur: For instance if I have a dwelling unit that I call "home," I can invite as many people, have as many people stay as I choose, for as long as I choose. Am I to assume that if! were to call this a"dwelling unit," that the people that lived in it would have the same opportunity to invite guests to stay overnight? He said he is trying to clarify in his mind -- he said he could understand the stove part, but he thinks there is more; what he calls a dwelling unit is where he controls, he pays rent and controls who comes and goes. He said he does not know how these homes are handling that. Mr. Randall: There is a definition of family, which we have not provided for you. He said he could read it for the record, "Family means one or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or a group of not more than six persons, excluding servants, not related by blood or marriage living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The persons thus constituting a family may also include foster children, guests and domestic servants. State licensed adult family homes and consensual living arrangements of disabled persons in accordance with the Federal Fair Housing Act are exempt from this definition." He said that is the only thing he is aware of that gets at how many people can be in a house, be a family and be a dwelling unit. Mr. Arthur: It needs to be more clear than that. The definition you just read, basically says I am in a unit that I control who comes and goes and who stays there; there must be some kind of control. Who controls who sleeps in the bed inside of whatever this room is? Mr. Randall asked Mr. Arthur ifhe is talking about this assisted living facility and he replied that he was. Mr. Randall said he thinks they arerented and leased out, so it would be the operators of the facility. Mr. Arthur suggested they are the ones who control who sleeps in the bed. Mr. Randall said that would be correct. His understanding is they are not salable by the individual tenant; the person living there cannot sell the unit; it's not rentable by them; it's operated by the owner. Mr. Arthur said his sister lives in an assisted care facility down in Shelton, and I can go visit her. I can help her in her room, but I can't go and stay for a week down there in this facility. They have rules for that. In the broad sense of what he is trying to find out here, in this particular case, who decides who stays inside every room? Mr. Watts called for clarification Mr. Fronk, Development Group, replied that the facility controls that, as you have eloquently Iterated, as in the Shelton facility. Due to security and health concerns, all guests must leave the facility after visiting hours. No one is allowed to stay overnight, if you will. Mr. Arthur: It doesn't matter what family member? Ifmy mother was there, I am her son and I went there and I wanted to stay, I couldn't stay there? Mr. Fronk: You could stay, if you had an acute condition and chose to pay additional rent. Mr. Arthur: Not as a guest? Mr. Fronk replied you could not stay as a guest. He said these things are also controlled by DSHS. Planning Commission Minutes September28, 2000 Page 42 · Mr. Arthur also said he tried to look at the bulk and dimension Ms. Koste1ec was so kind to leave them, and he can't figure out, if I had four units in an R-II zone, if I wanted to comply by the code why I couldn't have 10,000 square feet per unit? He couldn't find anywhere, maybe that is where he needs some help, as to where there is a square foot limit in the bulk and dimension in R-II. Is there one? Mr. Randall: That would be limited by lot coverage. Mr. Spieckerman asked Mr. Watts -- Mr. Keith brought up two areas I found ofinterest, the Building Code and W ACsboth seem to define living units in terms of what they contain. Does this take any precedence in this particular issue? Mr. Watts: No, the City code would determine what would be allowed in terms of a building and building requirements within the city. Mr. Spieckerman: In terms of a definition of what they define it as, Mr. Keith expressed it, cooking unit rather than a stove. Mr. Watts: Starting would be the city's code, then the next level would be whether or not there have been appellate court cases that had made any rulings that could be argued to be onpoint or persuasive. He said other regulatory agencies definitions of how they would define what a living unit is, or dwelling unit, would not be persuasive in terms of determining what the city code intent is. In other words, what the UBC says or means with respect to a dwelling unit or a living area, or what constitutes a habitable area, would not be persuasive in terms of defining what the city code says or means. · Mr. Spieckerman: Is there anywhere in code that defines the use or requires the use of the stove or oven? Mr. Randall: The UBC does have minimum requirements, square footage-wise and he believed appliance~wise for dwelling units, and efficiency, etc. Ms. Koste1ec: Pointed out the information is front of you. Mr. Benskin: The paper Mr. Keith presented us has that UBC with the definitions on it; so that should be clear. Mr. Randall: Basically, an efficiency dwelling unit, as I understand, iskind ofthe smallest dwelling unit you can have by the UBC. Under sub 3 of that definition it says "The unit shall be provided with a kitchen sink, cooking appliance, and refrigeration facilities each having a clear working space of not less than 30 inches in front. Light and ventilation shall conform to this code." Mr. Benskin: Does our code specify anything different as far as the cooking appliance? You are calling it a range or an oven by your definition. Mr. Randall: As I have said, what we have in writing is the dwelling unit definition which talks about full housekeeping facilities. Having to figure out what a cooking facility is in the UBC and what full housekeeping facilities are, the Building Department over the years has consistently said, oven range, being that it is wired differently, has a higher voltage; and that is a cooking · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 43 · facility. Mr. Benskin: That is not what the UBC says. Mr. Watts: There is no state definition of what cities are required to adopt in terms of defining their zoning codes or building codes. A State definition with respect to a building code, the city is not required to adopt that for the purposes of its zoning code. The City has adopted a separate definition of what constitutes a dwelling unit, and it has been presented tonight, interpreted by Staff in a particular manner. Mr. Benskin: The key there is the interpretation; it is not what is written. Mr. Watts: There is some additional language in the definition of a dwelling unit that says it contains a complete housekeeping. . . Mr. Randall: To give you some explanation of why the City has interpreted it that way, if you have a hot plate, if you have a microwave, those can be plugged into a regular outlet, thereby converting any room into a kitchen by that defmition. We chose not to do that because an oven range does require a particular wiring and particular expense and is not something you can easily do. We view microwaves and hotplates as not something that turns it into kitchen, so that people that want those conveniences can do so and not violate our code. Where if you put an oven range in, we ~eel you are making steps that basically turns it into a kitchen, if you have those other things. Mr. Benskin: Do we have a notice of our building code, various flyers on what the requirements are; do we have one that states that? Mr. Randall: One that specifically says. . . He said he is not aware of it. Mr. Benskin: Said he is not aware of it either. Chair Harbison asked if there are any other questions from the Commission of any speakers or Staff members? Mr. Spieckerman called for a point of order and asked if they are speaking only to the SEP A appeal now. Chair Harbison replied that, no, since they were presented together, this includes any questions of either the SEP A appeal or Conditional Use Permit. · Mr. Spieckerman asked Mr. Olbrechts, concerning the open space; you said the open space is going to be defined, one ofthe ways approved by the City Attorney, etc., etc., and you also made alittle caveat there indicating, unless changed by the city at some point in time. He said thatdoesn't sound very permanent, because it can then at its pleasure change that open space and rezone it for whatever it wishes. It sort of sounds like this is permanent, until we decide to change it. Isn't there a more permanent, permanent method? Mr. Olbrechts: You should probably ask your City'Attorney on that one. I have not ever seen a covenant like that ever removed. They are permanent in that sense; 50 years from now for whatever. . . Mr. Spieckerman: Something like the Jefferson Land Trust is a more permanent method, isn't it? Planning Commission Minutes . September 28, 2000 Page 44 Mr. Olbrechts: I really don't know what" kind of restrictions apply with Jefferson Land Trust. I would have actually thought it was less permanent with them, but again you can ask your City Attorney. Mr. Spieckerman asked Mr. Watts for an opinion there. Mr. Watts: The Staff recommendation was either a covenant placed on the land that was acceptable to the City, could not be modified unless the City said it could be modified, or to put the property into a non-profit land trust. In terms of whether the City at some point in the future could modify the provision Mr. Olbrechts mentioned, in the event of public interest or safety, and that would probably be one. The other would be it if it was tied to the issuance of a conditional use permit, then the City couldn't modify the provision unless