HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUP21-064, LUP21-066-LUP21-068 Final Decision RE: Madrona Ridge Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development, Plat Vacation and Critical Areas Approval250 MadisonStreet, Suite 3 1 Pourt'rownsend, A 98369 1360.379.5095 1 www.dtyofpt.u;�s
CitYofPort
Townsend
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
March 29, 2022
TO: John Everett, ESM Consulting Engineers,
Agent for Applicant Montebanc Mgmt.
Other Parties of Record
FROM: John McDonagh, Senior Planner
Development Services Department
RE: Hearing Examiner's Decision on City File Nos. LUP21-064 and LUP21-066 to
LUP21-068; Madrona Ridge Plat/Plat Vacation/Planned Unit Development and
Critical Area consolidated applications.
The Hearing Examiner's decision on the above referenced matter has been received by the City
as of yesterday at approximately 5 p.m. It is being emailed to the Applicant's agent and Other
Parties of Record who commented by email and/or at the public hearing. For any parties of
record who did not comment by email, the decision is being sent U.S. Mail. The last page of the
Hearing Examiner's decision notes that:
This land use decision is final and subject to appeal to superior court as governed by Chapter
36.70C RCW. Appeal deadlines are short and procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to
file a judicial appeal of this decision should consult with an attorney to ensure that all
procedural requirements are satisfied.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at 360-344-3070 or preferably by
e-mail at jmcdonagh@cityofpt.us.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Madrona Ridge
Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit FINAL DECISION
Development, Plat Vacation and Critical
Areas Approval
LUP21-064 and LUP21-066 though
LUP21-068
INTRODUCTION
Montebanc Management LLC has applied for approval of applications for a preliminary plat,
plat vacation, planned unit development ("PUD") and critical areas permit for a 167-lot
single-family residential development on over 39 acres located along both sides of Rainier
St. and north of the Discovery Road roundabout. The applications are approved subject to
conditions.
Port Townsend is singularly unique in the concern of its residents with global issues that
transcend their municipal boundaries, in this case focusing upon affordable housing and
climate change. Unfortunately for the residents, the City has no legal authority to make the
developer responsible for addressing those two pressing problems. As to affordable housing,
the courts don't consider developers to be the cause of unaffordable housing. Case law on
that subject, referenced in Conclusion of Law No. 3.5 below, strongly suggests that
affordable housing should be a problem addressed by the population at large as opposed to
making individual developers shoulder that burden.
Regarding climate change, the record simply doesn't support any mitigation. As outlined in
Conclusion of Law No. 3.6 below, the City has the burden of proof in establishing both a
problem created by the developer and the necessity of mitigation to remedy it. In this case,
there is no precise data on how much climate change damage will be created by the proposal
what mitigation is necessary to remedy that damage. Mr. Talberth presented the intuitively
appealing concept of no net loss in forestland, but there is no scientific evidence in the record
to support that such mitigation is both necessary and effective. In addition, in the absence of
any federally coordinated land use mitigation program, there is no assurance that the
potentially substantial expense involved in no net loss mitigation would create any material
reduction in climate change impacts.
TESTIMONY
A computer -generated transcript accompanies this decision as Appendix A. The transcript is
provided for informational purposes only.
EXHIBITS
PUD, PP, CA P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The March 11, 2022 revised staff report in addition to attachments A-Q identified at page 34-
35 of the staff report were admitted during the hearing as Exhibit 1.
The following documents were also admitted as exhibits at the March 14, 2022 continued
hearing:
Exhibit R: November 29, 2022 letter from Robert Nagle
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
I. Applicant. The applicant is Montebanc Management LLC, 400 NW Gilman
Blvd 32781, Issaquah, WA 98027.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on March 8, 2022 at 2:30 pm with continued
testimony on March 14, 2022.
Substantive:
3. Site and Proposal Description. Montebanc Management LLC has applied for
approval of applications for a preliminary plat, plat vacation, planned unit development
("PUD") and critical areas permit for a 167-lot single-family residential development on over
39 acres located along both sides of Rainier St. and north of the Discovery Road roundabout.
More specifically, the project involves roughly 34+-acres west of Rainier St., north of the
Discovery Rd. roundabout and north of the currently undeveloped 15th St. right-of-way. An
additional 5.5-acres east of Rainier St. and north of the 15th St. right-of-way is also part of
the project. Project stormwater facilities are proposed on both sides of Rainier St. but no
residential lots are sought on eastern portions of the site.
Rainier St. off -site to the south is partially improved to City arterial standards between
Discovery Rd. and the 12 St. right-of-way (ROW).
West of Rainier St. new residential lots will be served by a network of public roads and a
series of three (3) private driveways (presently labeled "alleys" (Ex. B). The new public
street network provides logical connections to existing and/or planned ROW's west and south
of the site. The 3 private driveways will access a total of 14 lots.
East of Rainier St. will be preserved as open space except a stormwater pond on for roughly
1-acre of upland and two (2) smaller areas planned for outfall use by (2) of the project's four
(4) stormwater pond facilities.
Several confirmed wetlands exist both on and off -site. On -site wetland buffers are shown as
modified but are retained as open space through use of buffer averaging. Conditions related
to operation and maintenance of these areas, including overflow stormwater facilities directed
into wetland buffers, is part of this staff recommendation.
In their PUD request, Madrona Ridge seeks to modify typical City standards related to lot
size, building setbacks, lot coverage and the Engineering Design Standards (EDS) (i.e. public
and private road improvements). Specifically, their request (Ex. A — PUD Narrative) asks
for:
PUD, PP, CA p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• With the exception of Madrona Boulevard, all other public local access roadways
will have 40' wide ROW's and a modified street section as shown in Ex. B.
• Three (3) new private driveways serving a total of 14 lots. The road section
width in these driveways would be 20'.
• Reduced minimum lot sizes with a 3,600 sq. ft. minimum.
• Side yard setback reductions from a combined 15' to a minimum of 5' on each
side except 10' if abutting a ROW.
• Front yard setback reductions down to 10' except where a garage door faces front
in which case the front setback will be 20'.
• Maximum lot coverage permitted on all lots modified to allow 45%.
• Relief from Daylight Plane requirements for new residential structures as
typically prescribed under PTMC 17.16.030D.
The Plat Vacation is requested to vacate the alley in Blocks 2 and 3 of the Motorline Addition
together with all of the 16th St. right-of-way.
4. Surrounding Uses: North of the site is zoned P/OS(B) (Mixed
Public/Infrastructure/Open Space) which contains the City's public water treatment
facility, water reservoir and standpipe. There is also a leased wireless communication
tower compound on the City -owned property. Properties to the south of 15th St. are
zoned a mixture of R-III and R-IV (High Density residential). The staff report
doesn't identify the uses located to the west and east. The aerial photographs of the
critical areas report, Ex. C, show the areas to the east and west as heavily wooded and
undeveloped. The zoning map shows these parcels zoned R-II. The critical areas
report notes that surrounding land use is comprised mostly of undeveloped lots.
