Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09082003CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this eighth day of September, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Kees Kolff presiding. ROLL CALL -- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers present at roll call were Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Alan Youse arrived late. Joe Finnie was excused. Frieda Fenn was absent. Staff member present were Public Works Director Ken Clow, Building and Community Development Director Jeff Randall, Planner John McDonagh, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. PROCLAMATION Mayor Kolff read a proclamation regarding Jefferson AIDS Service Awareness Day. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Preliminary Plat of Laurel Heights Application LUP 03-022 Mayor Kolff declared the closed record quasi-judicial hearing open and read the rules of procedure. He inquired of the appellant how much time they would need for their statement. Ande Grahn of Olympic Peninsula Planning stated the appellant would like 10-15 minutes and would like to reserve five minutes at the end as well for rebuttal. Mayor Kolff noted that in the closed record procedure there is no provision for rebuttal and stated he would allow fifteen minutes for the appellant's presentation. He added that the applicant would have an equal time for their response. Mayor Kolff then asked if any Council members, including the Mayor, had any Appearance of Fairness or Conflict of interest issue or disclosure to make. Mr. Masci stated he has a federally mandated non-disclosable relationship with two appellants which could be construed as accruing financial benefit to myself. He added that he has had social relationships in the past with both Ms. Grahn and Mr. Pipia. Ms. Robinson noted that in 2001 she was a member of the Community Network Board and continued to sit on the board up until March 18 of this year when she resigned. She City Council Special Hearing Page 1 September 8, 2003 entered her resignation letter into the record. She stated that the Community Network Board is a global organization which includes the Healthy Youth Coalition and the Birth to 5 Coalition, which was interested in commenting on this project early on. She stated she was contacted and responded that she needed to step out since the project could come before the City Council at some time in the future. Ms. Robinson said that she had consulted with City Attorney Watts, who advised her to remove herself from the Community Network Board until the Laurel Heights process was completed. She stated that her name has remained on some e-mail lists and has received some e-mails referencing the project but she has not responded to any e-mails regarding the project or discussed it with anyone. Mr. Youse arrived at 6:43 p. m. Ms. Sandoval stated that she has had occasion to show a house on 22nd Street on several occasions to one couple who were aware of the potential of the subdivision going forward. She stated it was discussed in the context of looking at a map and what rights of way would be open or not. It was someone involved with the Birth to 5 Coalition so that person knew a lot about the subdivision so we did not discuss the specifics other than those stated. She also stated that Mr. Pipia is a personal friend. Mayor Kolff stated the Mr. Pipia is a personal friend. Mayor Kolff asked if anyone present objected to the participation of any of the Council members in the proceedings. There were no objections. Motion: Mr. Masci moved that the Council has determined there are no violations of the appearance of fairness or conflict of interest doctrines resulting from the disclosures made by Council members. Mr. Youse seconded. The motion carried 5-0, by voice vote. Mayor Kolff noted that City Attorney Watts and City Manager David Timmons are both out of town and that their recommendation on proceeding is that the Council take the process as far as can be accommodated this evening but not continue all the way through deliberation and Council action. The amount of material we have had to go through and the amount of material that will be presented this evening is information that I would like to have more time to digest and consider before we have our final deliberation and take any specific action. The order of speaking will be as follows: staff presentation; then argument from the appellant a maximum of fifteen minutes; then we will allow people in support of the appellants to testify. We will accommodate them with three minutes comment per person. Then we will go to arguments from opponents to the appeal or those who are neutral. Then we will have arguments from the applicant in response, and we will give up to 15 minutes. Then response from staff and the following would be questions from Council members which could be directed to anyone who has spoken. Then what I would like for us to consider is the postponement of the rest of the hearing until a later date. That would still give an opportunity for people who want to come to the hearing to come to that follow-up portion of the hearing. We would not be taking City Council Special Hearing Page 2 September 8, 2003 open testimony at that time but if there are any questions that Council has of people who have spoken that could still occur at that time. We will see how much of that we can accomplish this evening. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to postpone deliberation and action to the fourth part of the regular Council business meeting on September 15, providing a quorum is present. Mr. Youse seconded. Amendment: Ms. Sandoval proposed a friendly amendment to continue the meeting to September 29. There were no objections. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. Staff presentation BCD Director Jeff Randall stated that although Mr. McDonagh is present, he is ill and will be available to assist but that Mr. Randall will be making the presentation. He then described the project and the process to date, and described the materials comprising the record as provided to the Council. Mr. McDonagh added that correspondence received after the council materials were distributed has been distributed separately to Council mailboxes or is on the desks of Councilors this evening. Mr. Randall reminded Councilors that SEPA is closed and that SEPA mitigations are final and those mitigations cannot be altered. He stated that the issue before the Council is the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to approve the subdivision; subdivision approval criteria must be applied and must be limited to the eight items contained in the appeal. Mayor Kolff asked if any written materials have been submitted or that anyone wishes to submit without speaking. Ande Grahn entered a letter from Laurie Strong, Executive Director of Jefferson Mental Health Services into the record. Presentation by Appellant Ande Grahn Olympic Peninsula Planning, representing Neighbors for Responsible Development. She stated that concerns center around having the best possible project built. They want the need for low income housing addressed and that the best low income housing can be built. She added they are concerned about the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan that creates a 51 unit community that is called "single family" that looks and feels like a multi-family community. It has not been reviewed consistent with the multi-family design standards and the developer and Public Works Department continue to call this single family development. You will hear from neighbors who live City Council Special Hearing Page 3 September 8, 2003 near other low-income subsidized housing communities and they will tell you this is not the same as one house on a 5,000 square foot lot with a yard and a parking garage. I realize it has not been easy to address this because of conflict in Comprehensive Plan. Low income strategies included considering up to fourplexes as single family development in the R II zone without probably considering someone would proposed 51 units all on the same four acres which really is multi-family. We believe the project could be remanded back to the Planning Department and the developer to address some issues. If the project were smaller that may address some of our concerns about the need for the project. We are not sure any need for a 51 unit development has been demonstrated. We have given you options and appreciate your time, this neighborhood group is eager to talk to you about their concerns and they will hold you accountable for helping them have the best possible development in their neighborhood. Joey Pipia noted that many people were in the audience supporting the appeal and he asked for a show of hands of the supporters. Pipia stated: I along with NRD have never argued against low income housing ever, we are for good affordable housing, he reminded everyone that disagreements occur all the time, appeals are made every day to District Courts, to the Supreme Court and to City Councils and decisions to lower bodies are reversed every day as well. We are here to disagree with decisions that have been made, based upon the record and based upon the record, we ask you to reconsider this project. There are certain criteria upon which this project rests. One is the subdivision approval criteria from PTMC 18.16.060 A 4: "approving the proposed subdivision will serve the public use and interest and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and general welfare." This is where I want you to put your thoughts with regard to the information that you will be hearing this evening. It is the crux of the appeal. We firmly believe that the best interests of the City of Port Townsend as articulated by that sentence are at stake and have not been adequately addressed and that you have the