the conational use permit no longer applied. Mr. Olbrechts: If burned down, and they didn't want to rebuild it, there is no point of having a covenant any more. Mr. Watts: But if the building did burn down, the City would not be obligated. Mr. Arthur: From your vast experience, what happens if one of these assisted living places fails and you have this big huge building everyone has been talking about; in your experience have you ever seen them converted to something else? What might they be converted to? Mr. Olbrechts: First they would have to comply with the zoning code. . He was not aware of any failures. Your code does a lot of group homes for instance in that area, and it could be converted to a group home. As a matter of fact, under federal law , you can't limit the number of people, at least the reasonable number of people, within a group home. That would be a given right there. . People who are disabled, and that sort of thing would be a prime conversion, I would think. Otherwise, your other control, if it sits empty and becomes dilapidated, you have a dangerous building code. You can abate it as a nuisance ifthat becomes an issue. There are a few controls there. Mr. Harbison: Mr. Fronk described that there was a 283 demand in the. trade area. Could you describe what the trade area is, what we are referring to? Mr. Fronk: We contacted EDC as iterated in the beginning of this session. The EDC defined the trade area as being a 10 mile area. When we run our demographics, we like to use conservative numbers; we reduced that 10 mile trade area to a 7 mile radius, he believed from 140 degrees to 310 degrees. We do not incorporate the water in the outlying areas. Mr. Benskin: There was reference to the ownership ofthe property. He asked Mr. Fronk ifthey are in full ownership ofthe property at this time, or is it on a contingency-type situation? Mr. Fronk: We do have the property under contract, and that is just a normal course ofbusiness. Mr. Benskin: Is the contract dependent on all the permits that are required for the project? Mr. Fronk: I am presented with a very difficult situation to answer that question, because due to the terms ofthe contract, I can only speak to government officials of the terms of that contract. We do have the public present. I would be willing to speak to you regarding that in closed chambers. Mr. Arthur: It was suggested that a binding site plan might be an option. It seems to me, and maybe I have read it wrong again, that binding site plans are only used in commercial or industrial . . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 45 applications. Is that true or nor true? Mr. Randall: Basically, to get to the binding site plan, you have to go through a PUD to get tÅ“re. The Planned Unit Development ordinance says that if you are doing a PUD you have to have some sort of subdivision mechanism that goes along with it. That applies if you are doing a subdivision that has more than nine lots; you are into the long plat, a full plat; if you have two to eight lots, you can do a short plat. If neither one of the above applies, you would do a binding site plan. In this case, really it's one parcel-- currently it is in three segments so I guess it's three parcels. What they are proposing to do roughly corresponds to the existing parcel pattern; the two northern parcels they are proposing to leave a open space, and the southern parcel they are proposing to develop with the project. We would view that as not needing a subdivision, not needing a short plat or a long plat, because they have boundary lines; they are basically respecting those existing boundary lines. So, the only way to get to a binding site plan is if you determine a PUD is necessary to modify some existing rule to allow this to go through. Then, the code says that if a long plat doesn't apply, and a short plat doesn't apply, you do a binding site plan. You are right, binding site plans do also apply to commercial and industrial development, but they can be used for a PUD ifthe long plat or short doesn't fit. Mr.Arthur: So they could do it that way? Mr. Randall concurred. Mr. Arthur: The open space -- if you added to the conditions, and the use changed at some point, would the condition of its being open space fall through the crack at that point, or is there something that you are doing within the agreements that controls that somehow? Mr. McDonagh from BCD: In understand your question correctly, if something were to happen with the conditional use, if it were to be modified in some way, that open space would be preserved and can only be modified upon approval by the City. So, if there were something in the CUP use, we would have to look at some proposed change to the open space, do nothing contrary to the intent of the original approval and original preservation of that area. Mr. Arthur: It sounds like you are saying it is fairly permanent, no matter what the use of the property. Mr. McDonagh: That is the intent. Again, it is the key, critical component of the project.. Mr. Arthur: Ifwhat has been brought up in the past, the property has not exactly been deeded across yet, is the present owner of the property willing to abide by the agreements, or are the agreements subject to the purchase of the property? Mr. Watts: The conditions that are imposed as a result of this process are binding on the property if the application goes forward; if the application does not go forward, then nothing results as the result of this process. So, ifthe applicant goes forward and applies for a building permit, then as a result the conditions are imposed, and as a result of applying for the building permit and before any construction can begin, the property that is required to be placed into open space would be guaranteed, would be the result of either a covenant or transfer to an acceptable land trust. It doesn't happen unless the project goes forward, and it would be binding on whomever the owner Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 46 IS. There being no other questions, Chair Harbison asked the Commission if they would like to take a short break. It was determined to proceed to discussion. Chair Harbison said at this point there would be no further testimony, and he closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON SEP A APPEAL: Chair Harbison said it is now in order for the Planning Commission to first discuss the SEP A appeal and for a Planning Commission member then to take action on the SEP A appeal. After action on the SEP A apeal is taken, they will be in a position to know whether or not to proceed to take action on the CUP. Commission Discussion: Ms. Erickson said she was on the Planning Commission when they worked on theR-I and R-II in the Comp Plan. She remembers several key questions they had concerning some ofthe things that have been brought up. In particular, congregate care facilities instead of having them outright permitted into the R - II, she said they wanted more flexibility on whether or not it would fit into the area, and that is why she remembered they had it for conditional use. She said she didn't remember ever having thought with the residential bulk that there would be four-plexes; it never entered her mind at the time until this came that there would be anything other than one building with the people inside in order to give them their care. She said she could never imagine duplicate 4-5-6 different buildings housing 8 or 10 people and having the type of care congregate care facilities provide. She continued that when she went through this conditional use, as far as she was concerned, it was so they had more say in the R- II zone rather than outright permitting it like in R -III and R-IV. So, the BCD director's interpretation was exactly how she understood it when they went through all the discussion. She said that was her background or remembering how she interpreted it; although some previous Council members remembered it in a different way, she never understood it to be their interpretation. The way it is interpreted by the BCD Director, is exactly how she understood it when they discussed the Comp Plan in the Planning Commission, never understood it to be any other way, and did not think it was going to be the same as the residential maximums. Nursing/rest homes, convalescent homes were not going to be outright permitted in R-II, and she was trying to remember why they were not going to allow that under conditional use; basically it is not exactly the same use, but with senior citizens. For some reason, she did not remember why, it was not allowed at all in R-II, but she did not interpret it at that time or even now other than the way BCD has interpreted it. She said her other comments would be on the complex itself. Mr. Harbison asked for other comments. He then asked to clarify their options: 1) Affirming . . e . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 47 the Director's decision on the SEP A determination -- with or without additional conditions based on the SEP A adopted policies; 2) Reverse the Director's decision on the SEPA; 3) Remand the application to the Director for further review and consideration with direction from this Commission. Mr. Watts clarified that the remand option is not provided in the Port Townsend Municipal Code. At the Planning Commission level, the code is very clear that your options are to Affirm, Modify or Reverse. That action is a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Spieckerman said he is not sure any additional study would provide any additional information or any additional conditions. Mr. Harbison replied ifhe is understanding, that is not an option. Mr. Spieckerman said he was referring to additional conditions, that he is not sure what additional conditions could be considered here. Mr. Watts explained this would not be a remand, but if the Planning Commission has questions they believe they want further information on, the Planning Commission is free to request Staff to produce that additional information, e.g., iftraffic had been an issue, and they wanted additional information on traffic impacts, the Planning Commission could request additional information from Staff on traffic. If there is additional information the Planning Commission needs before they can make a decision, that information can be requested of Staff. That is not the same as a remand; that is basically a postponement of decision until the Commission receives additional information. Mr. Irvin commented he thought that in the last 3-5 years they. have just begun to see what he considered to be tip of the iceberg with regard to all of these facilities that have been named by so many different names, and written up with so many different definitions that are at odds with one another in the various portions of the codes, state codes, city codes, municipal codes, etc. He said he thinks as they have heard, you can provide open arguments using all these different sources to argue either side ofthe case; it comes down to personal interpretation that each one is being asked to make with respect to some of the so called Findíng arguments. Is it, or isn't it? He has a hard time reconciling this type of facility as being defined as a living dwelling as opposed to the unit. He said he tends to favor the Staff's definition. Mr. Spieckerman noted that he appreciated clarification relative to whether or not they are consistent within what they do from one application to another relative to whether there is a stove in place, regardless of how the state or building code defines them. He is fairly clear, these are probably not individual units as one would normally think of them, even though a number of people, including himself, have lived in such units in the past intheir college days, etc. He guessed he has changed his mind in listening to the testimony as to what a unit is. Chair Harbison said one basis for appeal of the SEP A by the appellant contended that the SEP A Responsible Official has not followed the correct review procedures of Port Townsend Municipal Code with respect to the proposed conditional use. He asked if there are questions concerning that statement, if anyoríe needs to be clear now that they are considering just the SEP A appeal. There being no questions he asked if anyone would like to make a motion or ask for further clarification to postpone a decision on the SEP A appeal. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 48 . MOTION Mr. Spieckerman REJECT THE SEP A APPEAL AND ACCEPT BCD RECOMMENDATION SECOND Ms. Erickson Discussion: Ms. Ota asked for clarification ifthe motion was to deny the appeal. The Chair affirmed. VOTE PASSED 5 IN FAVOR; MS. OTA AND MR. BENSKIN OPPOSED City Attorney Watts stated the Commission has just voted 5 to 2 to reject the appeaL He said it would be appropriate at this time for the Commission to take action on the draft SEP A appeal decision which is in the Commission packet, whether to adopt that document or to indicate where it could or should be modified, if the Commission is in position to do that at this time. If the Commission does feel the document in the Staff packet reflects its decision, it should indicate where and why, and then Staff will try to deal with that. The document SEPA APPEAL, Port Townsend Assisted Living LUP #00-39 is a draft decision prepared by Staff. Mr. Watts recommended that Commission review the document for a few minutes, particularly those who voted in favor of the action to deny the appeal and see if this document reflects a written form of the Findings and Recommendation that the Commission would then forward on to the City CounciL If so, it would be appropriate to make a motion to adopt this . document as the recommendation to the City CounciL Ms. Erickson suggested regarding Conclusion 3, to ad~the word "units" to change the reading to ". . . The individual bedroom units within the proposed congregate care facility do not meet the definition of a dwelling unit. . ." -- rather than just the word "bedrooms." Chair Harbison asked if there were any other modifications to the Conclusions or Recommendations of the SEP A Appeal, Port Townsend Assisted Living L UP #00-39. He then called for a motion to move the recommendations and conclusions, including the changes indicated, to the City CounciL MOTION Ms. Erickson RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THE SEP A APPEAL AS AMENDED SECOND Mr. Spieckerman Amended Conclusion 3):" The individual bedroom units within the proposed congregate care facility do not meet tbe definition of a dwelling unit . . . " VOTE PASSED 5 IN FAVOR; MS. OTA AND MR. BENSKIN OPPOSED . . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 49 2A. PORT TOWNSEND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, LLC -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- LUPOO-039 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- LUPOO-039 Mr. Harbison asked if a remand is not an appropriate choice in this either. City Attorney Watts replied that was correct for the same reasons. If the Commission needs additional information before it makes its decision, it can request that additional information. That would not be a remand; it would be a postponement until that additional information was provided. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Arthur asked if the trail is included in the decision they are making tonight. Mr. McDonagh concurred. Mr. Arthur then asked if there was something about roof lines and something else that was added by the proponent? Mr. McDonagh replied there was; there is a condition that is written into the Findings of Fact. The intent of the condition is not to require the roofs to be flat; it is to try to minimize the pitch of the roofs as much as possible, and that is something that would be ironed out through multi-family . design review standards -- we would want the applicant to demonstrate that this is as Iowa pitch as possible for the project. Mr. Arthur asked if it is not something we are doing tonight. McDonagh said it is not, other than it is a recommendation -- part of the Findings of Facts. Mr. Randall stated it is Recommendation B, page 11. Mr. Arthur asked if they are not saying that has to be a flat roof. Mr. Randall said the intent of that was not to say that it was a flat roof. He said they did not have the information on the exact pitch, whether it was a 5/12,4/12 or a 3/12 pitch, but in looking at it, it appeared that possibly a lower pitch could be used. Because the building is fairly wide, just . dropping the angle of the roof pitch a little could significantly lower how much of building you are seeing and how much sky you could be seeing instead. Mr. Arthur said he thought one ofthe people from the project said something about having some low lights around the sidewalks and they turned them off at night. What good are lights that are not good at night? Mr. Randall said he believed they stated they would be off and worked by probably a motion sensor kicking on when people walked nearby. He asked for clarification from the developer Mr. Ruggles, Progressive Consultants, said the lights he was referring to were around the walking path that is used by the residents. They wouldn't want to walk at night, so they shut down. Mr. Arthur asked why they put in lights if they don't walk at night. Mr. Ruggles suggested it would a place where it might be a safety hazard -- a little past dusk it would be shut off. Mr. Arthur asked ifthey didn't have a time in there. Mr. Watts said if there is not a time in the recommending conditions, and the Commission believed Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 50 the time condition were appropriate, the Commission could impose such a restriction, so long as it was based on facts and record. Mr. Fronk, Development Group, clarified they had those lights lit throughout the evening; however, based on community input, due to concerns about star gazing, the developers implemented recommendations to have them dim off, or trigger off. Whether it be time or motion sensor is open; it could go either option, but based on community comment they made them go off at night, trying to be receptive to community need. Mr. Benskin spoke regarding the parking lot, and additional parking spaces and asked if that is lit also? Mr. Fronk deferred to the architect. Mr. Ruggles replied and pointed to the Phase 2 parking lot. He said it would be lit; the minimum lighting is security for staff because of shift changes in the middle of the night. Mr. Arthur asked regarding all the trails going through there. Is that part of the conditions for this Conditional Use Permit? Who maintains them, and how are they lighted if people chose to use them at night? Mr. McDonagh answered that the trail itself would not be lit. Maintenance would be by the city; it would be located within or on top of an easement that the city would have established. Mr. Arthur: When this project is finished, with these conditions and all this, will it be safe to walk from F Street to Tremont Street, on this trail? Mr. McDonagh replied yes. He said the condition is worded to deal with specifics of the design as to where you would put some bollards -- not just F Street and Tremont Street, but some other intersecting trail areas. The project itself is going to have some private trails around the building that would tie into the regional trail. There will probably be some bollards placed there and along the Francis Street right-of-way that runs off to