5. Adverse Impacts. As mitigated, there are no discernible adverse impacts
that will be created by the proposal. A SEPA Determination of Non -significance was
issued for the proposal on January 19, 2022. Infrastructure impacts are addressed in
Finding of Fact No. 6. Other impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding development. As
noted in Finding of Fact No. 4, the City's water treatment plant is located to
the north and the remaining surrounding properties are zoned at the same or
greater residential densities. The residentially zoned properties are largely
undeveloped.
The open space/critical area tracts provide for enhanced compatibility by
creating extensive buffering along adjoining uses, in particular along both
sides of Rainier Avenue as well as the southwest corner of the project site. No
screening is necessary along the northern project site as the adjoining property
is composed of the City's water treatment site. Unopened 15th Ave along with
a proposed adjoining trail is located along the southern property line.
Screening along the western property line is unclear. Page 20 of the staff
report notes that "[r/evisions to the preliminary landscaping plan (Ex. B) will
be needed to provide added emphasis on screening along the west property
line." This requirement doesn't appear to be integrated into the conditions of
PUD, PP, CA
p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
approval — perhaps staff was intending on requiring this as part of its review
of a final landscaping plan. Conclusion No. 7 of the staff report also
references a ten -foot landscaping strip along the western perimeter, but this
strip doesn't appear to be included in the landscaping plan. The conditions of
approval recommended by staff have been modified to ensure that this
additional screening is included in the final landscaping plan.
B. Critical Areas. The project site has six (6) confirmed Category III wetlands
and one Category IV wetland (see Ex. B site plan and Ex. C). The
geotechnical report for the project, Ex. D, identifies no geologic hazardous
areas and there is no evidence of any other critical areas at the project site. A
Critical Area code checklist has been prepared to analyze and establish
conditions for the project with respect to the subject wetlands (Exhibit L —
Critical Area checklist). Staff have found the recommended conditions to
bring the proposal into conformance with the City's critical areas regulations.
Ex. L and resulting conditions are incorporated into the project decision. The
Applicant's wetlands analysis, Ex. Cand Cl, conclude that as mitigated the
proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function. As detailed in Ex. L,
each Category III wetland qualifies for application of a 150-ft. buffer based on
high intensity land use planned at Madrona Ridge. The Category IV wetland
(i.e., Wetland A-3) requires a standard 50-foot buffer.
C. Trees. The proposal provides for adequate retention/replacement of trees as
required by City tree retention standards.
All preliminary short applications require the concurrent submittal, review and
approval of a Tree Conservation Plan (TCP) prepared consistent with PTMC
19.06, the City's Tree Conservation code. A preliminary TCP was submitted
for this project showing existing trees and those planned for removal. Prior
to final plat recording, the conditions of approval require the applicant to
prepare and present a final TCP. Staff have determined that conditioned in
this manner, the proposal will be able to conform to the City's tree retention
requirements.
D. General Nuisance Impacts: light and shadow, noise, smoke, dust, odor,
glare, vibration or other undesirable impacts. Beyond the other nuisance
impacts identified in Finding 5A-C, no other nuisance impacts are found to
exist due to the inherent nature of the proposed/allowed residential use. The
greatest impacts of concern would be those associated with the construction of
the proposed homes and infrastructure. The City's Engineering Design
Standards adequately minimize these impacts by regulating construction
hours, erosion control and construction traffic control.
One comment letter focused on the problems of increasing light pollution
attributable to new development. A condition of approval requires street
lighting to comply wit the City's street lighting policy, Ordinance 3271.
PUD, PP, CA p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ordinance 3271 adopts street light specifications designed to minimize light
pollution and related light impacts.
E. Affordable Housing. Numerous members of the public expressed concern
over lack of affordable housing in the Port Townsend area. As would be
expected, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the proposal adds to the
lack of affordable housing in the community or even increases the cost of
housing. To the contrary, the proposal adds to the City's housing inventory,
that reducing upward pressure on housing prices. Also, as noted in Ex. Q, the
small lot sizes of the proposal will result in relatively small homes, which
should be associated with lower housing prices.
F. Climate Change. There is insufficient evidence to establish proportionate
and reasonable mitigation for climate change impacts.
In Ex. H, John Talberth, the President and Senior Economist for the Center for
Sustainable Economy, makes a reasoned request for "a climate smart design
for this development that minimizes its carbon footprint and requires
mitigation measures for any forestland loss..." Mr. Talberth advocates for a
no -net -loss policy for forestlands.
Although the adverse impacts of climate change are commonly understood,
the record of this proceeding does not have any evidence on how the proposal
contributes to climate change and how or even if no -net -loss will effectively
mitigate against those impacts.
6. Infrastructure. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate
infrastructure. Infrastructure impacts are specifically addressed as follows:
A. Water and Sewer. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate
water and sewer.
Water service to Madrona Ridge will be provided via new public and private
system improvements. Consistent with the City's Water System Plan (WSP),
portions of the project's water infrastructure will include extension of a 10"
diameter main line from the north end of the project to a point in the 15th St.
right of way determined by Public Works staff during review of the Street and
Utility Development (SDP) process. Other city mains within the project will
be sized according to EDS standards. Any private service lines will be
identified as part of the SDP process and shown on the face of the Final Plat
and PUD Agreement. Fire flow is available adjacent to the site via water
main extensions within the site. Fire hydrants will be installed in accordance
with the City's ED S.
Sanitary sewer service is available to Madrona Ridge via an existing public
main running north -to -south in Rainier Street. Individual lots will be
connected to this main via an engineered system of new public mains and
private side sewer lines and clean -outs. Public mains located within street
PUD, PP, CA p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
rights -of -way or public utility easements will be reserved to the City. Any
utility easements needed internally for the private sewer lines will be
determined as part of the subsequent SDP process and shown on the final Plat.
B. Transportation. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate
roads and pedestrian transportation facilities.
Interior access to Madrona Ridge lots is provided via a combination of new
public roads and private driveways.
With the Discovery Rd. roundabout installation and Rainier St. improvements
associated with the Rainier subarea plan and the Applicant's commitment to
street infrastructure north of it along Rainier St. and to non -motorized
improvements and connections, the Public Works Dept. determined the
existing road infrastructure was designed and built for the purpose of serving
the subarea and planned surrounding areas at the residential densities
anticipated for the designated land uses. See Ex. P. This proposal is
consistent with the planned housing density for the area.