authority to see that those best interests are addressed. Regarding the market study, submitted by Island Construction to the Washington state Housing Finance Commission, first, there is considerable doubt as to the accuracy of this study. He referred to his letter (103) which includes letters from management agencies and managers of low income apartment houses cited in the study wherein they disagree on the record with the market study as submitted. These are not opinions, but statements of fact. He referred to others letters from NRD outlining more discrepancies of the market study (exhibit #2) He stated BCD has maintained on the record that they are satisfied with the state's review of the matter. NRD is not. He also stated there is only one letter in the records from any housing authority here in Jefferson County. It is a one paragraph cursory letter about welcoming more low income housing (#46). It is at this point where these two issues coincide that become the crux of our request for you to review this application. How can we know that "the public welfare" of this community has been adequately addressed when 1) factual and severely contradictory statements exist in the record as to the City Council Special Hearing Page 4 September 8, 2003 accuracy of the market study and therefore the actual demand and 2) the only housing authority to comment does so in a one-paragraph letter based on a study that is in doubt. He referred to letter #67 from Rick Tollefson of Jefferson County Community Networks. He stated Mr. Tollefson is an expert representing an acknowledged agency addressing concerns directly related to the subdivision approval criteria about the social health and welfare implications of the proposal. He then discussed integration and referred to his letters (#51 and #57) pointing out that the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, V-7, policy 3 says to integrate special needs and low housing development throughout the community. Policy 4.1 encourages the integration of a mix of housing types, densities, and costs suitable for a population diverse in age, income, household compositions and individual needs. He stated it is his understanding that the Comprehensive Plan is a benchmark if you will - in a sense it is how we insure that we serve the public interest; it is how we ensure that adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed project will add another 51 units of low income housing over five or so acres to an existing 31 unit low income housing development. This will be contiguous. He stated this will be one large socio-economic group segregated into one spot surrounded by houses. He stated the Comprehensive Plan policies clearly call for integration and dispersal. He stated the Laurel Heights project does not meet PTMC subdivision criteria 18.12.060(A)(1)(a) by not conforming to the PT Comprehensive Plan and therefore cannot be said to "serve the public use and interest and adequate provisions that has been made for the general welfare." He asked the Council to remand back for further study. Finally, he addressed the detention pond issue and referred to an article from the Journal of Surface Water Quality Professionals and Storm water magazine, entitled the "dark side of stormwater runoff" referring to disease vectors and specifically mosquitoes and how disease is spread. He quoted from the article. "Detention and retention ponds are being constructed at rates exceeding our understanding of the long term implications of their use" and the addition of thousands of new stormwater management structures could eventually result in transmission of infectious diseases that equal or exceed historical levels." He stated we can be pro-active on the issue. He said the city does not have a West Nile virus plan nor any plan with regard to disease vectors as detailed in this article and that it should in order to have adequate provision for health, safety and general welfare. He then added that he agreed with the quote from the Miranda Mining case in Mr. Watts's memo that "community displeasure cannot be a basis of appeal" and stated that appellants have endeavored to fill the record with factual evidence at every turn. Ande Grahn, Olympic Peninsula Planning: She stated that Mr. Randall did an excellent job of describing the project and that Mr. McDonagh did excellent work on the project and researched a whole series of issues the City Council Special Hearing Page 5 September 8, 2003 neighborhood posed, but said that many questions are still unanswered. She said you won't find anywhere in your packet a drawing of what the road to Discovery Bay, the road access is going to look like. We get told it is going to go down this road, and down this road and there and that the traffic engineers are all properly certified to tell us the turning radius is just fine when we get there. We are not traffic engineers and not only that, we don't even have a drawing of this road to know what it looks like. We don't know what the impacts of the stormwater out on Discovery are going to be and I think that is really basic, as long as we have been looking at this project we still haven't seen a road drawing and we are told that when they do a street development permit, Public Works will continue to review that and that street development permit process doesn't require any additional SEPA nor does it have a public notice or a public comment process. So once those drawings are done the neighborhood has some concerns about what those look like, and I think that if you look in the record at Max Plattners' concerns and you will hear him tonight, he lives immediately adjacent to this project and immediately adjacent to Norwest Village and the roads don't ever come out exactly the way the developer says they are and we don't know who to talk to when that happens and we would rather see the drawings now. Again, we don't have on the record the housing authority's approval, we don't have them saying "we've been working with developer, identified needs, reviewed the project and this is the best possible project" - this will address the need of the project we have identified- that is not on the record here. The Police department stated we want it to be safe and there is a concept of defensible space but I haven't seen them do a review to look at the alcoves and the entries and the lighting plans or to even say yes, we will work with the developer when we get there. This project did not have to go through multi-family design review and so it is not consistent with the policy the council has already reviewed and adopted. We ask that the council lends its weight and authority to requiring that some of these long term long range and more complex issues be addressed so that you can look at these neighbors two or three years from now and say we got you the best project and also so you can look at the residents and know that they are going to be living in a healthy place. We will be back on the 29th to answer questions. You should be proud of the people in this community for digging into this records and bringing this information to you. Comments from those favoring the appeal: Andy Cochrane spoke in support of the appeal based on the letter he has submitted for public comment in which he raises the issue of integration of low income housing through the community. Mr. McDonagh did a study that looked at placement of low income housing in the city. I submit the call for integration does not allow for placement of multiple fourplexes in an RII district, that clustering was intended for a garage studio made into a duplex for extended family, etc. throughout an existing neighborhood of mixed character. He believes the project is contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. He said his property is a farm and it has a very pastoral - this City Council Special Hearing Page 6 September 8, 2003 underscores the inappropriateness under the Comp Plan of clustering fourplexes in this pastoral single family residentially zoned area. Max Plattner stated he would withhold his statement at this time. Peg Riecken: stated the market study is flawed; she knows it does not reflect an accurate number of available low cost housing in the city of port Townsend. She also stated this does not help the homeless in Port Townsend who live on the beaches, or in cars or the 30 people living in a house trailer in the woods because they would not qualify for this housing. She stated the remedy she would like to see considered is that the project be reduced in number of units. She said 51 units requires too many support services for the city to afford. Roy Walker: expressed concerns about the size and scope of the project and whether it is in the best interests of the residents to be concentrated in this large a group. Whether we are supporting assimilation with this activity or concentration and segregation of these individuals. He stated we would be better served with a smaller scale project. Joan Gitelman: stated she has worked privately as a child development specialist with child protective services. Addressed the integration issue - supports the development of low income housing in Jefferson County, thinks it is critical. Does see need for mixed density, concerned for health, safety and welfare of residents. Expressed concerns about the ability of the residents in this type of project to function in their everyday lives. Susan Langlois: She directed the Council to the public comment letters. She stated confidentiality and conflict of interest are important. She is a neighbor to the development and has worked with many families who may be eligible to live there. She said that given the size of the town, a 50 unit project in one location is just too big for the size of our town. She asked if we look at how many families are on vouchers, what proportion of those people will