San Juan A venue to prohibit non-authorized motor vehicle use of the trail. He said the F Street project is going along, and they will be working on some of the design of how that trail will intersect with and cross F Street. Mr. Arthur asked ifthat is an alternate safety fire access, you wouldn't have bollards? Mr. McDonagh said no, the bollards would just be if you had the F Street entrance and the Tremont Street entrance and allows emergency vehicles. Mr. Arthur said that emergency vehicles would still be able to get in there. Mr. Spieckerman asked if the trail would be locked to keep other vehicles out. Mr. McDonagh concurred. Ms. Erickson asked if we know if it is going to be paved, gravel, or whatever. Mr. McDonagh said that in the draft findings they have recommended a paved 11' width. In the applicant's testimony that is one of the issues they are seeking some modification on. The standard in the Non-Motorized Trail Manual is a 10' paved section for this type of trail, a regional multi-use trail (not one ofthe gravel short-cut trails that are running through unopened rights-of-way) -- this is sort of a central trail connecting large segments oftown and designed to be a transportation facility for a number of types of users. He said he didn't think they would quibble over 1 foot, but they are very convinced that it does need to be paved for maintenance . . e . . e Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 51 reasons, as well as to ensure that in all weather conditions an emergency vehicle can access it. Mr. Irvin asked if it gets paved, with the impervious surface what happens with stormwaterrunoffin that area? He thought that would be alot of water. Mr. McDonagh said all of the public related infrastructure improvements from the trail, to the frontage improvements required on F Street, the sewer and water connections, are all governed by the City's Engineering Design Standards (EDS), and when they examine this, they will be looking at how they will deal with draining on the project. If they need to have something special at certain locations, it will be somethîng they will require the applicant to do, whether sloping the trail, perhaps one direction to have it run off onto a grassy area. It will all be dealt with in the EDS. Mr. Benskin asked if that is dealt with in the Conditional Use Permit? Mr. McDonagh said it is dealt with in there, basically the governing Public Works infrastructure permit, which deals with the sewer and water; trail and frontage improvements on F Street all will be governed and be handled through the street utility development permit they will need to apply for through the Public Works. It is in the Findings and Conclusions that they will obtain a street utility development permit. Mr. Spieckerman said one thing he noted from reading comments from the public, which he takes very seriously, they were complaining about San Juan Commons. He said he assumed there was no relationship between that and the owners of this project; they are basically complaining against San Juan Commons and trying to apply it this project as well. Mr. McDonagh said there is no "relationship between San Juan Commons "and the development group. He thought with the comments they made about what happened at San Juan Commons, they don't want the same to happen here. The applicant and BCD have been working hard to make sure that particularly the landscaping elements of this project are done to high quality. Mr. Benskin asked regarding the enforcement capability and he referred to San Juan Commons not living up to the requirements. Mr. Randall indicated San Juan Commons actually installed the landscaping they were required to install. In their SEP A the landscaping plan was to be approved by the BCD Director. The typical language in there is that dead or dying plants shall be replaced at the cost of the applicant, and that is a condition that goes on into perpetuity. There is also a condition in there that says if the landscaping is not working as designed, augmentation to that landscaping can be required. He referred to his error in determinîng his first landscaping plan and learning through experience. The Altzheimer's facility is a good example of nice landscaping; it is still immature as it was just planted, but they have learned that you need a lot of evergreens in this town to perform screening. Basically, they tell people now that two-thirds needs to be evergreen because deciduous lose their leaves and sticks don't offer much landscaping 6 months out of the year. They have put conditions in that say dead or·dying materials need to be replaced. Again, if they get the landscaping in there and it's not providing sufficient break-up of the building or it looks good on paper but not in reality, they can go back and say to put in more plantings. They have been trying to work with San Juan Commons to get better landscaping, and they did put in some Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 52 additional trees this summer that were pretty small but are fast growing poplars. They will see how those go. He said he appreciates the input they have gotten from the residents in that area, and they have tried to work with those owners. They have downshie1ds put on all the lights around San Juan Commons, and the last he heard people were pretty happy with the lighting. On the Altzheimers facility, he said he did not really hear any complaints about lanQscaping, and he thinks people have been pretty happy with that. He said he had not been out to see how many dead or dying trees need to be replaced; they may need to get on them about that. He said they have the tools in the decision to get what they need to get. In some cases it is a matter of shaking someone loose to get them out to inspect it. They have been a little short staffed, but he would like to have a yearly routine of going out to check people's landscaping and writing them letters. Owners do have warranties. The first year the landscaper is required to fix it -- the first year is usually free for the owner. Mr. Spieckerman again asked what enforcement procedures do they have. You said you go out and inspect, but how can you force somebody to replant trees. Mr. Randall replied it is a condition on their project; it is in the SEP A condition that says they shall do it, so they have full enforcement authority just as if it is a city regulation. Mr. Spieckerman asked if they plant the trees and send them a bill if they don't do it? Mr. Randall said they have not gotten to going out tÇ> plant for them and send them the bill. But they can take enforcement action including fines and things like that. Mr. Spieckerman spoke of the impressive 18-20 foot trees around this building; he would look forward to seeing them. One of the other questions asked, and talked about here in the lighting plan, it is showing 15 foot high, 2000 watt, pole mounted type, high pressure sodium vapor lamps. Is that consistent with what we are talking about here in terms of down lights. That is not specified on the plan. Mr. Randall said they worked with those folks on the lighting; he corrected the statement to say 200 watt. Regarding the pole lights, he said you should drive by San Juan Commons and the Altzheimers facility to take a look. He said he feels pretty good about the lighting there -- 20 foot poles. He has been learning that there are some lights that are awful and some that do the job pretty well and don't cascade light onto adjacent properties. High pressure sodium lights are kind of a yellow light; they seem to be softer on the eyes and work better. He said the kind of pole lights they have seen are typically the circular ones, and the box lights where it has a flat lens and you can't see it from the side. This project is proposing 15 foot poles, the same kind of light. San Juan's lights are probably 250 watts; this project is 200 watts. He said they didn't have any complaints on the pole lights at San Juan Commons. They had lights on the side of the building that were only partially shielded that people complained about, and were awful and they got them to shield them. They had some bollard lights in the Altzheimers facility that were technically shielded, but had mirrors behind a clear plastic that radiated light out rrom the side, and they were awful too. He said he thinks the keyis to let people know right up front so they have it right, or it can be easily modified. He thinks they are on the right track with this one. · · · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 53 Mr. Harbison asked for Commission members to review the Conclusions on Page 10 and also look at the recommendations beginning on Page 11, continuing on ages 12, 13, 14 and 15. Mr. McDonagh called the Commission's attention to a memorandum dated September 22, 2000 from him to the Planning Commission. He said it is clarification of a condition he left out, and he wanted to make sure the Commission considered it when looking at the rest of the findings, conclusions and recommendations. He said the condition that was left out again deals with another trail easement; the attached map highlights where that easement would go. He said this is an easement the applicant would not be required to construct, but merely to reserve the easement to provide future connection to the east toward the Cherry Street area. Chair Harbison asked if that is something they need to add to conditions. Mr. McDonagh answered affirmatively. Mr. Irvin said the way that is drawn on there it looks like it is in that dedicated parcel. McDonagh replied it would be within the open space parcel; some ofthe other portions of the trail lie within those open space parcels. . Mr. Arthur asked if the driveway in this is not the same as in the