The City's level of service (LOS) standards set acceptable levels of
congestion. The proposal is found to meet those standards. Pursuant to
Public Works analysis, see Ex. P, the traffic volumes generated by this
proposal is not anticipated to adversely impact adopted LOS on the
connecting public facility (Discovery Rd.) or any of the nearby intersections
so long as project roadways — including Rainier St. - are built to acceptable
Public Works standards and the proposed non -motorized connections are
made. Specifically, these non -motorized improvements include off -site
improvements of a paved trail in the 15th St. right of way and the
development of a multi -use path on the west side of Rainier Street connecting
to the existing roundabout at Discovery Road. A concrete sidewalk
connection will ultimately be made as well between the roundabout and 15th
St. on the west side of Rainier St. when the adjoining property develops.
There was some concern at the hearing expressed about traffic congestion at
intersections that would serve the proposal. However, that testimony was not
based upon any traffic engineering expertise and did not address the City's
LOS standards. In the absence of any such evidence, the conclusions of the
City's public works staff, based upon traffic engineering expertise and
familiarity with the City's LOS standards, must be taken as conclusive that the
proposal will not violate those level of service standards.
The staff report concludes that public works standards and the proposed non -
motorized connections are met. Specifically, proposed non -motorized
improvements include off -site improvements of a paved trail in the 15th St.
right of way and the development of a multi -use path on the west side of
Rainier Street connecting to the existing roundabout at Discovery Road. A
concrete sidewalk connection will ultimately be made as well between the
PUD, PP, CA
p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
roundabout and 15th St. on the west side of Rainier St. when the adjoining
property develops.
Road modifications sought by the Applicant to prescriptive City standards as
part of the PUD process can be adequately reviewed and conditioned through
this process and the subsequent Street and Utility Development Permit (SDP)
process.
The project gains primary access from Rainer St., north of the Discovery Rd.
roundabout, near the unopened 16th St. right-of-way. The City has identified
Rainier St. as a key north -to -south arterial needed for Pt. Townsend's long-
term transportation needs.
West of Rainier St. and running the east -to -west length of the site, a new
public roadway labeled Madrona Boulevard ("Madrona Blvd.") is shown
within a newly dedicated 50-ft. wide right-of-way (ROW). The south side of
Madrona Blvd. will have a 56 ft. wide concrete sidewalk and on -street
parking. The north side of Madrona Blvd. will have a 10-ft. wide Multi -Use
pathway and on -street parking.
Other internal rights -of -way streets connecting to Madrona Blvd. will be
developed as 40' ROW's with sidewalks on one side and landscaping on the
other side. Public on -street parking is may be available on either or both sides
of the street depending on driveway layout to a achieve traffic calming effect.
The arrangement of street trees may be flexed as part of the Street and Utility
Development Permit process to achieve an attractive streetscape aesthetic and
efficient driveway arrangement. Road names for all internal roads will be
determined as part of the final Plat/Plat Vacation and PUD review process.
Three (3) "alleys" (which will be private driveways) are shown in the plat
drawings with a 20 ft. wide paved section and wedge curb one side to
accommodate 2-way traffic. Two (2) of the 3 driveways are short enough to
not require vehicular turnarounds. The third driveway (in the SE residential
corner) is long enough to require a turnaround which is incorporated into the
adjacent stormwater pond maintenance access (Tract C, Storm Pond 4).
Where determined necessary by Public Works staff, the private driveways will
need to reserve a public utility component for on -going City water and sewer
line maintenance.
C. Schools. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate school
facilities and safe walking conditions to and from school. The staff report
does not address impacts to schools. The capital facilities element identifies
the Port Townsend School District as serving the City of Port Townsend with
one elementary school, one middle school and one high school. The City has
no school impact fee. According to staff testimony, Salish Coast Elementary
School is about a half mile from the project site and children could walk to
that school on a bike trail. Staff also testified that all school bus stops can be
accessed via sidewalks.
PUD, PP, CA
p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
D. Parks and Open Space. The proposal will be served by adequate parks and
open space. There are no parks and open space requirements for subdivisions.
The proposal includes 5,000 square feet of open space beyond the minimum
required by the City's critical area regulations for the wetlands on site.
E. Drainage. The proposal makes adequate and appropriate provision for
drainage.
The submittal includes a preliminary engineered drainage plan and report (Ex.
B & D). The Madrona Ridge stormwater design includes three (3) on -site
storm ponds to address home and internal road runoff. Home sites will need
to address runoff on -site to the extent possible before dispersing to the internal
road network where it will then be conveyed to the constructed storm ponds.
The storm ponds have been designed to accept all roadway runoff and lot
coverage up to 45%.
A fourth storm pond (see Ex. B, Tract D/Storm Pond 4) is planned east of
Rainier St. and north of 15th St. to accommodate Rainier St. runoff and is not
associated with any of the resulting homes or interior roads. The Applicant
seeks to convey both Tracts D and Open Space Tract E to the City. The City
has agreed to accept both conveyances subject to conditions, If both Tracts
are conveyed to the City, an easement to Madrona Ridge will be needed to
provide them access to the outfall pipe and infiltration trench connected to the
Tract B/Storm Pond 2. If Tract E is not conveyed to the City, then the
conveyance of Tract D/Storm Pond 4 will need to be expanded to include that
pond's outflow pipe and trench. Public Works engineering staff has agreed
that Rainier Street runoff between 15th and 12th Streets can be accomplished
via swales adjacent to the roadway. These will be made conditions of the
Street and Utility Development (SDP) review and approval process.
Public Works staff have reviewed the submitted stormwater documents and
indicate they are acceptable for continuing with the Preliminary Plat/Plat
Vacation and PUD process. Aside from conveyance of Tract D, Madrona
Ridge residents will be jointly and severally responsible for on -going
maintenance of the other 3 on -site stormwater management facilities. These
maintenance obligations will be specified and ensured via the PUD
Agreement between the parties (i.e., the City and the Applicant).
7. Superior Design. The proposal provides for superior design and a significant
increase in public benefit over a conventional preliminary plat.
Conventional development of this site is less desirable than the proposed PUD for
several reasons. First and foremost, the traditional "block and lot" pattern typically
seen in Port Townsend would result in less open space preservation and would likely
require greater wetland buffer encroachments. The Applicant's proposes buffer
averaging to achieve no net loss of wetland function and values (Exhibits C and C-1).
Development is being clustered outside of the buffers to the extent practicable. While
PUD, PP, CA
p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the proposed design may be lower in density than prescriptive zoning permits, it does
so by balancing the need to protect wetlands with the Applicant's goal of developing
an economically viable single-family residential subdivision.
The proposed road dedications ensure future logical street grid connections can be
made while unnecessary openings of the existing transportation grid are avoided.
Staff have also found that the Applicant also proposes a cohesive pattern of housing
that creates a neighborhood identity as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. This
neighborhood identity may not be guaranteed with conventional development.