live in this development. She has always considered Laurel Heights in connection with Norwest Heights because they are right next store. The income and other guidelines will be the same with decisions made by an outside entity. All are vulnerable families with limitations and constraints. Even if on paper they are considered single family they will face challenges of multi-family. The biggest problem in terms of your neighborhood is your neighbors. Max Plattner: Stated he will be right in the middle of the development so he has many concerns, referred to his letters. Noted that he is concerned that the Comprehensive Plan calls for a mixture of homes along with apartments. He stated his hasn't been done. He said 51 units is way too big. The traffic study totally needs to be looked at again. Low income housing needs are probably exaggerated; many apartments are still vacant in town. Many people do not qualify for these apartments. It is supposed to be affordable housing, but won't help the homeless, etc. He said the developer was asked initially why they wouldn't build a smaller development and the developer stated that it would not be profitable if smaller than 50 units, so are we talking needs of people or profit. City Council Special Hearing Page 7 September 8, 2003 Mr. Massey objected to the last statement as incorrect and not part of the record. Mayor Kolff asked Mr. Plattner to document his last statement in the record; if it is found, then Council can consider it, otherwise it will not be considered part of the record. Dan Wolodsky stated the number of units seems inconsistent - referred Councilors to his nine letters in the record. He supports the appeal and stated the project has come a long way but could still be better. He is concerned about market study, the disease vectors, and the type of retention pond. Leanne Chaney: stated concerns about about stormwater runoff, stated she is concerned about the water table, traffic, adjacent to "underground lake" - height of water table. Concerned about density and impact on children, particularly daycare and afierschool programs for teens. Speakers against the appeal: Michael Hyland: Housing Authority of Jefferson County Commissioner. Stated that this is the only housing authority in Jefferson County - its mission is to encourage affordable housing for all; therefore Housing Authority fully supports Laurel Heights as affirmed by the Hearing Examiner's decision. The company building Laurel Heights has a good track record in other parts of Washington and has made many adjustments to calm community concems. He added that Port Townsend does have affordable housing in all parts of town, citing examples such as Admiralty Apartments, Marine Plaza Apartments, and San Juan commons. Pete von Christierson: stated he has experience in city planning and has focused on affordable housing. Port Townsend has a great need which ahs been documented for more affordable housing, a need that is rather overwhelming and only will get larger in the future. This is for families below 80% median family income. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5 acknowledges this need and states goals to increase the supply and support affordability. Laurel Heights meets both goals. Several objections have been raised, one as to the amount of services. Most of the people who are going into this project would be from the local area, and are already receiving services, these are not new services. The opponents have also objected to having 51 units in one area. If properly maintained and managed, 51 units can be accommodated without problems in the area, particularly because there are buffers on one side and market rate single family housing on the other side. He added that it should be noted that from the point of view of the developer and the Financing Authority it is not feasible to build very small complexes of units, it's just not possible today to do that. He stated from his experience the city is lucky actually to have a developer who is willing to go through the hoops to make this happen, the developer could be making more money by developing market rate development. He stated he supports the Hearing Examiner's findings and the decision to approve the Laurel Heights plat. City Council Special Hearing Page 8 September 8, 2003 There was no one else wishing to speak. RECESS The meeting was recessed at 8:00 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:15 p.m, Another written comment was submitted by Beverly Moore. Statement from Applicant: John Williams, representing Laurel Heights LLC. Mr. Williams noted that he would like to go over how we got through this process; we started in December last year by canvassing neighbors and community at large. We held a meeting in town and solicited their opinions and concerns. Subsequent to that we had additional meetings with Neighbors for Responsible Development in particular and the city staff. We listened to the concerns of all and we came up with substantial concessions, in particular the 75 foot buffers to the north and south of the roject which are not typical in separating like zoning from like zoning. We added a restrictive covenant to the property to the north basically downgrading the density and restricting it to single family detached, in response to concerns that there would be another phase to the low-income tax credit project. The issue of park reserve or set-aside was raised and we responded with a 1.2 acres open area reserved for habitat and citizens at large. He stated his believe that the Comprhensive Plan and Municipal Code have been followed as they stand today. There is a lot of talk about the market study. It was prepared by a professional market study firm (PGP) - they are preapproved by the Washington State Housing and Finance Commission. They did a study, it was questioned by NRD, the Housing Finance Commission reviewed it and they have basically found not fault (letter on record). There would be no advantage to us in proceeding with a smaller project; in addition to the tax credit funding there is a permanent loan that needs to be maintained. He said we are developers and if we don't reach our 95% occupancy here we end up digging into our pockets so there is no advantage to us to move forward if we didn't believe there was a market. As you heard from others there is a market here and we truly believe there is. Ms. Grahn stated there was no drawing or evidence of what we are doing on McClellan Street. There is and it is exhibit MM, a detailed drawing on McClellan Street. Bill Massey: stated he has been in the business of affordable housing for profit and non- profit for 28 years throughout the state of Washington. The market study shows for example that a goodly portion of the folks that will occupy these housing units will be City Council Special Hearing Page 9 September 8, 2003 employed and are employed in Port Townsend and are currently living in substandard housing and I assure you, based on our experience (we just completed a project in Sedro- Woolly of 50 units that filled up prior to completion) 100% of those folks are employed in some industry. I won't suggest that is the same number that will be achieved in Port Townsend but the majority of the folks who occupy this housing will be employed. Regarding integration into the community, we were very cognizant of that element of your Comprehensive Plan. This is a town house project it doesn't look like the 30 units that has been mentioned several times early, which is a higher density project. This is town house individual single family residences which will appeal to folks who need up to three bedrooms and will appeal to small families. South of Laurel Heights is a project which was originally built as a for-profit affordable housing project, known as Town Pointe, a mobile home community of 160 plus residential units. We are a natural progression from that particular residential area, but they expressed concerns about buffer and additional trails so we addressed that and buffered with natural landscape between the south portion of our project the north portion of Town Pointe. To the north of Laurel Heights is the neighborhood where a majority of the folks who have spoken in opposition live and it is single family residential. To the east is also single family residential, so we are surrounded on three sides by different types of single family residential. We are also going to be surrounded immediately to the north ultimately by the development of single family residential because we have agreed through the SEPA process to place a covenant on our remaining properties that those will be single family free-standing individual home sites (approximately 30). This shows that according to Cmp Plan goals we are integrating housing into the community, we are integrating housing within an area surrounded by single family homes. We are providing single family homes in the RII district. It is interesting to note that the income levels that are achievable in PT in your service industries and in your boat building industry, particularly those just starting, and in some cases, even beginning school teachers would qualify for this housing. It is very attractive town house housing, not multi-family stacked flats. One of the primary precepts of the Comp Plan is to integrate special needs and low income housing developments throughout the community. We have done that. In the Comp Plan it says you should promote incentives for low income and moderate income housing development, you should offer density bonuses, you should make duplex, triplex, fourplex as well as town house developments easy to build. We addressed all of these things and tried to design this plat to do exactly as the Comp Plan says so we hope you do take a close look at the Comprehensive Plan as you have been asked to do by the project