Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/03/2005 I. II. III. IV. . V. VI. VII. VIII. . FORT:p;'N/G'EILE'S' , i e l ,/ i " , 1 1",7 "i' ,I I I "'I~"I,,, WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street August 3, 2005 6 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None CONTINUED BUSINESS: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - The Reserve at Valley Creek: Southwest comer of Ah1vers Road/Laurel Street: A proposed development of approximately 30 acres in the RS-7 Residential Single Family zone into 147 residential building sites. (Continued from July 13, 2005.) COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC STAFF REPORTS REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Len Rasmussen (ChaJr),Chene KJdd (VIce Chalr),Dave Johnson, KeVin Snyder,Betsy Wharton, Candace Kahsh,John Matthews PLANNING STAFF Mark Madsen, DIrector, Scott Johns, ASSOCIate Planner, Sue Roberds, ASSIstant Planner . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 August 3, 2005 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Leonard Rasmussen, Dave Johnson, Cherie Kidd, Candace Kalish, John Matthews (late), and Betsy Wharton Members Excused: Kevin Snyder Staff Present: Mark Madsen, Bill Bloor, Scott Johns, Jim Mahlum Public Present: Steve Zenovic, Fran & Andy Andrews, Al & Margaret Whetstine, Shawnna Riggs, Pam Tietz, Clint Berg, Tom Armstrong, Ian McKelvie, Joe Hofrichter APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were presented. City Attorney Bill Bloor presented a short overview on the subjects of conflict of interest, rules of public meetings, and the appearance of fairness doctrine. Planning commission members are public officials. Conflict of interest is when a commissioner or their spouse has a personal interest or stands to gain as a result of some action taken by the Commission. Commission members must disqualify themselves in the case of a conflict of interest. A public meeting is when 4 or more (quorum) Commissioners are assembled together and especially ifthose Commissioners discuss any business of the Planning Commission. There are two types of public meetings. The first is when Planning Commission meets to discuss business without a public hearing, i.e. broad policy matters including area wide rezones or Comprehensive Plan amendments. At these meetings, the Commission may listen to comment from the public, but are not required to. Comments mayor may not be recorded in the minutes. Staff and Commission members usually will respond to comments but are not obligated to. The second type of meeting is when the Commission is sitting to hear a particular issue. These are public hearings and are not subject to open meeting rules. Different rules apply. The public hearing is set up to determine the appropriate land use issues. The public hearing is governed by quasi-judicial rules and by the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. In those situations the Planning Commission is sitting more like a judge in a court room and must be fair and unbiased and have the appearance of being fair and unbiased. At a public hearing the Planning Commission must listen to the testimony that is presented and accept the documents that are presented on the issue before the Commission. The decision must be made only on the testimony and documents presented at the public hearing. A decision cannot be made on information obtained outside of the public hearing. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies only to a public hearing, not a public meeting. The Doctrine states that the Planning Commission must not only be fair, but must also appear to be fair. Ifthere is a potential bias, a Commissioner must state the situation and recuse themself from Plannmg CommiSSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 2 . the proceeding. Appearance of fairness can be questioned, i.e., when there could be a personal issue, an employment gain, an indication of prejudgement, or an indication of partiality in any matter. These are issues that could raise the appearance of fairness question. There is no person or agency that oversees these things. The law presumes that Commissioners will know these things and be aware of them. The City attorney is the legal advisor for the City and is available to answer any questions. The test for appearance of fairness is that a rational obj ective person who knows all facts and circumstances must believe that an appearance of fairness does not exist. Associate Planner Scott Johns provided the Commission with a brief overview of the land division process, including the steps involved, the developer's responsibility at the different steps and staff s role in the process. Several Commissioners asked questions regarding how conditions can be met and who decides if those conditions have been met. Commissioner Johnson arrived at the meeting at 6:40 p.m. during the discussion on land division process. The Commission took a short recess at 7:00 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m. PUBLIC MEETING: Work session continued from July 13, 2005. . PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - The Reserve at Valley Creek: Southwest comer of Ahlvers Road/Laurel Street: The proposed development of approximately 30 acres in the RS-7 Residential Single Family zone into 140 residential building sites. . Chair Rasmussen indicated to those in attendance that the public meeting is a continuance of the July 13,2005, Commission meeting and that the public hearing portion ofthe meeting had been closed. No further public testimony would be heard other than if the Commission had specific questions of a member of the audience. Associate Planner Scott Johns presented an amended staff report addressing issues that were brought up at the July 13, 2005, public hearing on the proposed PRD. Several changes proposed by the applicant were pointed out, primarily a change in the location of the entry road. This change resulted in a reduction of the proposed number oflots and an increase in the amount ofland provided for common usable open space. The number of proposed