The proposed aggregation of lots also assures better protection of the wetlands. Most
notably, the dedication of all four of the existing parcels on the east side of Rainier
Street results in more wetlands protection than if the lots were developed
individually. Three of those four lots are completely encumbered by wetlands or
buffers. If those three lots were developed individually under conventional
subdivision standards, the Applicant would qualify for reasonable use exceptions that
would authorize development encroachment into the buffers and potentially even the
wetlands themselves.
The Applicant has also volunteered dedication of Tract I, approximately 5.84 acres,
for permanent open space for public use. This tract would not be required under
conventional development standards. This open space Tract would feature a newly
constructed multi -use natural surface trail that blends with the natural environment.
Tract I preserves the opportunity for a future new public park, if and when the City
acquires the adjacent Janke property located at 15th Street and Spring Street as a City
Park site. A portion of this tract could have been used for addition SFH lots, but the
applicant chose to preserve this area as permanent open space, enhancing the public
benefits of this PUD proposal.
The proposed density is ultimately significantly less than that available with the
underlying zoning designations. According to the Applicant, Ex. Q, the maximum
density for the site would enable 493 units and the Applicant has instead only
proposed 167 units. The wetlands and associated buffers would likely significantly
reduce density in a conventional subdivision as well, but the Applicant has not taken
all measures it could have taken to increase that density. As previously noted, the
Applicant has proposed more open space than required by the addition of Tract L As
noted in Ex. Q, the Applicant has also opted for buffer averaging instead of buffer
reduction (with mitigation), which also reduces density.
The Applicant is also proposing full width street improvements for Rainier Street
along with associated stormwater conveyance and treatment and a multi -use trail on
the east side of the street. If the Applicant had not bundled the lots on the east of
Rainier with the project, the City likely could not have required frontage
improvements on the eastern side of the street, except for perhaps the multi -modal
PUD, PP, CA P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
trail'. Even if the Applicant needed the east side lots for the Tract D stormwater
control, that would only necessitate inclusion of one of the four lots.
Finally, the Applicant's reduced roadway width decreases impervious surface and
reduced lot size reduces the size and hence cost of homes. The proposal also retains
30% more tree canopy than required by City standards.
For these reasons, development of this site through a PUD provides greater public
benefit without the adverse impacts than traditional "block and lot' development
would allow.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. PTMC 20.01.040 classifies PUDs, preliminary
plats and plat vacation as Type III applications, which requires a hearing before the Hearings
Examiner, who must issue a final decision. Minor critical area permits are classified as Type
II applications. PTMC 20.01.030 requires consolidated permits to be processed by the
highest review body required under any part of the application, which in this case is the
Examiner.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation. Portions of the project site are zoned R-II (Medium Density
Single Family) and the remaining portions are zoned R-III (Medium Density Multi -Family).
3. Review Criteria. Chapter 17.32 PTMC describes the procedures and criteria for
preliminary approval of a PUD. PTMC 17.32.100 establishes the minimum criteria by which
each proposed PUD will be considered and PTMC 17.32.090 sets forth approval criteria for a
PUD seeking modified development standards. PTMC 18.16.060(A) governs the criteria for
preliminary plat approval. RCW 58.17.212 governs the criteria for plat vacations. PTMC
19.05.050134 governs the criteria for critical area regulations. PTMC 20.01.235(D) requires
the Examiner to make a specified set of findings for all Type III (quasi-judicial) applications.
All the governing criteria identified in this paragraph are quoted in italics and addressed
below.
3.5 Affordable Housing. The City cannot legally compel the Applicant to provide
affordable housing units. Developers can only be made to mitigate problems they create.
See, e.g., Douglass Props. II, LLC v. City of Olympia, 16 Wash. App. 2d 158 (2021). In
constitutional takings analysis, affordable housing is not considered a problem created by
developers. See Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle, 119 Wn. 2d 1 (1992)'. As determined in Finding of
Fact No. 5E, the proposal is not exacerbating or creating a need for affordable housing.
' Under nexus and proportionality requirements imposed by constitutional takings law, the City can
usually only make a developer install half street improvements. Cf. Sparks v. Douglas County, 127
Wn. 2d 901 (1995)(street frontage dedication for short plat justified under nexus/proportionality
standard of takings law).
2 Sintra held that Seattle's housing preservation ordinance, which required property owners to replace
any low-income housing they destroyed or to pay a fee, potentially created a takings. As stated by the
PUD, PP, CA P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3.6 Climate Change. The City cannot legally compel the Applicant to mitigate for
climate change impacts due to inadequate evidence to justify such mitigation.
For conditions that involve exactions, whether they be dedications of land or fees to purchase
land, the City of Port Townsend has the burden of proof to show that the condition is
reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development. See Citizens'
Alliance v. Sims, 145 Wn. App. 649 (2008); Koontz v. St. Johns River Water
Management District, 570 US 2588 (2013). As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5F, in
this case there has been no evidence presented on how and to what extent the
proposal will exacerbate climate change and how much mitigation is necessary to
remedy that impact.
Even if one could take the leap on this administrative record that 1:1 forest
preservation mitigation would be necessary to mitigate the climate change impacts of
the proposal, there's still an outstanding legal issue of whether such mitigation could
be imposed given that such mitigation by itself would create no material change in
climate change impacts. In the absence of a coordinated forest no -net -loss policy at
the federal level, it would appear very difficult to establish that piecemeal and
sporadic mitigation at the local level would serve to effectively mitigate climate
impacts. At any rate, the evidence in this record does not prove that point.
At the hearing, Mr. Talberth cited to Wash. State Dairy Fed'n v. Wash. Dept of
Ecology, 490 P.3d 290 (2021), which held that the Department of Ecology should
have considered climate change impacts in its issuance of stormwater/wastewater
permits. However, that holding was based upon failure to consider climate change
impacts in SEPA review. The appeal deadline for the SEPA MDNS was February 3,
2022. See Ex. L The SEPA review conducted by the City has not been timely
appealed and so is beyond the jurisdiction of the examiner to review. See, e.g.,
Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 410-11 (2005)(under principles of
judicial finality, administrative decisions that are not timely appealed are binding
even if incorrect).
PUD Criteria:
PTMC 17.32100(A)(1): PUDs shall be given preliminary approval, including
preliminary approval subject to conditions, upon finding by the city that all of the
following have been satisfied:
1) The proposed PUD conforms to: (a) Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan;
4. Criterion met. With approval of PUD modifications to development
standards, the criterion is met for the reasons identified in Findings No. 48-50 of the
staff report.
court: "this burden [replacing loss of affordable housing] was unfairly allocated to individual
property owners, rather than equally distributed among all citizens." 119 Wn.2d at 15-16.
PUD, PP, CA P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(b) All provisions of the Port Townsend Zoning Code which are not proposed for
modification;
5. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at Findings
No. 6-18 of the staff report.