other one? Mr. McDonagh said the site plan he gave to them was, Exhibit L, the first exhibit given this evening. In the Findings and Conclusions, one of the conditions is that the driveway road approach location will be shifted as far east as possible. Exhibit L,.Revised Site Plan, is the applicant's effort, since they were informed of that condition, to show that road coming in as far to the east as possible. Mr. Ar!hur asked if the new trail has a way to get to Cherry Street. Mr. McDonagh replied it would have no connection to Cherry Street at this point; there is an intervening approximately 9 acre unplatted parcel. In the future, when something happens with that adjoining vacant piece, they would work with the property owner to preserve that easement and provide the linkage. Mr. Irvin asked if the applicant's action would be to identify this easement when they turn over the open area to whomever they turn it over to? Mr. McDonagh concurred. Mr. Benskin asked concerning the trail. Mr. McDonagh said there is another aspect to this project. The city is in the process of working to relocate its sewer line and its easement as it crosses this property right now. It is essentially in the same location up to the end ofthe Genesse Street right-of-way; if you start at F Street and go north, the city sewer line and the city easement is right there, but north of the Genesse Street right-of way, rather than making a sharp left turn, it more gradually angles toward the northwest corner of the property. The city is proposing and hoping to relocate that line entirely to where the trail is shown on the site plan. In the event that doesn't happen, that easement is not relocated, the conditions in the Findings and-Conclusions would require them to preserve at least that surface easement. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 54 Ms. Erickson said she was still trying to figure out how the elevation is working on the low spot on the property and was wondering why the architect did not show favorably the low area of the east side on Cherry Street. If the building is going down in a low spot, and they are mt going to fill, is it correct it is almost a second story that Cherry Street residents are going to look at? Mr. McDonagh said it is the other way around. It is properties that lie to the west of the site and to the north and to the south would benefit chiefly from placing it in this topographic depression. The folks on Cherry Street are up a little higher and would be looking down onto the project. Ms Erickson said that since that seems to be one of the main concerns of the neighborhood, what they have to look at, beside the esthetics of the building, the landscaping, the lighting, she said she was not really comfortable yet this is what they are going to be looking at. It looks very tall, because it is not sunken yet in that little hole. She was trying to figure why they did not get some great view of how it is going to be smaller when the neighbors look out the window. She said it is a good selling point to do it this way, but she is still uncomfortable with this. Mr. Randall asked to address the Commission and said he and Mr. McDonagh went to the site, walked it with the multi-family design standards in hand, and asked what they could do with this site. Basically, when you are working with design standards, you are s:arting with what are the existing conditions, where are the trees, where is the topography and how you can work with it. He said they had not talked very much tonight about existing trees, but they saw some nice fruit trees, very old; on the south side of the property, up against the east line, there is a nice row of poplars, kind of in the Genesse Street right-of-way; down lower a couple smatterings of really nice older fruit trees, probably a really old orchard associated with the farm. The first things they would do in the specific multi-family design review is: 1) Tag the trees and say unless you absolutely have to go through there with something, leave them alone ~- protect the roots, don't knock them down. It takes a long time to grow trees back and get that softening. 2) They saw the topography; the area on the south was higher. When you come from F Street, it seemed like it rose a little bit. BCD does not have a topographic map now. One thing Mr. McDonagh talked about in the Findings and Conclusions was to require the developer to prepare a topographic survey of the site, so when they turn in their engineering plans locating the buildings, streets and landscaping, BCD can look at it and say such things as, they shouldn't be removing dirt that would provide effective screening, or if they cut in an area for the building, why not put that soil in a place where they can berm something and start the landscaping on some higher earth. He said they saw higher land at the south where the road is coming through; higher land on the west side; he pointed out the lowest spot saying it was relatively flat, to the east and to the north a little higher but relatively flat also. They originally had the building located further to the west, and the Phase 2 parking lot on the east. BCD saw that and said ifthey move the building to the center and site it in the low area, they limit the cutting -- get it as low as possible and probably only have the upper story and the roof visible from San Juan. He said BCD hasn't seen a detailed drainage plan and how it would work, but typically what happens is they try to get all the stormwater to drain back to the facility, so the parking lot and the entry road are usually pretty · · · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 55 close to the same elevation, or going down. If they could limit the cutting there to nearly the road itself and leave some other higher areas, the first floor could be pretty effectively screened from San Juan. The upper floor and roof would probably be visible. Looking down from Cherry Street -- it is right there; what they thought could be done is take the spoils they cut out, do some berming and get a head start on some landscaping there. From Tremont Street it is quite a distance; again, they thought the landscaping would be a predominant way to do it. Regarding the elevations (he showed the east and west elevations), the developers originally did not have the two bumpouts along the walls; it was just a flat wall and a flat roof. They took a look at the design standards as did BCD, and they came to the same conclusion. They added the two extra gables and the extra modulation. With a single family scale -- one, two or three story houses -- typically houses on their narrowest side are somewhere between 20 and 40 feet wide, when you have an end with a gable, usually 20, 24, 30 feet. He said these are within that range, so this is rather single family scale as to the gables. If it has to be one building, as they were proposing, we were trying to encourage them to add elements that were of scale to a single family house. He pointed out trees, stating they were mature perhaps 15 - 20 year old trees; you can't transplant trees that big, so you start off with something smaller. He said they are talking about placing dense groupings of evergreen trees in line with the notches. You don't fool anybody into thinking these are separate houses, but when these trees mature you get more the appearance of breaking the facade -- not a wall oftrees. When you look at the hills in Port Townsend you see house/trees, house/trees, house/trees; that is what they were encouraging them to do -- clump trees, use evergreens and when they mature (it will take awhile), you would get some break up to that facade. He suggested that maybe the architect would like to respond to some of the questions. Mr. Ruggles, Architect, addressed the graphic issue and said he did not want to be accused oftrying to deceive the Commissioners by drawing the elevations and then put the horizon line half-way through the building. He explained that they are correct, the building will sit down, sit low; there will be higher topography around it. He said by drawing it that way he might have gotten more opposition than by trying to show the building at its full elevation as if you were standing. . . . He said that is why it is drawn this way; they could provide a drawing of what it would look like from San Juan Avenue, F and Cherry Streets. Ms. Erickson replied it would definitely be helpful to see what it would look like, especially for the neighbors. She told Mr. Ruggles they have been very good at changing their design and trying to meet their needs, and they really appreciate that, but since this is a conditional use (that now that she has made a point of that) they need to take really special care that ifthey are going to approve this, she needs to know what she is approving, what this is going to look like. She needs to make sure the land that everybody is very concerned about is going to be written down and is going to be here for the next 100 years, which is a important part of this project; and that the trees are going to be there, be tall and green and doing what they are supposed to do. She said they are hoping the golf course pond is not going to flood next winter because ofthis project; we want to make sure it is not going to flood. We want to make sure the run-off is right. The problem with Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 56 our saying it looks good, it sounds good, and everything, is we don't see all of it when we approve it. We depend on you to make sure to do what is right, and that is what is uncomfortable. She said she would like to see more of what they are going to have done before they approve the whole thing. That is her concern, and she is not sure how to get to