opponents. We have found few people outside the neighborhood who object to the plat. In the Comp Plan it directs you under Housing goals that duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes be allowed in all single family residential areas to promote affordability and diversity of housing types. It directs you additionally that a density bonus system is recommended to facilitate the provision of housing to lower and moderate income Port Townsend households. We've done that and our experience tells us there is a huge demand here and I assure you that the project will be very desirable to those who live there. W did provide information to neighbors so they could look at other developments we have been involved in to show them how attractive it is. City Council Special Hearing Page 10 September 8, 2003 Tom Cleverdon. Civil Engineer. Want to address stormwater and detention pond issues. One of the concerns was that this is a forested site and it will be cleared. One of the conditions was to have an extensive tree retention plan. The mitigated decision requires a two stage grading and clearing permit which will go out and clear a portion of the site, and identify trees that need to be retained. In addition there are 75 foot buffers on both the north and south. We are retaining far more vegetation than you normally would on a typical project of similar size and consequently the stormwater runoff and detention that you would get from a project this size is going to be less. One of the other things we were asked to do is incorporate low impact development techniques which uses bioretention rain gardens. We will incorporate bioretention areas which will actually take the runoff closer to where it is generated so consequently you will end up with less stormwater coming into the retention pond. The pond will be designed in accordance with all our standard BMPs, the standard stormwater mgmt manual. We have run the 2, 10 and 100 year storms on model through the pond. Typically in this area where you have low precipitation you never see standing water in the pond after 24 hours for a 2 year storm. You might see standing water in the pond for 48 hours after a 100 year storm. There should be no standing water in the pond, especially at that time of year you would expect mosquito breeding so we don't anticipate there will be any concern whatsoever with West Nile but it is a very new area for us in the state of Washington and I don't know if there is any data that has been generated on it in this area. But we will design the pond so there will be no standing water in it other than right after the storm events. The key in any stormwater pond or system is to keep it very simple as we have done with this system. The pond itself and the stormwater catch basins, and bioretention areas really should function indefinitely. They have a lifecycle, which would be the lifecycle of the pipes and the catch basins and the hardware within the pond but the key to the pond functioning, just as the key to a wastewater treatment plant or a water system functioning, is really just maintenance. The Hearing Examiner conditioned this project by establishing a maintenance fund which virtually assures that there will be ongoing maintenance available for these system for the life of the project. We see it is a simple design and should function just fine. Our firm has designed literally hundred of retention ponds, primarily in Island County and we rarely see failures as long as they're maintained. Brad Lincoln: Gibson Traffic Consultants. We performed the traffic study for the development and originally we performed the study with town home as the trip generator and we distributed the traffic and performed a level of service analysis at the surrounding intersections of Discovery and Sheridan and Discovery and McClellan. Based on that information, the intersections operated at an acceptable level of service. We then, at the request of the city, used the single family trip generator, which is the highest residential trip generator and we also used the peak hour of the Grant Street School traffic and even with the highest level trip generator and the school traffic, the surrounding intersections would still operate at acceptable levels of service. We have gone to a level which is higher than appropriate and the levels of service at the surrounding intersections are acceptable and we have used the most recent data and we have used the Institute of City Council Special Hearing Page 11 September 8, 2003 Transportation Engineers data for the trip generation and we have used HCS, Highway Capacity software, for level of service information. Bill Massey: it has been suggested it would be better to spread these housing units in a broader spectrum throughout the community - from the standpoint of management, it is not a viable arrangement under the State Housing Finance Ccmmission program. There seems to be a level of workability and viability and that is what I think Max was talking about when he brought up the issue of whether it was profitable. It wasn't profitability so much as it was a question of viability for good management based on the number of units. Fifty units seems to be about the smallest size where you can provide full time professional management on site and provide full time adequate maintenance on site of all of the elements of a housing community like this one. Typically throughout the state the housing communities are much larger than this. We picked a number that seemed to be the smallest number that would be viable because that seemed to fit the community of Port Townsend. Beyond that I would just like to remind you we are considering here a subdivision of 14 lots. It just happens we are going to construct on those 14 lots a number of town house units on those lots. If they were not low income affordable housing we wouldn't be having this discussion. In Port Townsend you have a significant amount of substandard housing and these folks should have the opportunity to have above average housing. Staff response or additional statements: Mr. Randall stated that staff hasn't specifically addressed the appeal issues and we would like to do that now. I wanted to clarify for the record, Michael Hyland stood up and indicated a number of families that were on the Jefferson County waiting list. That's outside the public record, it is new evidence, but there is a citation in the market study that indicates (page 25) "the Housing Authority of Jefferson County does not own or operate any low income housing units; according to discussions with the director, John Estes, the housing authority administers 146 section 8 certificates and vouchers, there is also a waiting list of 111 households for section 8 vouchers and then a table." That is in the record so there is some evidence of a waiting list in Jefferson County. Again we are talking about an R-II zoning district. There has been a lot of talk tonight about whether the fourplexes comply with zoning and comply with the intent of the Comp Plan. As city staffour job is to make sure that this project complies with city codes and plans and this project is the best that we can make it. The Comprehensive Plan as cited does say that duplexes and fourplexes nad triplexes should be encouraged to locate in our single family residential zones and that was adopted in 1996. The zoning code was then amended in 1997 to include duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes within the definition of single family residences so they are permitted uses. They are considered permitted single family attached dwelling units. They are permitted outright. The project consists of entirely 13 single family attached structures and one single family detached structure on 14 lots. City Council Special Hearing Page 12 September 8, 2003 The contention tonight that this project doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan. That is an argument that can be made but staff feels that the Comp Plan policies that are summarized very well by the Hearing Examiner and it is also concluded by the Hearing Examiner that he feels there is no merit to that argument. He feels that the project does comply with the Comprehensive Plan and more importantly, the zoning code. Because court cases have held where a project does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan but clearly complies with the zoning code, the zoning code wins. Mr. Watts has provided evidence in his memo of case law and another case is the Mt. Vernon case that says that same thing. The Hearing Examiner states in finding of fact 5 that because the Comp Plan and applicable regulations identify the type of land use and residential density allowed, those two subjects are not eligible for review. Basically what he was saying is that he is required to review the project under the rules in effect at the time of the application and in sitting as the appeal body, so are you. A couple of the appeal items, primarily appeal issue 1 and appeal issue 5 are basically asking you to change the rules. The appellants are asking you to find that this project should be reviewed against multi-family design standards. They are asking you to conclude that it is a multi-family project; and they are asking you to go through a Planned Unit Development process. As your staff member, I am telling you that, in my opinion, you can't do. You have to apply the rules that exist and the rules that exist say that if a single unit duplex, triplex or fourplex is proposed and meets the density requirements, meaning 1 unit per 5000 square feet, which this project does, the overall density complies with our zoning code, and those are the rules that we apply. There has been talk about the market study. It is not required by city code but by the Washington State Housing Finance Committee to approve housing finance credits for