(c) All engineering design standards which are not proposed for modification;
6. Criterion met. As noted in the staff report, p. 22-23, City staff have
reviewed the proposal for conformance to engineering design standards and have
found the proposal compliant for this stage of project review as authorized by PUD
development standard modification standards.
(d) Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Chapter 19.05 PTMC);
7. Criterion met. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with
Chapter 19.05, the City's critical area regulations for the reasons identified in
Finding of Fact No. 5B.
(e) Any other applicable city, state or federal regulations, policies or plans, except
those standards proposed for modification.
8. Criterion met. There is no evidence of noncompliance with any other
government requirements that have not already been addressed.
PTMC 17.32.100(A)(2): Utilities and other public services necessary to serve the
needs of the proposed PUD shall be made available, including open spaces, drainage
ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, potable water, transit facilities, sanitary
sewers, parks, playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other improvements that assure
safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school;
9. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of
Fact No. 6.
PTMC 17.32.100(A)(3): The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of
the proposed PUD, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts,
have been considered such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse
effect upon the quality of the environment, in accordance with Chapters 19.04 PTMC
and 43.21 C RCW;
10. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of
Fact No. 5.
PTMC 17.32.100(A)(4): Approving the proposed PUD will serve the public use and
interest and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and
general welfare;
PUD, PP, CA p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11. Criterion met. The proposed project, subject to conditions of approval,
will serve the public use and interest by developing approximately 40 acres of land in
a comprehensive, coordinated manner that assures adequate and appropriate provision
of public infrastructure in an urban growth area. It establishes open space areas,
preserves wetland and develops both hard surface and soft surface non -motorized
trails.
PTMC 17.32.100(A)(5): The proposed PUD satisfies all criteria set forth in PTMC
17.32.070 through 17.32.090, as applicable;
12. Criterion met. As discussed below, the proposal meets the requirements
of PTMC17.32.090. As Madrona Ridge PUD only seeks modified development
standards , the remaining approval criterion referenced above are inapplicable.
PTMC 17.32.100(A)(6): The proposed PUD will be superior to or more innovative
than conventional development and will provide greater public benefit without
additional probable significant adverse impacts to public health, safety or the
environment, than available through the use of conventional zoning and/or
development standards.
13. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Findings
of Fact No. 5 and 7.
PTMC 17.32.090(C): Basis for Approval of Alternative Development Standards.
Approval of alternative development standards for PUDs differs from the variance
procedure described in Chapter 17.86 PTMC in that rather than being based upon a
hardship or unusual circumstance related to a specific property, the approval of
alternative development standards proposed by a planned unit development shall be
based upon the criteria listed in this section. In evaluating a planned development
which proposes to mods the development standards of the underlying use zone, the
city shall consider and base its findings upon the ability of the proposal to satisfy the
following criteria:
(1) The proposed planned development shall be compatible with surrounding
properties, especially related to:
a. Landscaping and buffering of buildings, parking, loading and storage
areas;
b. Public safety;
c Site access, on -site circulation and off-street parking;
d Light and shadow impacts;
e. Generation of nuisance irritants such as noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare,
vibration or other undesirable impacts;
f. Architectural design of buildings and harmonious use of materials;
14. Criterion met. The criterion is met. As noted in the staff report, the
proposal improves upon general public safety in an area that currently only has partial
city standard facilities. Architectural design of buildings and harmonious use of
PUD, PP, CA p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
materials will be ensured through the application of CC&R's. The proposal
otherwise has adequate facilities and creates no adverse impacts for the reasons
identified in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6.
(2) The unique characteristics of the subject property;
15. Criterion met. The criterion is met. The project site is unique in that it is
extensively covered by wetlands and associated buffers. The Applicant has well
integrated these features into the project site by using them for both buffering to
adjoining uses, critical areas protection, and project open space. The open space of
the project site is exceptionally unique in that it provides visual buffering on both
sides of Rainier Street.
(3) The unique characteristics of the proposed use(s);
16. Criterion met. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for an
extensive, unique trail system and an extensive amount of open space that provides
project residents with meaningful recreational facilities as well as a natural setting in
a highly developed environment.
The proposed PUD modifications are compatible with the overall design of the
project site and its unique features. The private driveways serve a limited number of
lots and an emergency vehicle turnaround is provided in them where required. The
lot size reduction and setback modifications are appropriate given the Critical Area
restrictions that encumber the site. The 45% lot coverage modification has been
reviewed by the Applicants stormwater engineer and storm facilities sized
appropriately for both the lots and new roadways.
(4) The arrangement of buildings and open spaces as they relate to various uses
within or adjacent to the planned development;
17. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in
Conclusions of Law No. 15 and 16.
(S) Visual impact of the planned development upon the surrounding area;
18. Criterion met. The criterion is met. As conditioned, the proposal provides
for substantial buffering to adjoining uses as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5A.
(6) Public improvements proposed in connection with the planned development;
19. Criterion met. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate public
facilities and improvements as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6.
(7) Preservation of unique natural features of the property;
PUD, PP, CA p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
20. Criterion met. The criterion is met. The notable unique natural features of
the project site are its wetlands and the proposal preserves those features as required
by the City's critical areas ordinance.
(8) The public benefit derived by allowing the proposed alteration of development
standards.
21. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of
Fact No. 7.
Subdivision Criteria:
PTMC 1816.060(A)(1): The proposed subdivision conforms to all applicable city,
state and federal zoning, land use, environmental and health regulations and plans,
including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan;
b. Port Townsend Zoning Code;
C. Engineering Design Standards;
d. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Chapter 19.05 PTMC):
22. Criterion met. The criterion is met. As determined in prior conclusions of
law, the proposal is consistent with all of the standards identified above.
PTMC 18.16.060(A)(2): Utilities and other public services necessary to serve the
needs of the proposed subdivision shall be made available, including open spaces,
drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, potable water, transit facilities,
sanitary sewers, parks, playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other improvements that
assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school;
23. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of
Fact No. 6.
PTMC 18.16.060(A)(3): Conservation of existing trees, and/or the planting of new
trees, shall be provided consistent with Chapter 19.06 PTMC Article III, Standards
For Tree Conservation;
24. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of
Fact No. 5C.
PTMC 18.16.060(A)(4): The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of
the proposed subdivision, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse
impacts, have been considered such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable
adverse effect upon the quality of environment, in accordance with Chapter 19.04
PTMC and Chapter 43.21 C RCW;
PUD, PP, CA p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
25. Criterion met. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5, a mitigated
determination of non -significance (MDNS) has been issued for the project in
conformance with Chapter 19.04 PTMC and Chapter 43.21C RCW. That review
process included the required consideration of probable significant adverse
environmental impacts.
PTMC 18.16.060(A)(5): Approving the posed subdivision will serve the public use
and interest and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
26. Criterion met. The criterion is met. As previously discussed, all
significant adverse environmental impacts have been fully mitigated and several
public benefits are associated with the project that would not be required of a standard
subdivision. All infrastructure needs are also met for the project. For these reasons
the criterion above is satisfied.