that point without dragging this meeting on and on. She reiterated they have to depend on them, that they are going to make sure all the guidelines are met. We hope that pond doesn't. . . ; we hope the mature trees do this; we hope. . . -- you know. We want to make sure that it's done to the very best of your ability, if we are going to OK this. She said to her that is what a conditional use is for. Mr. Randall said if it is any help, Mr. McDonagh was rather wrestling with how does work in this multi- family design review when it is administrative and happens after the fact, and the CUP is happening now. He told Mr. McDònagh to tell the Commission if there is anything in there, or if there are certain things they see need to happen for this to be compatible, e.g. -- additional screening needs to be provided on the east elevation; you have to put extra emphasis on this; or you need to lower the roof line -- if there is some way, articulate that. He said for instance stormwater, they feel very comfortable that the stormwater is going to be OK, because they have had three or four drainage plans done in that same valley, and he thinks the engineering office is pretty comfortable it is not going to affect the golf course. On other aspects of esthetics and compatibility, the Commission can give them guidance, say go back and provide real elevations showing how this building would look from a certain direction, and a certain distance in relation to existing buildings and existing topography. Or you could say to provide that 1òr City CounciL He noted that is good advice for future, that those things would be good to have up-front -- a realistic view, not just a conceptual view by itself. Ms. Erickson noted they had done that with the computer with the Port; they computer enhanced the buildings so they got the picture and could see where the line was and the horizon. She said it does help, especially when they are not living right there, but citizens are very concerned about it, and they have to look at it every day. Mr. Arthur asked if they have gone far enough to tell how much soil would be removed for this building. Can you build with any reasonable thought some kind ofberming effect to the north to immediately rather reduce the effect to the people who live on the Tremont side. Give me kind of a feel for that. Mr. Ruggles answered yes they could. They could take some scrapings on the side and push to the north or wherever most necessary. Mr. Spieckerman asked if that would affect ~he drainage. Mr. Ruggles replied the Civil Engineer had left, but from what he understands the site percolates rather well. Mr. Spieckerman said one thing he thought he heard Mr. Randall speak of is to make contour maps - - restore the contour. That seems to be in conflict with what we are talking about here. Mr. Arthur concurred and said he is talking about building a mound. Mr. Spieckerman said to Mr. Randall he believed in testimony someone made that there be a contour . e . · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 57 map made before and afterwards, so you restore the original contour which is in conflict with what the discussion is right now. Mr. Randall stated that normally what you get is existing topography and proposed topography so you know your starting point and they show where they are proposing to go with it. He said if BCD feels that proposed topography is either going too far in removing soil that provides a nice screen and it isn't necessary to do what they are doing, or if BCD can find a different way to do what they are doing to save some trees, or some hills, they do that. He said his experience is they are going to end up with excess soil (he was not sure how much), because they are going to cut that road in and cut the building site flat, and he thinks there are areas where they can use that to do some berming and landscaping. He said he has been told they actually do have a topographic survey, but it can't be introduced as evidence unless you reopen the hearing. They do have that information they can provide us when we want to get there. Mr. Ruggles said he was not sure that was a requirement -- to restore the original contour, but he is sure if that is what they want . . . Mr. Randall said that was not what he was referring to; they give them an existing contour map so they know what it is now, and see what they are proposing and try to retain as much of the existing topography especially that which provides screening, and those tools help them to say to shift the road here; why are you doing all this cutting -- it looks like you are cutting just to cut; maybe have a rock retaining wall rather than cutting the whole thing flat because that is the easiest way to build it. He said the multi-family design standards talk a lot about retaining existing topography; to soften the impact of new development that would be one of the tools we would use to make sure that would get done. Mr. Spieckerman said he assumed one ofthe things we are looking at here is the proposed design, not the final design. Mr. Ruggles said he believes it is subject to the multi-family design process. Mr. Spieckerman asked if this is substantially what they are going to get, or how far have you taken that? Mr. Randall said this is rather where BCD left off with it, meeting with the developer and giving them some direction they thought was a good start. He said he thought they could see in their findings that one of BCD questions was if the roofline could be lowered, what pitch is it, what would happen if you went to a 3/12 pitch if they have a 5/12 pitch? Mr. Spieckerman said he was referring more to the visual effect of the single family dwelling you described. Other than roof lines, if this substantially meets your criteria and the architect will then proceed to finish the building on what we see here, or are they going to come back and we will see something substantially different? Mr. Randall said they hadn't seen colors, but they feel pretty comfortable. He said the direction is up to the Commission. BCD's cards are they felt they could live with this, if this complied .with the multi-family standards, given the situation, given the proximity of the buildings in this area-- San Juan Commons; the Altzheimer's facility (both large facilities); single family homes they do have are quite a distance, 500 feet away; that their design is to have it in one building. What Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 58 BCD has tried to do is make that work. If the Planning Commission feels you can't approve this as one building, that it's not compatible, or you need more information to know the exact sizes of those buildings or what is the relation to the site -- before you make that decision, you can give specific direction on making this comply. Right now BCD is feeling fairly comfortable with the overall design. Mr. Spieckerman said he is fairly comfortable with the design. He asked if they had any discussions with the neighbors concerning this design. Mr. Ruggles replied this is a result of their discussion with the neighborhood, such things as a Porte Cochere, modulated building, etc., falling into the criteria of multi-family design standards. Mr. Arthur suggested if they did a plan that had the same four units per building, that would be something like 16 buildings, two stories high, fourplexes sitting out there, wouldn't the visual effect of that combination of buildings -- could it be that this is less impact. If we are really talking about not eliminating anything from that whole 12 acre piece of property and keeping it vacant -- if they were really going to use it and use it within what we have talked about, he couldn't see where 16 units, two stories high with causeways and breezeways was a good option. That sounds like something that is not workable; ifI lived in the neighborhood, rather than have all those buildings spread out over all that land, it seems like the views could be more protected from the neighborhood with this kind of arrangement, than some other alternative that has been given to us this evening. He said he likes the idea of trying to protect the neighborhood from the views, but reasoned it might be done better if these conclusions are abided by, there are trees planted and sensitivity to the neighborhood, and open space protected -- outside of the city or someone else purchasing the property and keeping it more open space. He did not see how you do 16 buildings on that property and have less visual effect than you have with this. They are not going to be lined up in rows, looking between buildings like a city street with houses on both sides; he said he did not understand. The other part is, if there is a demand, and we are the urban growth area in this state of urban growth controls, what option do we have to reject projects like this? Don't we have to make space available? Ifwithin 7 or 10 miles the demand is 250 people, isn't it our responsibility to react to that and allow those things to happen in this community, or not? Chair Harbison asked the Commission to consider a couple of things: 1) Are these conclusions appropriate to either continue our discussion or to bring our discussion to a close; 2) Are there recommendations you feel need to be added, or conditions that we need to add? Is there more information we need from either the developer or from City Staffthat will help us in making a decision to recommend this to Council -- so that we have some sense of where we go from here in terms of making this decision, moving along the recommendation and conclusions to Councilor considering this further at another meeting -- if there is pertinent information that we feel we don't have in order to make this decision