this project. We had the applicant put the market study into the record because we felt it was an important part of the record; however we do not have criteria in the municipal code about reviewing housing market studies. That is not our expertise and there is no criteria there for review. We are not reviewing this as a low income housing project; we are reviewing this as a subdivision, we are reviewing this for whether the project produces adequate roads, sewer, trails, etc. To the extent that objective facts were raised by any commentors which we could link to the impact as a measurable impact, we mitigated it. Regarding internal inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan - as you know, the policies can be read by different people in different ways - they are policies and guidelines. The main one is the one that refers to integrating special need housing throughout the city. The city has provided multi-family zoning districts throughout the city in order to implement the policy to provide the opportunity for low-income housing through town. The appellants are taking the standpoint that rather than integrate on the macro level as I indicate the city has, this policy indicates that we should integrate on the micro-level as in a certain number of market rate units per a certain number of low-income units in a specific project such as a subdivision or a PUD or a multi-family housing project. We City Council Special Hearing Page 13 September 8, 2003 could do that as a city if it were justified; conversely we could require every low income unit to have a certain number of market rate units. Does the project meet public health and welfarestandards? It is a catchall but we need to have evidence of a specific impact. Public Works has reviewed thoroughly comments from Fire, Police, health and housing agencies and part of the fact that we don't have a lot of pro comments in this packet is that, frankly, low income housing projects are controversial. We haven't had a lot in this tom. You can't just take the weight of how many people are objecting, you have to review the project on its merits. If you do conclude that the Comp Plan is inconsistent with itself or the city has erred in not adopting regulations that require a mix of low income housing, that is a legislative matter, it must be taken up outside this process. You can't change the rules on the applicant once he is in the process. If there is to be an appeal, it is a completely different process and would be an appeal to the Growth Mgmt Hearing Board. John McDonagh: Referred to the staff report which outlines each issue, as summarized by Mr. Randall. Re public transportation - this project is required to provide Jefferson Transit public transportation - there is a requirement that Dial a Ride be provided inside the development; and that fixed route service will be provided along Discovery Road. Jefferson Transit has already made the changes to their route - so the development is conditioned to provide public transportation. It was suggested that there was only one letter supporting the project and while most are opposed, Micheal Hyland did provide a comment letter and one private citizen also supported housing, and the Domestic Violence program also pointed out a need for this type of housing. How do you look at integration - we looked at where is existing housing and concluded it is reasonably well dispersed among the city. The policy of integration didn't get reflected into the development regulations into a proscriptive standard. They basically provided considerable flexibility by allowing you to build attached single family housing as long as base density requirements are met. Traffic study: the appellants haven't given any specific instances that the counts are wrong or there is a site distance problem. Reference that project is overly dense - this project meets the density requirements of the code. You can do more on less land with PUD and write your own zoning so there is encouragement but no requirements to use the PUD process. Also, the applicant has not requested modification of any development standards, but is just asking to have original lots recognized. City Council Special Hearing Page 14 September 8, 2003 Questions from the City Council Masci: on the plat maps in preliminary plat map section, before the one that shows the buildings, is one that shows vegetation identification, where it is planned out. The identified trees - when we go to build out, these same trees are the same trees there, not removed and replaced? Randall: They are the same tress. There are many more trees on the site than indicated. This Only indicates the trees on property in excess of 18 inches in diameter. Masci: looked through this and someone said there is a lake under this land? I see no hydrology report. I have looked at maps of drainage basins. Do we have an untapped water source? Is there an underground lake and if not, whey would someone think there was. Randall: I believe that was a reference to a high water table on the site. McDonagh: there is nothing in the record to indicate an underground aquifer that would prohibit the proposed development. Masci: aren't Comprehensive Plan changes the province of the Comp Plan amendment process and not a site specific appeal process? McDonagh: that's correct Maci: are there any references to Arcadia Terrace in the record? McDonagh: No Maci: Is 20th Street being opened? Randall: a portion of 20th would be open lying west of McClellan. It does not go all the way to Sherman nor to Hancock. Maci: the drawing above it, roadway section A/A is the representation of the construction techniques representative of the preliminarw plat for the Laurel Heights utility plan? Randall: Yes Masxci: at the bottom where we have McClellan to Hancock on 20th it says existing gravel and it is cross hatched - so that's remaining or that's being upgraded to a better gravel road or what? McDonagh: that would remain, would not be upgraded as part of this project, it would be gated off so vehicular access would not go through. City Council Special Hearing Page 15 September 8, 2003 Maci: so Hancock is not being opened to 20th. McDonagh: correct; this is an area where two plats meet, the Eisenbeis Addition and then the Laurel Shade addition and as you can imagine, the streets don't always line up so Hancock is a broken segment, it comes into the project from the south, stops at 20th street and shifts to the west and goes over so no portion of Hancock street in either section is going to be open for vehicular use. Randall: the project will be entirely accessed by McClellan Masci: internally 21st and there is no 22nd, 21st don't continue through and connect with other city streets - the buffer acts as a stop for the street? McDonagh: Correct Masci: are there any covenants to allow or prevent condominium conversion? McDonagh: there is a 40-year time limit on conversion. Masci: so on the 41st year they could do condominium conversion, but not prior to that time. McDonagh: Correct Masci: Mr. Pipia, you made a stormwater reference to detention ponds in your presentation - and I didn't get the exhibit that you cited. J. Pipa: there is considerable evidence in the record and I cited one - there's an article called "stormwater magazine" - in the big binder. It does not have a number, is behind Michael Tomsett's letter and behind my letter. Masci: you made a statement that this city has no West Nile Plan.. Where does this jurisdictional statement come from? Pipia: there wasn't anybody who could tell me there was a West Nile Plan. There is a letter I have submitted along with an article, for example, from the City of Bothell, and the article was part of the record that the City of Bothell is working for a plan, I was unable to locate one in my calls to various agencies. Sandoval: Michelle: what are the critical differences between Planned Unit Develoment (PUD) and subdivision process. Randall: PUD is a kind of a subdivision. It is a land division for ownership purposes. PUD is different in that a PUD allows modification to some of the zoning requirements also including parking, setbacks, density bonuses and modification of some of the City Council Special Hearing Page 16 September 8, 2003 infrastructure standards that would normally be required such as perhaps street widths. Some use modifications as specifically authorized, can be done through a PUD, such as you could have limited commercial use where it is normally single family, could have some limited multi-family units - (five dwelling unit or more in a single structure) in a normally single family zone through a PUD.. Those are examples of what you can do with a PUD in addition to subdivision. A PUD must have a subdivision component to it. It is a subdivision plus zoning modifications. Sandoval: so what you said in regard to the modifications are the main difference - you can't do the modifications in the subdivision? Randall: yes, the addition of a PUD allows you to modify specific standards. It is listed in the PUD chapter what can be modified but they include such things as number of parking spaces, location of parking, parking clusters, modified set backs, etc. The most common example is if a developer has a cluster concept to the project or if they want to creat smaller houses on 3000 square foot lots instead of normal size houses on 5,000 sf lots and maybe just one on-street parking space. Sandoval: So there is more flexibility with a PUD. Is there more flexibility on the BCD department to impose certain mitigations on developers through a PUD process as opposed to a subdivision? Randall: It really depends on the issues so it is hard for me to answer that. As far as flexibility to impose mitigations, both are subject to SEPA, so there is same SEPA Authority with both projects. Again it depends upon your goals - with a PUD