PTMC 18.16.060(B): Notwithstanding approval of criteria set forth in subsection a
of this section, in accordance with RCW 58.17.120, as now adopted and hereafter
amended, the proposed subdivision may be denied because of flood, inundation or
swamp conditions ....
27. Criterion met. The criterion is met. There is no evidence of flood,
inundation or swamp conditions.
Plat Vacation
RCW 58.17.212: .... When the vacation application is specifically for a county road
or city or town street, the procedures for road vacation or street vacation in chapter
36.87 or 35.79 RCW shall be utilized for the road or street vacation. When the
application is for the vacation of the plat together with the roads and/or streets, the
procedure for vacation in this section shall be used, but vacations of streets may not
be made that are prohibited under *RCW 35.79.030, and vacations of roads may not
be made that are prohibited under RCW 36.87.130.
The legislative authority of the city, town, or county shall give notice as provided in
RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090 and shall conduct a public hearing on the application
for a vacation and may approve or deny the application for vacation of the
subdivision after determining the public use and interest to be served by the vacation
of the subdivision. If any portion of the land contained in the subdivision was
dedicated to the public for public use or benefit, such land, if not deeded to the city,
town, or county, shall be deeded to the city, town, or county unless the legislative
authority shall set forth findings that the public use would not be served in retaining
title to those lands...
28. Criterion Met. The criterion quoted above for approval of a plat vacation is met
by the proposal. The public use and interest is served by the vacation and associated
replat as required by RCW 58.17.212. Vacation of the subdivision will enable a
PUD, PP, CA p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
greater number of lots in a manner that still conforms to the maximum density
standards of the underlying zone. As such, the Growth Management Act policies
encouraging urban densities and efficient use of infrastructure are better served with
the vacation and associated replat, which is in the public interest.
Critical Areas Permit:
PTMC 19.05.050B4: Review Criteria. The director may approve with conditions, or
deny, any development proposal or regulated alteration in order to comply with the
requirements and carry out the requirements of this chapter based on the following
criteria:
a. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety,
or welfare on or off the development proposal site;
b. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with
mitigation sequencing in PTMC 19.05.060(A);
c. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with
mitigation requirements in PTMC 19.05.060(B);
d. The proposal is consistent with best available science and results in no net loss
of critical area functions and values;
e. The proposal meets the criteria in other applicable regulations and standards.
29. Criterion met. The criteria above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No.
513, the proposal is found to be consistent with the City's critical area regulations
(Chapter 19.05 PTMC), includes no alterations to critical areas, and will result in no
net loss of ecological function. Further, the City's critical area regulations are based
upon best available science so conformance to those standards without modification
must be construed as consistent with best available science.
Type III General Permitting Criteria:
PTMC 20.01.235(D)(1): The development is consistent with the Port Townsend
Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Port Townsend
Municipal Code;
30. Criterion met. As previously discussed, the project satisfies all applicable
development standards and comprehensive plan policies.
PTMC 20.01.235(D)(2): The development is not detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare;
PUD, PP, CA p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
31. Criterion met. Due to mitigation of all significant adverse environmental
impacts and the provision of several public benefits, the project is not detrimental to
the public health, safety and welfare.
PTMC 20.01.235(D)(3): The development adequately mitigates impacts identified
under Chapters 19.04 (SEPA) and 19.05 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) PTMC;
32. Criterion met. As previously determined, the proposal is consistent with
SEPA and the City's critical areas ordinance.
PTMC 20.01.235(D)(4): For subdivision applications, findings and conclusions
shall be issued in conformance with PTMC Title 18 and RCW 58.17.110.
33. The findings and conclusions have been issued in conformance with these
applicable regulations.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat, PUD, street vacation and critical areas permit are all approved
for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL
1. Development shall be carried out in substantial conformance with the revised
preliminary Plat/Plat Vacation and PUD site plans, the PUD Narrative and
Stormwater Report (Ex. A, B & D), and the preliminary Tree Conservation Plan
(Ex. E) except where modified by these conditions of approval or by the
subsequent Street and Utility Development permit (SDP). The Plat Vacation
portion of this approval includes the alley in Blocks 2 and 3 of the Motorline
Addition together with all of the 161h St. right-of-way.
2. All mitigations as set forth in the SEPA MDNS (Ex. I) are hereby considered
conditions of preliminary Plat/ Plat Vacation and PUD approval.
3. The Madrona Ridge approval includes the requested PUD modifications set forth
below:
• Aside from Madrona Boulevard, all other public local access roadways would
have 40' wide ROW's and a modified T-8 street section as shown in Ex. B. The
arrangement of street trees may be flexed as part of the Street and Utility
Development Permit process to achieve an attractive streetscape aesthetic and
efficient driveway arrangement. _
• Three (3) new private driveways serving a total of 14 lots. The road section width
in these driveways would be 20'.
• Reduced minimum lot sizes with a 3,600 sq. ft. minimum.
• Side yard setback reductions from a combined 15' to a minimum of 5' on each
side except 10' if abutting a ROW.
PUD, PP, CA p. 18 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Front yard setback reductions down to 10' except where a garage door faces front
in which case the front setback will be 20'.
• Maximum lot coverage permitted on all lots modified to allow 45%.
• Relief from Daylight Plane requirements for new residential structures as
typically prescribed under PTMC 17.16.030D.
4. The three (3) alleys shown on the revised preliminary Plat plans (Ex. B) will be
privately maintained by the adjoining owners and/or HOA but they must also be
publicly accessible to non -motorized users where the driveways connect to open
space trails. This maintenance obligation shall be placed into a set of Covenants,
Conditions and Restriction (CCR's) and referenced in the resulting PUD
Agreement.
5. An appropriate entity (e.g. a Homeowners Association; HOA) must be established
as part of the final Plat/Plat Vacation and PUD review process and assigned
responsibility for on -going long term maintenance, liability and tax responsibility
of all on -site, non-public amenities including but not limited to stormwater
facilities, open space Tracts and landscaping (including street trees and
stormwater pond plantings), all non -hard surfaced trails which do not meet
approved City standards, and privately maintained underground utilities. The
approved responsible entity must be acceptable to the City DSD Director and
referenced in all appropriate documents filed for recording that are associated
with the final Plat/Plat Vacation
6. Tracts J thru O reserved for the mttl� Multi -Use pathway on the north side of
Madrona Boulevard will be dedi,.4e of way maintained by the
Madrona Ridge HOA. A minimum 5 ft. building setback from the referenced
Tracts must maintained (totaling 15 ft of setback from Madrona Blvd. ROW
which includes a 1 ft. separation from the edge of the Multi -Use Trail) and called
out on the face of the Final Plat, the PUD Agreement and final CC&R's.
hewe-,,e , as As with all sidewalks within the project, the abutting lot owners are
responsible for cleaning of the non -motorized improvements per PTMC
12.12.030.