now? Mr. Benskin agreed with Ms. Erickson, and indicated it would be nice to see the area where it is. Mr. Harbison asked if there is a way for them to be more specific about what they need? He said · · · · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 59 the topographic information has been the piece that has been mentioned that may answer some of the concern about what the building actually looks like visually. Is there other information or are there other considerations that we would like to get? He said he is a little uncomfortable leading the Commission toward this, but he would really like for them to see where they are on this and see what action they can take or are not comfortable taking at this point and see what they need to do to move it further. Ms. Erickson said she would consider having this sent on to City Council with some of the things they are requesting; it will be a closed hearing and the City Council will not be able to discuss it. She said that is where some of her concern is and asked other Commission members if they are all satisfied with the building, with what they are going to have. Can we conceptually figure it out, and it is going to be OK? There are some parts you just have to leave up to codes and Staff, even though you want to get your teeth into it with people's concerns. She said she did not particularly want to hold this up. Then, there is also the concern about language, what the City Attorney would recommend as far as the most guaranteed way the open space is going to be preserved. She said she is not sure which direction that is going, whether or not they should be concerned with it or leave it up to City Council. She said she is not ready to vote right now unless they can get some idea ofhow much City Council would be able to make these decisions, if we passed it on to them. City Attorney Watts stated with respect to language that would bind the property to open space, the condition that is in the proposed Staff Recommendation indicates that would be a document that would be acceptable to the BCD director as well as the City Attorney. The clear intent is, it would be a perpetual easement. A city park -- everybody understands that to be something in city ownership. There is no guarantee that sometime in the future the city couldn't say they want to sell off that park. He said this situation is almost a stronger protection for open space than a city park, because it is tied to a Land Use approval. As long as the use for which that Land Use approval is a condition continues, the basis for the open space continues. He said if the Commission wants to see specific language or specific documents that would be transfer documents, the Commission could request to see those. Likewise, renderings or scale drawings of how the building would look in this configuration in relationship to other features or other buildings, if the Commission wants to see that before it makes a decision, the Commission is free to request that information and maybe even make those renderings, or those drawings, conditions of approval. In other words, that the product, the construction, would be in substantial conformance to particular drawings. That would require postponement ofthis meeting for say 2 weeks, to allow the applicant to respond; it would require reopening the hearing for a limiting purpose of allowing the application to submit that additional information and allowing citizens to comment on whether or not the rendering was accurate and any other comments they wish to have part of the record. He said he doesn't see a way the Commission can take action tonight and forward a recommendation up to the Council and have the Council receive new information. . . Mr. Spieckerman said he would like to see if Mr. Randall could give them a statement that what they see is substantially what they are going to get, that this does meet the multi- family design standards. He didn't think they had heard that specific information yet -- yes or no. He said he took Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 60 . a little closer look at this, and to him it looks like a good design, but if this gets built, he doesn't want to see something that mimics San Juan Commons. Mr. Randall explained that San Juan Commons has elements that work well for it -- it is a big building, the roofline is modulated, it is angled and the walls go in and out. It also has things that work against it -- it's pink; it doesn't have evergreen trees around it; it is three stories; it's not hidden by any topography. He said BCD is comfortable with this design; they haven't looked at the detail of the windows and some ofthe other things, but he thinks they are probably 85% to 90% comfortable with this building. Working with the topography, he thinks there can be some really nice things done that can really use the topography to advantage to minimize the visual impact to the neighbors. Mr. Spieckerman concurred and said he thinks those are details to work out. He would like to include, if we are going to vote tonight, that the building final design would look substantially as we see it tonight. Mr. Randall said they could do that by Condition A, page 11 of Findings and Conclusions -- "Development shall be carried out in substantial conformance with the site plan . .." and we could add "and with the conceptual elevations, Exhibit Q." That would tie it with what you see. You wouldn't see something all of a sudden that is flat, different colors, etc. Mr. Spieckerman recommended they do that. Mr. Benskin asked about changing the look. Mr. Spieckerman indicated the word "Substantial" would be satisfactory to him. . Mr. Randall: "Substantial cOhformance" is usually the language used when Council and Planning Commission are reviewing site plans. The ultimate final approval happens at BCD where maybe they tweak the landscaping, etc., but "substantial conformance" is usually used. There was a question from the audience. Mr. Harbison asked if it were a procedural question. Audience: They asked about being two story, these aree1derly people, about a fire escape type deal when you have elevators. Mr. Harbison made the assumption that since one of the conditions is that it will undergo and receive multi-family residential development standards and meet building codes that those things are addressed within that forum. Mr. Randall: Building code does deal with minimum number of egresses, ingresses, etc., distances from dwelling units and getting out of the building to safe places, etc. That is a big part of the building code. Ms. Erickson questioned parking spaces, 28 parking spaces and 22 employees. Does that sound right? Mr. Spieckerman: That is round the clock employees -- shifts. Mr. Fronk clarified: The employee count is traditionally the total. This facility would employ a maximum load 7 to 8 employees at one time. . · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28,2000 Page 61 MOTION AFFIRM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROVE THE CUP WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Mr. Irvin SECOND Ms. Erickson AMENDMENT approved by maker and seconder: AFFIRM STAFF APPROVE THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CUP WITH ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION: Mr. Watts clarified for the record, his understanding is the additional conditions are: in the draft recommendation prepared by Staff in Condition A, language would be added, "and conceptual elevations in Exhibit Q" and also a reference to the applicant being required to establish a second non-motorized trail easement, 20' in width across the south line of tax lot 52. Mr. Harbison: Item e, Page 13. Mr. Spieckerman said that he also proposed including the words that the elevation substantially reflects the exhibit. Mr. Harbison explained that is what was added to Condition A -- we have added the conceptual elevations. Mr. Arthur asked on an open space situation, who manages the open space? Mr. Randall: If it's the Land Trust, I would assume the Land Trust would. That was one of the options. Mr. Arthur: Before the Land Trust, we were talking about the city would condition the 6 acres --what does that mean? Baseball fields? Soccer fields? Who decides; how does it work? Mr. : If that is not clear perhaps that should say "undisturbed open space." He said he thinks the intent is that it would be undisturbed opened space, or natural open space, and that the document that is made to the Land Trust would specify what uses could occur there also. He said he didn't know if those typically allow agriculture or if they are pretty restrictive. Mr. Watts: Usually in a conservation easement you can't do anything, unless it is for safety reasons- - there is a dead or diseased tree that needs to be cut down, and you would be able to cut that down. Otherwise, the intent is to preserve the natural state of the land. Mr. Spieckerman: Does the Land Trust want the property? Mr. Watts said he understands there have been some discussions and asked if the applicant could clarify that. Mr. Sepler, Madrona Planning: They have been in discussions with the Land Trust since the project originated. The proponents' desire was to donate the property fee simple to the Land Trust, entirely to them. The Land Trust informed them 2 days ago they don't desire to receive it fee simple because oflong-term maintenance issues. However, they may consider it as a fee simple gift if they are allowed to enact a conservation easement to restrict all uses except for open space or perhaps organic gardening, if that could be worked out and then be allowed to convey it to someone else. He said they replied today to the Land Trust that would be acceptable. In Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 