you have more opportunities to cluster, more opportunity to provide parking in certain areas, so it gives you more flexibility in general in your design concepts. Sandvoal: both have same public process? Randall: yes Sandoval: Sewer and water, I take it, will be upgraded in entire area? On Thomas Street, the five farms are all on septic currently. Is the upgrade going on there giving availability of sewer and water upgrades for those residents? Randall: there are some limited extensions of sewer which will allow future development in adjacent areas to connect but don't think it is intended to go up to existing developed neighborhoods, to provide sewer where sewer is not. Public Works is requiring some logical extensions as part of this project, the main one I saw was extending sewer a little ways up Thomas Street and perhaps Hancock Street. It sounds like the main improvements to the area are water, looping and increasing water capacity in the area. Sandoval: All the way up through Thomas? City Council Special Hearing Page 17 September 8, 2003 Randall: Thomas to Hastings. Sandoval: So the sewer line won't be extended beyond - how far from Hastings? McDonagh: Primarily along 21 st Street, it's stubbing it out basically. Sadnvoal: will it have capacity to be extended from 21st to Hasting? Randall: It is designed to be extended. Sandoval: It will probably service a couple of other additional properties down Thomas to where Towne Point begins? Randall: the overall system is minimum 8 inch lines. Basically everything going in under this street and McClellan has been sized to also serve this project when it builds out which is also owned by Island Construction as well as the road here and here designed if necessary to serve this area, and area to the wet and the water and sewer has been designed to accommodate logical extensions. We can't require a project to fix an adjacent property's problems or developed area's lack of water and sewer but we can require logical connections where necessary to bring infrastructure all the way to the edge of a development. Sandoval: will the road service any Thomas Street properties or is it solely for this development? McDonagh: The right of way on Thomas is substandard in width, it is only 30 or 35 feet in width, the entire length, it is even less or somewhat disputed north of23ra Street coming down offof Hastings. It goes all the way down to 23rd, and I think it is proscriptive use, not dedicated, because the properties lying on either side of it have never been formally subdivided. As you go south of 23rd, it is a dedicated right of way, dedicated originally as part of this 1888 plat so the tumarounds that would be built on both ends of 21 st street are being built so they can be extended as streets in the future. Sandoval: So right of way issues will not be worked out with this subdivision? Randall: Well, they've got their half of the right of way so basically, if the land to the west develops, and it is - right now Public Works is saying we want to discourage this from being developed for future vehicular access, but if it were concluded it was needed, the rest of it would presumably come from the other side. Sandoval: So does everybody have access currently? Randall: Towne Point does not have any through streets currently so this land right now is dependent on access this way or on unopened streets over here. Sandoval: So there is one way in and one way out? City Council Special Hearing Page 18 September 8, 2003 McDonagh: yes, for primary vehicular access; there are several points where emergency vehicle access can be made. Mr. Randall explained what constitutes emergency access and noted the developer would be responsible for installing to the Fire Department's standards and restoring vegetation, etc. Sandoval: and the majority of the internal roads will be paved? Randall: yes with concrete sidewalks connected to the houses, paved off street parking lots with concrete walkways leading to each door. Rosecrans and McClellan are both paved and you have an off street asphalt pathway that parallels the street. The pathway in the woods is gravel and the SEPA requires a similar pathway to be designed in the buffer on the north side but its location isn't shown. Sandoval: So there is essentially one long road that will be servicing 51 residences. Randall: Correct. Sandoval: The north property is still fully treed and the intention is to keep it fully treed at this time? Randall: the north property is subject to covenant that it be developed only with single family detached homes. And that block 4, will not be developed at all and can be used for stormwater purposes, passive open space purposes, or trail purposes. Some sort of looped road access must be developed to access those areas. Sandoval: How long is the account required - maintenance account? Randall: there is no time limit - an amount to be determined by PW and BCD and on the stormwater we would want some input from Jefferson County and the account would be in perpetuity for upkeep of the stormwater pond, walkways and landscaping. Sandoval: Any restrictions on whether properties are owned or rented? McDonagh: No Sandoval: Regarding multifamily design review- it didn't have to go through design review because it is considered single family? Randall: Yes, the units are defined in the code as single family. Sandoval: Was Norwest village considered single or multi-family? City Council Special Hearing Page 19 September 8, 2003 Randall: Sandoval: purview.9 Randall: Sandoval: McDonagh: it was probably zoned under the old regulations which didn't consider duplexes, etc. to be considered single family. Norwest Village could be accomplished to day in the same form but through the PUD process. Randall: that is also a clustered project and I don't know that they meet the R-II density that this does, I suspect they don't. Sandoval: was Jefferson Transit consulted about the bus facility in terms of their routing? McDonagh: yes, there's a letter from Transit in the public comment section. Sandoval: Have they looked at the streets in the plan? McDonagh: as we get the street utility permit process going, they will be consulted. they have seen the preliminary layout and made comments. specifics of the maintenance fund are up to the city - is this under our amountis left up to city, BCD and PW. but not City Council? Randall: as it is written now, no (in Hearing Examiner conditions, #30 on page 25 in small notebook). Sandoval: how do these go about being rented? I don't understand the process, who selects the tenant/buyers? J. Williams : the project managed by a professional property management firm that specializes in Washington State Housing Finance Commission projects. Residents are income qualified - there is significant paperwork involved including verification quarterly, if not monthly on income. Sandoval: they are qualified to make sure they don't go above it? Below it? John Williams: below it Robinson: the PUD and subdivision questions that appellants referenced - who decides which process or which form a project will go through? Randall: the applicant normally starts any of these major processes, any Type III with a pre-application. They come to us and say here's what we want to do. In this case we did discuss both alternatives - because they had prior platted land and pre-existing streets, City Council Special Hearing Page 20 September 8, 2003 they had opportunities to cluster and the street rights of wayare 80 feet wide (street width is 22 feet wide plus curb and gutter) - it was excessively wide. There were opportunities to do other types of development and they chose to stick with the street layout and said they could work with the lot layout and the alley layout and so forth and they chose a straight subdivision. It is ultimately their choice. We can give them recommendations once we understand their project goalsbut they have flexibility on how they do their layout. Robinson: so it is up to the applicant. Randfll: ye Robinson: to appellants, why, in your redress request, at least more than once, I remember you recommending that Council remand to PUD process. Ande Grahn; Jeff Randall discussed that the PUD application process is similar to subdivision and has the same public hearing requirements. PUD is discretionary approval, subdidivion is based on consistency with zoning and setback criteria. Our contention is that the design features of this project are constrained in order to meet subdivision criteria, again you have the road right of way platted the way they are.. if it were a PUD there could be equivalent buffering provided, there could be buffering provided for some of the neighbors to the south and the east. That's not a possibility when you are trying to meet the setback requirements of the subdivision code or the plat that was originally there. So the least creative project possible is the one consistent with subdivision code but it doesn't require going through the discretionary permit process that is the PUD process. We think if the applicant had chosen the PUD process it would have been a better project, that there would have been common open space, a common house, daycare - there are all kinds of things that could have been discussed inside the flexibility of the PUD process. Also road patterns wouldn't necessarily be as constrained, there would be less pavement. We are concerned about the stormwater pond which may need to be extended into the other property. But it is a discretionary process. Randall: it is a discretionary process, and the reason why is that the applicant is asking for some sort of break or bonus and getting more units than they would normally get and the code does say that in order to get that you have to show excellence in design and in reviewing that the Hearing Examiner and the appeal to City Council would decide if there were