7. Applicant's offer to convey Tract D/Storm Pond 4 and Open Space Tract E to the
City is acceptable to the City, subject to certain terms. If both Tracts are
conveyed to the City, an easement to the Madrona Ridge HOA shall be
established to provide the HOA with maintenance access to the outfall pipe and
infiltration trench serving Tract B/Storm Pond 2. Any easement needed for the
Tract B/Storm Pond outfall and infiltration trench shall be prepared by the
Applicant or Applicant's engineer for review and approval by the City and
referenced on the face of the Final Plat.
In the event Tract E is not conveyed to the City, then the Tract D/Storm Pond 4
area must be expanded by the Applicant to include that pond's outflow pipe and
infiltration trench. Public Works engineering staff have agreed that Rainier Street
runoff between 15th and 12th Streets can be accomplished via swales constructed
PUD, PP, CA P. 19 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
adjacent to the roadway. These will be made conditions of the Street and Utility
Development (SDP) review and approval process.
9. The Applicant shall demonstrate to Public Works staff that adequate separation
between the existing fiber optic improvements in Tract F is available to
accommodate multiple utilities (i.e., the required 10" water main from the north
line to 151h St.) If Tract F is unable to accommodate multiple utilities, the
Applicant will need to propose an alternative route for the 10" water main
acceptable to Public Works and complete that installation as part of the approved
Street and Utility Development Permit (SDP).
10. The Applicant shall construct a shared Multi -Use pathway on the west side of
Rainier St. so it is continuous from north of the Discovery Rd. roundabout near
12th St. to 15th St. as offsite improvements along with Rainier St. Frontage
improvements of sidewalk and a bike lane must also be installed across the entire
project frontage between 15th St. and the north property line.
11. The Applicant's request for a slightly modified T-8 road City standard w444
is
approved in concept as shown on the submitted plans (Ex. B). Final locations for
on -street parking will be determined as part of the subsequent Street and Utility
Development Permit (SDP) process. Staff will work with the Applicant to
maintain flexibility with driveway placement to allow occasional parking on
either side of the street for traffic calming.
12. Final Plat/Plat Vacation and PUD approval shall be presented by the Applicant as
required by municipal code and shall indicate the precise location of all required
dedications, easements and open spaces per these conditions of approval. Interior
streets, sidewalks and trails within public easements shall be open to the public
and signed accordingly at all times. All required infrastructure improvements as
set forth in these conditions and the subsequent Street and Utility Development
permits must be installed or bonded for prior to final Plat/Plat Vacation and PUD
approval.
13. The Applicant shall have applied for final Plat/Plat Vacation and PUD approval
within five (5) years of date preliminary approval.3 With the final Plat/Plat
Vacation and PUD submittal, the Applicant shall propose a name for the new
roadway(s) to allow for review and approval by the appropriate public agencies
(the City DSD, the Jefferson County Auditor and Assessor's Offices.
14. A draft Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) shall be submitted by
the Applicant (in electronic format) for review by DSD and Public Works a
minimum of one month prior to submittal for final Plat/Plat Vacation and PUD
approval. The final PUDA shall be approved by the City Council as part of their
final approval for the project.
3 RCW 58.17.140(3)(a)
PUD, PP, CA p. 20 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
15. The Applicant shall apply for and receive final Plat/Plat Vacation and PUD
approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. To receive final Plat/Plat
Vacation and PUD approval, all required improvements set forth in the
subsequent Street and Utility Development permit (street, driveway/fire lane,
utility) and the approved Final Landscaping Plan must be installed (with
conveyance and acceptance by the City where applicable) or bonded for. The
amount of the performance security for any bonded items shall be based upon the
current cost estimate of all materials and construction costs, including applicable
tax. The performance security shall consist of a performance bond in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable to the Director and
consistent with city code. Cash deposited in an escrow account may also be
accepted by the City. All required landscaping plantings shall be installed within
six months of approving the performance security unless a longer period of time
is agreed to by the DSD Director. The preliminary landscaping plan shall be
revised to include 10-foot landscaping along the western property line as
identified in Conclusion No. 7 of the staff report if not already included in the
landscaping plan.
OTHER LANDSCAPING -RELATED CONDITIONS
16. Prior to issuance of a Street and Utility Development permit (SDP) for the project,
the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Landscaping and Tree Conservation
Plan (TCP) for review and approval by the DSD Director. The use of canopy
cover calculations for the project is permitted for the TCP per PTMC 19.06,
however, as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) some modest commitment to
tree planting on each individual lot as building permits are issued is warranted.
The submitted Final Landscaping and TCP must be prepared with sufficient detail
on specific plant species, sizes, spacing and quantities to allow for adequate
review by DSD. It must also include a proposed irrigation plan that will be
installed as part of the installation. The submitted plan must be prepared using a
scale capable of being read without magnification of either the plan text or
planting area illustrations. The Final TCP must includes.aett al plant..
19.06 a commitment to planting at least one (1) tree unit credit (t.u.c.)per
residential lot. =A notation on the face of the final Plat/Plat Vacation map as
required by PTMC 19.06 will provide future purchasers with reference to the
resulting TCP requirements
17. All required landscaping shall be continually maintained in a healthy growing
condition by the Homeowner Association. Dead or dying trees, shrubs or
groundcover shall be replaced immediately, and the planting areas shall be
routinely maintained. Revisions to the approved Landscaping Plan may also be
required if the Director determines that the installed landscaping has failed to
perform as designed.
PUD, PP, CA p. 21 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
18. For landscaping approved within the adjoining street rights -of -way and/or within
public easements or surrounding the 4 storm ponds, the Applicant shall provide a
3-year financial guarantee for their survivability. Trees or other approved
plantings that die or become diseased within the guarantee period shall be
replaced and shall initiate a subsequent 3-year period starting on the date of
replacement.