lots is now 140, a reduction of7 from the original proposal. Other issues discussed included traffic impacts, storm drainage from the site, the amount of recreational area being provided, the overall site density, potential problems associated with wildlife living in the Valley Creek ravine, control of architectural design, maintenance of common areas, noise and air pollution, and how this development will fit into the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Kalish expressed concern regarding the proposed condition requiring a fence to prevent wildlife intrusion into the developed area. Discussion occurred as to whether a fence would actually prevent animals from venturing into the area, how much of the area might have to be fenced, what type and height of fence would be needed, and whether the future occupants would want a fence. The Commission decided that the standard requirement of a split rail fence in a critical . . . Planmng CommiSSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 3 area to separate a ravine from the development with appropriate signage provided by the City would be adequate and acceptable to all parties. The conclusion that no fence would adequately keep determined animals out of a development was reached. Chair Rasmussen then directed the discussion to the salient points covered in the staff report addendum beginning with traffic issues. Commissioner Kalish stated that transportation is a major concern. She questioned ifthe system would protect the interests of the City of Port Angeles. With regard to warrants that would be identified by a traffic study, she asked whether specific warrants would require that specific mitigation will be implemented. The City's traffic engineer Jim Mahlum stated that currently, sidewalks will be required because Laurel Street is a school walking route. A traffic study will determine what the percentage impact and contribution is to the developer. Based on previous projects, costs can be estimated, and, from the traffic study results, costs to the developer can be determined. The Laurel and Lauridsen intersection is approaching a level of impact that will require a traffic signal. The required traffic study will determine if the development will push the traffic level to a point where it will require a signal. It would not be fair to require a developer to pay the entire cost of a signal unless all of his traffic makes the signal necessary. Commissioner Kalish asked how the city would deal with a situation where the traffic study indicated that severe traffic congestion would occur. Mr. Mahlum suggested that synchronized signalization would be used. In all cases the decision balances safety and congestion. Commissioner Kalish then asked if all traffic mitigation action required were put in place, would this development ultimately put Port Angeles in a situation that could not be remedied? Chair Rasmussen responded that the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element provides a mechanism for dealing with long range traffic issues and that the answer lies in making appropriate changes to the Comprehensive Plan rather than extracting mitigation from this developer. Commissioner Kalish expressed concern that the Planning Commission would be allowing a development that would create a choke point for the City. Chair Rasmussen responded that it is up to the Commission to trust staff to ensure that proper mitigation measures are in place and look to needed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan for longer term solutions. Community and Economic Development Director Madsen also responded that the City looks to the Comprehensive Plan to deal with issues on a long range basis. More specifically the 1,000 vehicle trips per day that are predicted for this development will be spread out over the entire 24 hour day. There are ways through engineering to predict where the vehicles hit certain points so by staging and timing, the impacts are reduced. Commissioner Kidd suggested that the traffic study might look at a four way stop at the intersection of Laurel and Park. Mr. Mahlum indicated that only one accident has happened at that comer but doubts that the intersection will warrant stop signs. Commissioner Wharton mentioned sidewalks on school walking routes and developer contributions and stated that she would like to see those specifics in the conditions. She is not reassured that the neighborhood will remain pedestrian friendly and does not feel confident that the conditions are specific enough to ensure the developer is contributing adequately to the costs of mitigating traffic impacts. Staff recommended a minor revision to the condition. Chair Rasmussen commented that the traffic issues are his single most important concern about the project. He is uncomfortable about the revised discussion on the issue. First, because Peabody Street is not mentioned and should be included in the traffic study. Potential development to the south of this project will also have impacts. Second, the condition does not contain a date for . . . Planmng CommISSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 4 completion of road construction. Chair Rasmussen stated that he would like to make a strong recommendation to the City Council that if the PRD is approved, the street construction be completed at or before completion of the PRD. Commissioner Kalish agreed. Mr. Madsen noted that the Commission could not legally require the City Council to act. He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan sets the level of service for all infrastructure needs and, by State law, staff must evaluate how different proposals impact that level of service. As long as the minimal level of service is there, the City cannot deny a development. Chair Rasmussen stated that the Planning Commission can make a strong recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Kalish restated her concern that through no fault of the developer this development will create a traffic situation that will be a long term problem. The Commission took a short recess