62 addition, the proponent is working with our Washington State University for a similar conservation easement to be established. There are two processes to achieve this. Mr. Arthur: Still regarding open space, effectively the City says that it is open space and it is open for people who might decide or might not decide what is going to happen there. It isn't controlled by the City Parks Department or anybody like that; it is just out there on the Imp? Mr. Watts explained that if an easement is placed against the property, the ownership ofthe property remains with the owner; it is not city property. The city doesn't assume a maintenance obligation. There is a restriction placed against the use, depending upon what kinds of conditions are imposed. Typically the conservation easement is a protection of the property in its natural state. If the property is trànsferred to a Land Trust, they would assume the ownership as well as the responsibility of maintaining it in accordance with whatever conditions or restrictions are placed against the property. It is rather no man's land, but underlying it is not the city, it is going to be the property owner or a Land Trust non-profit that is acceptable to the city who would become the owner and the manager of the property in a manner that would be consistent with conditions that are placed against the property by the city. Mr. Arthur: If you put a condition in here that sets up who will maintain or do this -- at this time there is no system for deciding open space. Is there no history in how you deal with open space issues other than what you have just verbalized? Mr. Watts: A useful clarification to Paragraph e in the draft finding would be whether or not a conservation easement means an undisturbed or native growth conservation easement, meaning that the land would be left in an untouched state, except for maybe trails or observation points. It wouldn't be developed for active use like ball parks or play grounds. When people speak of open space, the general understanding is that trails, are OK, but baseball fields are not compatible with the open space. Steep slopes, view corridors, etc. are commonly understood to mean that the land will remain as it is. If the Commission has a different view of what it believes is appropriate, this is the time to clarify it. Mr. Arthur said he is just wanting to see how it will look, and then you make assumptions based on a very liquid foundation that you think it will end up looking like this, and it doesn't. He said, you clarified it -- there is no process; that is basically it. In terms of the neighbors being able to look at this and say it is always going to be a field, they are always going to planttrees on it, etc., we are not conditioning the project to say that. Mr. Harbison: Page 11, paragraph e, Mr. Watts: 11 e states it is going to be a conservation easement. That would restrict plantings of new species. That could include trails, and observation points, but it would not include ball fields. Conservation easement has a conceptual under~tanding to it. Mr. Randall stated the developers have indicated they would like that language to say, "Preserved as undeveloped, undisturbed open space or organic agriculture." They would like to allow those uses. Mr. Harbison said to Commission, if they would like to add that to the recommendation, let's add that to the motion on the floor. · · · · · · ~h! Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 63 Ms. Erickson: Organic agriculture, you are basically farming it -- undisturbed open space is farmland, which is different than what it is now. Mr. Randall concurred and said BCD is not necessarily recommending it. Mr. Benskin: Think it should be added -- "remain as undisturbed" Mr. Randall: I don't know if you want to add, "with the exception oftrails." Chair Harbison suggested they could add on line 30f e -- "totaling approximately 6 acres that shall be formally preserved as undisturbed open space." He asked if that would be an appropriate addition that meets the concerns? Mr. Spieckerman asked for the City Attorney to clarify if tl).at does. Mr. Watts: This is not necessarily the exact language that would end up in a restrictive type document, but as conceptual language, it is good to add the word "undisturbed," but would suggest adding privacy except for pedestrian trails. If tbe city approved it, that would allow for some latitude, if the city felt it appropriate to allow trails. If that is not consistent with the Planning Commission view, that is fine. He said he waS just trying to clarify it, so if in 5 to 10 years the issue comes up we have some guidance as to wbat is and what is not permitted, or what needs to go into a restrictive covenant document. Mr. Spieckerman: Who would make those decisions? Would that be the Planning Department, or would that be the Non-Motorized Committee? Ms. Erickson spoke of comments they had received in letters about wildlife corridors. If you make trails through there, there goes the wildlife corridor --let's leave it alone. Now we are going to change what even the letters were -- most of the people said open space, wildlife corridors. My idea was natural -- leave it alone, 6 acres. If it goes to a Land Trust, won't they just leave it alone? If it is open to trails, how many trails -- bike trails? Mr. Randall: On the site plan, you just have just the one easement between the building and the open space, and then the multi-user trail. I don't think we need more than that; if it is limited to "consistent with the approved site plan," I think we would be OK. Ms. Erickson: I think we have a definition for open space; is that going to be the definition for this? Mr. Watts thought it goes beyond space, because the proposed condition also includes the phrase, "conservation easement" and that has a general understanding. Weare strengthening or adding to that. The proposal on the table is "undisturbed" but we are not going to add anything with reference to trails. The only word that is going to be added to that paragraph in connection with conservation easement is to add the one word "undisturbed." AMENDED MOTION AFFIRM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROVE THE CUP WITH Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 64 . ADD I TION AL COND ITION S (Additional conditions: 1) Added to Condition A, page 11 "and conceptual elevations in Exhibit Q"; 2) reference to the applicant being required to establish a second non-motorized trail easement, 20' in width across the south line of tax lot 52 added to paragraph 3 of page 13; 3) Add "undisturbed" to "open space" in Condition E VOTE PASSED 5 IN FAVOR; MS. OT A AND MR. BENSKIN OPPOSED Mr. Watts clarified that the Planning Commission just voted 5 to 2 to approve the conditional use permit application with conditions that were reflected in the Staff Report. He indicated it should be clarified that the balance of the document called "Conditional Use Permit" is also approved as modified by the previous action. Just so it is clear that the entire document is accepted as the recommendation which will be forwarded to the Council, we would be looking for a motion to approve the document called "Conditional Use Permit" as modified in the same respects as the . conditions as the Commission just took action. MOTION Ms. Erickson CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LUPOO-039 IN ITS ENTIRETY BE PASSED ON TO CITY COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE SAME MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS AS IN THE PREVIOUS VOTE SECOND Mr. Arthur VOTE PASSED, 5 IN FAVOR; MS. OT A AND MR. BENSKIN OPPOSED VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 12,2000 VIII. COMMUNICATIONS -- Current Mail IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Irvin and seconded by Mr. Benskin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 12:12 p.m. . · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 65 ~1>vc.\m~ Larry Harbison, Chair ~(?~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- LUP #00-39 Port Townsend Assisted Living, LLC Date: August 15,2000 Exhibits: :Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: ExhibitJ : Exhibit K: Conditional Use Application and attachments, dated June 9,2000 SEP A Checklist, dated June 9, 2000 Site Plans SEP A MDNS, dated August 16, 2000 Appeal Letter, dated August 31, 2000 Comment Letters Excerpts from Planning Commission Findings of Fact; Proposed Amendments to Title 17, dated May 17, 1999 PTMCI7.16.020, Land Use Table Selected definitions, PTMC 17.09 Excerpts from Minutes of the Planning Commission, dated April 8, 1999 Multifamily Development Standards, PTMC 17 Exhibits added at the Public Hearing of September 28. 2000: Exhibit L: Revised Site Plan Exhibit M: Copy of the last page of the SEP A checklist signed by the applicant's agent Exhibit N: Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria prepared for Port Townsend Assisted Living Letter from P.T. Family Physicians Revised Landscaping and Site Plan Revised Colored Elevations Facade Comparison between San Juan Commons versus Port Townsend Assisted Living Exhibit S: Attorney -- Article with reference to conversion of Meany Hotel to a Senior Housing Facility Exhibit T: Tl -- Bulk and Dimensional Requirements for CI and CII/MU, Mixed Use Zones Exhibit 0: Exhibit P: Exhibit Q: Exhibit R: Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 66 · T2 -- Bulk and Dimensional Requirements for Residential Districts Exhibit U: Mr. Randall's memorandum dated September 21,2000 Exhibit V: Definition of Assisted Living Services from the WAC 388.10.02 Exhibit W:Definition of Efficiency Dwelling Unit from the 1977 UBC Exhibit X: History of Senior Housing in Port Townsend · ·