PRIOR TO ROADWAY, PATHWAY AND INFRASTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
19. To ensure compliance with City Engineering Design Standards, together with the
public and private street and utility installations required by this decision, the
following plans must be prepared and submitted with a completed application for
a Street and Utility Development Permit (SDP). These plans shall be in
substantial in conformance with the preliminary drawings submitted as part of the
application (Ex. B) except where modified by thee approval conditions. These
plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved by City engineering staff, and
constructed or bonded for prior to final approval of any phase of the development.
a. Engineered plans for the public streets, private driveways and fire lane
turnarounds serving this project including but not limited to the location of all
driveways, turn around areas, sidewalks, and drainage facilities.
b. Engineered plans for water service and sewer service for the project including
provisions for fire hydrant(s) and compliance with Condition . Tract F: Utility
easement from the north, west of Lot 145, that presently contains a fiber optic
line. Staff notes this utility easement was intended to be occupied by a 10" water
main running north to south through the site (Ex. F) that is called for in the City's
Water System Plan (WSP). If Public Works staff determines there is inadequate
separation between the fiber optic improvements and the preferred water main
route to accommodate multiple utilities in Tract F, the Applicant will need to
propose an alternative route for the 10" water main that is acceptable to Public
Works.
c. A final engineered stormwater drainage plan and report including
construction drawings complying with the requirements of the Puget Sound
Stormwater Management Manual and the Port Townsend Engineering Design
standards must be submitted to DSD and approved by the Public Works
Department prior to issuance of any building permits. Said plan and report shall
include detailed operation and maintenance (O & M) provisions for the completed
facilities which will become a responsibility of the Madrona Ridge HOA to
ensure. Once approved by City engineering staff, the O&M provisions must be
formatted by the applicant (or their engineer) in a manner which facilitates their
incorporation into the required Planned Unit Development Agreement (PUDA)
and CC&R's.
d. A final engineered non -motorized trail plan meeting all applicable
requirements of City -adopted plans (Non -Motorized Transportation and
Engineering Design Standards) and the plans approved by this decision. The non -
motorized trail constituting the City's future Loop Trail system (in 151h St. to
PUD, PP, CA p. 22 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rainier and along the north side of Madrona Blvd.) shall be paved and meet the
standards of the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan. All other trails shall be
maintained by the Homeowners Association. Conditions related within and
around wetland buffers also apply — See Below Section on CRITICAL AREA
PERMIT CONDITIONS
The Final Non -Motorized Plan shall include a continuous pedestrian connection
on the west side of Rainer St. between the Rainier/Discovery roundabout and the
project south property line at 151h St. Staff has recommended that the shared
Multi -Use pathway on the west side of Rainier St. be constructed by the Applicant
so it is continuous from north of the Discovery Rd. roundabout near 121h St. to
151h St. as offsite improvements along with the proposed Rainier St. frontage
improvements of sidewalk and a bike lane across the entire project frontage
between the north property line and 151h St. Staff also recommends installation
of a crossing to the east side of Rainier St. at 151h St. which is already improved
asphalt Multi -Use pathway.
Street lighting shall be dark sky compliant and minimized in conformance with
the City's Street lighting policy (Ordinance 3271).
CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE PLAT/PLAT VACATION
The applicant shall provide a mylar reproduction of the Plat/Plat Vacation to DSD
for review and approval (5 paper copies and one electronic .pdf version) as part of
the final Plat/Plat Vacation and PUD approval process. Said mylar shall contain
the acknowledged signatures of all parties having an ownership interest in the
subject property as evidenced by a plat certificate prepared by a local title
company. Said plat certificate, or any update provided, shall be less than 30 days
old. The approved Plat/Plat Vacation shall not become effective until the mylars
required for recording have been bled with the Jefferson County Auditor. While
the City will assist in recording the Plat/Plat Vacation mylar, the Applicant is
responsible for all fees associated with recording. All property taxes due and
owing on the subject property must be paid in full prior to obtaining the signature
of the Jefferson County Treasurer. The location of critical areas and their buffers
shall be depicted on final mylars.
OTHER/ONGOING CONDITIONS
22. No road approaches onto Madrona Blvd. are permitted unless otherwise approved
by the Public Works Dept. Lots 21, 30, 39, 59 through 68, 91, 92, 97, 105, 113,
121, 129, 137 and 167 shall all gain vehicular access via the project's side streets.
23. Future occupancy of any units shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the
Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC), including zoning, subdivision and the
Engineering Design Standards.
24. Four (4) existing and recorded easements encumber the site (AFN 240372,
312280, 449206, 596561) and are shown on the submitted site plans (Ex. B).
PUD, PP, CA p. 23 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
25. AFN 240372 contains a fiber optics line runs north to south through the western
portion of the site. Circumstances surrounding this easement and the need for
water system improvements in the vicinity were described in Condition 17.b. As
shown, this easement would also render two (2) proposed lots (Lots 53 and 64)
unbuildable unless those improvements are relocated or the 2 lots reconfigured.
The Applicants bears responsibility to work with the underlying beneficiary of
this fiber optic easement to arrange for it's relocation, otherwise these 2 lots must
be eliminated or reconfigured within the Plat.
26. As a public easement, AFN 596561 will be converted to dedicated right-of-way
along 15th St. and can be extinguished as such as part of the final Plat/Plat
Vacation and PUD approval process. Similarly, AFN 449206 - which is a private
access & utility easement can be released by the underlying owner during final
project processing.
27. AFN 312280 is a 40' wide exclusive access and utility easement running along
the southwest project boundary. This easement appears to benefit other properties
outside of the Plat/Plat Vacation. The preliminary Plat map indicates this
easement will be extinguished. Fortunately, AFN 312280 does not encumber any
of the proposed residential lots; however, as part of final Plat/Plat Vacation and
PUD processing, the Applicant must demonstrate all easement beneficiaries have
agreed to it being released and/or extinguished or any conflicting improvements
must be relocated outside of the easement area.
28. If the proponent proposes to add any development signage, it may be necessary to
obtain a sign permit. Please contact the DSD Department for signage
requirements prior to ordering, fabricating or installing any signs.
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT CONDITIONS
29. A Monitoring and contingency plan will be required to ensure success of the re-
seeding of the wetland buffer. The applicant shall post a performance bond in the
amount of 120 percent of the expected cost. Mitigation shall not be implemented
until after the department approves the site mitigation and monitoring plan. The
applicant shall notify the department when mitigation is installed, and monitoring
is commenced and shall provide the city with reasonable access to the mitigation
for the purpose of inspections during the monitoring period.
30. All construction activities shall comply the Engineering Design Standards and
employ Best Management Practices to control erosion/sedimentation.
31. Applicants shall indicate erosion control measures on the site construction plan or
stormwater control management plan, as appropriate for the project. These
requirements shall be in place following the preconstruction meeting outlined in
PTMC 9,05 04„00)(1)(k)(1) and shall be reviewed and approved prior to clearing
and grading.
PUD, PP, CA p. 24 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
32. The trail proposed around Wetland C-3 must be located to the outer 25% of this
wetland's buffer. All constructed trails must be field located in such a way to
avoid impacting any trees and limit impacts to soil, hydrologic features, shrubs,
and habitat features.
Dated this 28th day of March 2022.
Phil Olbrechts
City of Port Townsend Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This land use decision is final and subject to appeal to superior court as governed by
Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeal deadlines are short and procedures strictly construed.
Anyone wishing to file a judicial appeal of this decision should consult with an attorney
to ensure that all procedural requirements are satisfied.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
PUD, PP, CA
p. 25 Findings, Conclusions and Decision