excellence in design and whether it would merit "breaks." Robinson: so, is a subdivision zoning driven? Randall: it is zoning driven, public services and infrastructure driven, and more of a cut and dried process - do they comply with regulations, and are there environmental issues that must be mitigated. Robinson: would you say the PUD has more public input? City Council Special Hearing Page 21 September 8, 2003 Randall: the public review has more authority, I would say there is more flexibility for the developer. Grahn: from the developer's view there is less certainty. We have contended all along we don't question whether this project meets the subdivision code, that we didn't sit with a ruler and make sure every setback was made. The developer did a very good job of taking the number of units in the density that was allowed and fitting it into the lots that were permitted under the zoning code. It is more the inconsistency with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or just with that sense of "this doesn't look and feel like we think the City Council or the neighbors except a single family residential neighborhood to look." Robinson: in fairness, I need to ask the applicants - why did you choose subdivision over PUD? Massey: the applicant chose the subdivision approach because we had the opportunity within the significant amount of land we had to provide significant open spaces, room for buffers as was suggested by neighborhood meetings that were conducted, and had some surety, in other words we weren't asking for anything special or above what is allowed under the subdivision ordinance so we felt it was appropriate to follow the subdivision ordinance and still accomplish the open spaces that make this a very attractive development, not only from the standpoint of open space and natural elements, but also felt the pattern of roads in the city of Port Townsend were significant in that that is the character of the community, we had more of a grid system developed early on and we decided that was the appropriate approach. Kolff.' I noticed notice d in the materials there is an NRD proposed Laurel Heights plan which is sketched out with a slightly different configuration of the housing units and streets. Was this discussed with the developer? Grahn: it was, at a city facilitated meeting between NRD and the developer prior to the close of the SEPA comment period; the plan was discussed and did yield the developer offering the open space area with the trees; however because that plan could only be accomplished through PUD process and also through considering both phases of the development at the same time, the developer chose not to withdraw and resubmit as a PUD. John William: it was a reasonable plan, and differed mostly because the units were up and down and we would get rid of more trees and there would be more hard surfaces. Kolff: yes, the NRD plan doesn't allow a consistent buffer on the north or south. The houses were offset and at different distances. Grahn: it was not really an alternative, just in sense that there are alternatives, and here are the kinds of things that could be done. It as prepared by Andy Reese - a neighbor, he City Council Special Hearing Page 22 September 8, 2003 wasn't attempting to solve all the programmatic symptoms of the plan. It was an attempt to say here is an alternative or there may be more alternatives and Mr. Reese's primary concern was to show that there was a way to preserve a stand of trees and a way to address some of the community open space needs and in particular to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood to the north. Kolff: earlier there was a mention of looping in the additional property to the north - has there has there been attempt to show how the looping, would be acceptable to the developer and the city in terms of access and adequate street right of way? McDonagh: I don't think that looping is specifically an appeal issue, but no, there has not been been specific lot layout and once there is a development proposal the looping requirements would become part of the restrictive covenant on this land, not only detached single family homes but future development is going to require looping of the roadway system back, and could be accomplished in many ways.. Randall: the condition is on page 17 of the Hearing Examner's decision. Kolff: and you feel satisfied the other mitigations you are requiring will not be diminished by having to provide that kind of looping access to that neighboring property. McDonagh: correct. Randall: this may encourage a replatting of that land, rather than use of the road corridors we have, it may be more efficient to come up with a shorter looped road. Kolff.' I've heard talk about a community building and seen it in the written record as well - where does that stand in terms of negotiations, requirements, and recommendations? McDonagh: the developer had offered throughout the process and I heard it has been taken off the table, but offered to help participate. In reviewing the public comments, a number said it must have a family resource center or some sort of large building that would facilitate day care services, etc. I called a number of projects around the state and not all of them had such a requirement. Treehouse, by the way, has a proposed community building, there was no requirement that they build it. That was 30 units, over the project's 51. There failed in our review of it to be a rational nexus, or proportionality argument to be made that this development requires amenities such as this, it was easier to make the argument for recreation, transportation and trails, but to require a community size building that would also lend maintenance responsibilities, I think Chief Anderson summed it up pretty well, a community building would be very nice but if it is not used or maintained properly then it can become more of a liability than a potential for a project. Kolff: but the offer is still as it is written in the record? This was referred to as a landscape plan - does that mean that the trees that I see there are going to stay, because City Council Special Hearing Page 23 September 8, 2003 some of them look remarkably close to the houses. So is this a landscape plan or is this not a landscape plan. Williams: it will require approval prior to the trees being removed; obviously there will be the need to remove trees that will be within ten feet of the structure because the tee is not going to live or the building could be endangered. All of that is partly why we adopted a two phase clearing and grading approach to this plan, to be able to clear a lot of center line section on the right of ways and then decide what will be saved. Randall: it is a very early conceptual design that the landscaper thought "these are the trees that may be able to stay" but it will need refinement and there are many more trees on there that are less than 18 inches that can stay. Kolff: OK, speaking of trees, I noticed in the Hearing Examiners report there are several places where he says that things will be "encouraged" or that the applicant should "consider" - a lot of these sort of vague guidelines, one in particular says placement of mulch over the tree roots is "encouraged" to help reduce soil compaction by equipment, another says as an alternative to asphalt surfacing the applicant "may propose" to use suitable LID techniques, and a sufficient number of large diameter trees that are taken down shall be selectively replaced - these are these things that I am not quite sure how to quantify and.. Randall: right, and in situations like that, my recommendation would be - let's take the root compaction for example - "steps shall be taken to prevent unnecessary root compaction under the trees" - an example of one way to do that would be using wood chips so you can say you shall do something and one thing to consider is this method. You know, if you want to make sure something is done, if you see something with a "should," look at the overall goal and maybe consider inserting a "shall" there but don't bind them to that because, for example, what if they don't have enough wood chips for all of the trees. There are plenty of other methods to reduce root compaction, like don't drive over the roots in the first place. Kolff: OK. And then the final such statement is the applicant is strongly encouraged to consider construction of individual decks or patio areas along the rear elevation of each unit - has the applicant responded to any of the conditions that have been placed by the Hearing Examiner or have you had an opportunity to comment on those or is that premature at this point? John Williams: specifically on the patio/deck? Kolff: specifically on that or the other conditions Williams: no I haven't on the other conditions - the patios on the back are, right now, on the preliminary architectural drawings and there will be some sort of patio at the back of the units. City Council Special Hearing Page 24 September 8, 2003 Randall: shows one of the elevations. Kolff.' okay, those are the only questions I have at this time. Shall we go around again? Robinson: I seem to remember that in talking about the buffers, north and south and then Hancock St. because it is unopened at this time would serve as a buffer on the East, is that correct? McDonagh at least in the interim it became a SEPA mitigation measure that that be retained as a buffer as well, it was something privately owned by the applicant that could be established in buffer at least partially for the neighbors on the East. Robinson: so it's not all of Hancock that runs all along - my question is, if Hancock is opened, there goes the buffer? McDonagh: Hancock is 80 feet wide, this project will only be using the west 20 or 30 feet of it. Hancock is not going to open unless properties lying to the east of it develop. The applicant may -- at least not open to the extent McClellan street is being opened as a straight through right of way -- as the applicant or a subsequent owner develops the northern lands there may be a portion of Hancock Street that is used. I see where you're going, that they are not being provided with buffer. Robinson: they think they are but if there is no guarantee that Hancock will not be open McDonagh: we thought it premature to commit to any right of way being permanently closed specifically because the applicant has adjoining lands to the west of it that need Hancock street for surface as well as a number of properties lying directly east of Hancock street, some of which the appellants are involved with that have vacant developable buildable lots. To commit a street to not being open for properties that would require that street for access is tantamount to a taking. Randall: basically, Public Works and BCD have the responsibility to look at a project and to look at the land surrounding it and its likely development pattern and that is one of the reasons why a certain amount of SEPA information was required for this land even though it wasn't being developed right now. But as far as this land goes it could be accessed and serviced without punching a road htrough Hancock but we don't know how this land to the east will be developed - the land surrounding it is approximately at a one to approximately 5 acres. Some of them may be one house to one acre but it is basically not developed as one house per 5,000 square feet, but it is very developable and it is possible those lands could be accessed solely from the east. And it is possible that this land is accessible solely through internal roads; therefore Hancock could remain unopened. So our intention would be to keep this right of way no more developed than it already is and Thomas Street no more developed than what we are talking about but we can't guarantee that because we cannot landlock a parcel. City Council Special Hearing Page 25 September 8, 2003 Robinson: so was there any discussion of a buffer that is not in the right of way along Hancock? Randall: the Hearing Examiner basically reached a decision on that, he concluded that he didn't support a buffer there. Robinson: because Hancock was unopened Randall: because Hancock was there Robinson: but there's no guarantee Randall: if you look at it, the land to the south is different, it doesn't have a right of way, the land abuts it directly. He also said a buffer isn't even required between single family residential developments. But the applicant proposed to do that. J. Pipia: I think that two of the property owners are here who own all that property to the east, I have a house that's a little over an acre and we are closest to the largest land owners on that strip. Kolff: I would like to get a sense from council. I would like to propose that we continue the questioning at the beginning of the next portion of this hearing on the 29th. We have an opportunity to ask more questions then unless someone feels they need to continue tonight. Sandoval: I just have two questions left from this and then I will finish reading this and probably come up with some more. I just have two from this evening's presentation if I may finish those. Kolff'. OK MS: It was Brad Lincoln, you mentioned town home traffic report as opposed to single family and then highest residential. Is a town home traffic report - would town home qualify as multi-family? Lincoln: no, that's the trip generator - basically the Institute of Traffic Engineers describes different trip generation types, i.e. town home, apartment, assisted living. Sandoval: so if you live in one of those complexes you are going to tend to drive more or less? Lincoln: you generate more or less trips is how it is. Sandoval: so town home in terms of that trip generation, does not fall into a multifamily designation? City Council Special Hearing Page 26 September 8, 2003 Lincoln: it doesn't matter if it is multi-family or single family, it just says "town home" "single family" - I may be confused as to your question. Robinson: what is the criteria for "town homes?" Lincoln: "town home" is typically attached residential units Robinson: is there a maximum or minimum number? Lincoln: yes, once it reaches a certain limit then you do apartments and we didn't feel we were at the point we would become apartments. And this was the discussion I had with city staff when we first started the project. And then we used the highest residential trip generator is single family detached and that is what we used ultimately to show that even though we don't believe it is not technically single family detached but we used the highest single trip generator. Sandoval: but it it's not single family detached but it's not apartments, what is it? Lincoln: it is town homes- that's the medium. Robinson: so what are the number of units that are associated with town homes in your study? Lincoln: typically an apartment is more than one floor, as you have apartments stacked on top of each other and town home is more of attached single family units. Robinson: so there's no number of units attached to the phrase "town home?" Lincoln: I don't believe there is one in the IT manual. Masci: so what I think I hear you saying is that town home is the matrix you used that generates the highest number of trips - you were trying to bookend... Lincoln: no, we used town home from the beginning because ... Masci: but you said you applied single family Lincoln: single family detached is the highest and the study showed that even with the highest generator we still met the level of ser~,ice standards. Randall: they ran an assumption that even developed as single family detached with the highest trip generators that they wouldn't cause impacts that would require additional mitigations. Sandoval: I just want a clarification about the different definitions. City Council Special Hearing Page 27 September 8, 2003 Lincoln: just to give you an idea, single family detached generates almost twice as much as town homes. Sandoval: I read all that, that was interesting. I did actually read all that. Thank you so much. Sandoval: There was some controversy - about we're not looking at this as low income but as a subdivision and Jeff, you said we're not looking at the criteria for low income housing. Is there critera for low income housing in this city? Randall: there is a provision for it in the PUD ordinance that if you are providing a certain amount of low income housing it may be one of the bases for getting a density bonus; again this isn't a PUD; so we do have some definitions, there is a definition for low income housing, I think in the Comp Plan and in the zoning code in a couple of different places, but I guess my point was this project isn't subject to some sort of finding that we conclude it is low income housing. We don't have any sort of approval criteria Sandoval: so we're just touting the benefits but we're not ... Randall: we're describing the project - if we just said this is a fourteen unit subdivision - and we don't tell the public any more I don't think we're telling the full story so we're saying it is low income housing because it is. We are saying it is financed by this low income housing money because it is. But it doesn't necessarily imply that you have more of an approval criteria that you get to decide whether this is good low income housing therefore you will approve it versus bad low income housing therefore you deny it - you are limited to your approval criteria. Sandoval: OK, then here is the last question then for me for tonight. Once again, there was the talk about the market study and the waiting list and it did come up in the record JR: it was in the record, just not the numbers Michael [Hyland] cited. Sandoval: So I guess this is for the developer, that is, you said there were going to be professional managers. But will this waiting list actually be addressed - is the criteria simply income qualified or will the list actually, if there are 111 on a waiting list, will that be taken into consideration or can somebody from somewhere else who is not on the waiting come and grab one of these places? John Williams: I think that list is an indication or, as they like to say in this market study, in the preparation that was a snapshot at that time and that was an indication there is a need, but we don't have a connection with those, we would certainly go to them and yes we would encourage them to use the people that are already on the list. But there's nothing in place at the moment though. Kolff: The procedure then, if council approves of this idea, would be that we would meet again on the 29th, we would postpone this until the 29th as was moved earlier. At that City Council Special Hearing Page 28 September 8, 2003 meeting them would be the opportunity for the council to continue to ask questions of staffor any other presenter; also there would be an opportunity for any speaker and I'll read from the procedures - you will be asked this question at that next meeting - "does any speaker have any comment solely to clarify any item raised by a Councilmember's questions. Please, no new issues can be presented and please do not repeat your or any other person's previous testimony. Your comments should be limited to clarifying any item raised by any council member or staff." So you would all have an opportunity to clarify any issue that is raised by all of our questions, both asked tonight and the questions that we would ask at the time that we continue. Masci: I move that we move the item to the 29th and specify that it be the first item on the agenda that night. Robinson seconded. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 pm. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Special Hearing Page 29 September 8, 2003