at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15p.m.. Commissioner Wharton asked about the buffer area for the Valley Creek ravine. Mr. Johns indicated that the area was previously disturbed and that the buffer would not be necessary to maintain the functions and values of the ravine especially if the ravine is fenced and marked as a sensitive area. Mr. Madsen pointed out that the natural topography slopes away from the top of the ridge. Commissioner Wharton asked for clarification of the area calculations used to determine recreation and open space. Mr. Johns went over the rationale used to make recreation and open space determinations. Chair Rasmussen commented that this area of the city is one of the few areas left where adequate land for development exists. Commissioner Kidd commented that, as a result of the comments expressed during the 7/13/05, public hearing she visited other developments that the proponent completed. Due to the quality of the developments she observed, the concerns of neighborhood quality seem to be unfounded. Her observation is that the developments are well done and well maintained. She further stated that a different housing market is developing in Port Angeles than in the past. Commissioner Kalish stated that before the proponent is required to provide an expensive fence to prevent dangerous animals from intruding into the development that it should be documented that the fence will be effective. Commissioner Wharton suggested that the word aesthetic be included in the condition. Commissioner Kalish again pointed out that the fence may not serve anypurpose and, may result in an unnecessary expense. Commissioner Wharton suggested that a more scientific study as to how to protect the wildlife and wildlife corridor might be helpful. Mr. Johns suggested that leaving the condition in while attempting to provide additional support for the fence and later asking the City Council to remove the condition if it is found unnecessary would make more sense than removing the condition now and later asking City Council to reinstate the condition. Discussion on the aesthetics of a fence followed. Commissioner Wharton asked Tom Armstrong, the developer, ifhe had any thoughts on the fence issue. Mr. Armstrong indicated that he felt that the issue of dangerous wildlife being a problem was exaggerated and that a fence to keep dangerous wildlife out of the development is a ridiculous idea. Commissioner Kalish agreed. Commissioner Wharton brought up the situation of individuals entering the ravine to ride bicycles or do other activities not in concert with a natural area. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that in other developments, fences have been erected and individuals still find a way to get around them. In other developments near critical areas, they have used split rail fences and attached signs that the State has provided indicating that the area is a critical area. Mr. Johns added that the City is looking at extending the Valley Creek trail through this area which will bring people into the ravine and increase human activity and will also reduce the likelihood of dangerous wildlife. He also indicated that a typical condition for a critical area would be a split rail fence and signs as a visual barrier more . . . Plannzng CommISSIOn Mznutes August 3, 2005 Page 5 than a physical barrier. The Commission directed staff to revise condition #20 to state the City require that a split rail fence be placed at the top ofthe ravine and to include signage identifying the area as an environmentally sensitive area. Commissioner Kalish commented on the sample document that the proponent provided as an example of a mechanism to manage maintenance of common areas and design control. Mr. Armstrong answered several questions from the Commission regarding the example document. He indicated that there would be a similar document filed for each individual lot as well as a larger document filed for the entire development. The document would have a component whereby each homeowner would pay a percentage ofthe maintenance costs associated with the maintenance ofthe common areas. Commissioner Kalish asked ifthe condition requiring CC&Rs, Association, or other mechanism is a strict condition as it is worded. Mr. Johns indicated that it is not, but is intended to be flexible enough so that maintenance of common areas is provided and that adequate control over building design can be assured. Chair Rasmussen related his knowledge and experience of such legal mechanisms. Commissioner Kalish indicated that the proposed condition fully addresses one of her major concerns ofthe project. Commissioner Wharton stated in response to Chair Rasmussen's earlier comment that she felt that the City is running out of open space but not running out of usable space, and that there are many areas of potential redevelopment. She further indicated that the RS- 7 designation on the outskirts ofthe City was a major concern to the local area residents. The number of units proposed for the area exceeds the allowed base density of the areas not constrained by the critical areas. Mr. Johns confirmed that the proposal was 15 units above the base density of the area not encumbered by critical area. However, well over 1/3 ofthe total site has physical constraints of wetland or ravine that are being credited to the developer. Mr. Madsen added that City ordinance allows an administrative 10% minor deviation and that the PRD is actually more stringent in some ways. The PRD intent is to provide for a more creative and higher quality development than by standard subdivision methods. The developer has chosen the PRD approach in order to provide a different housing type - the zero lot line units - that could not be allowed by more traditional development. Commissioner Kalish indicated that she feels that the development still has difficulties even though the developer has addressed many of her earlier concerns. Commissioner Kidd stated that Port Angeles needs affordable housing. Commissioner Kalish indicated that she follows the real estate market and that there have been several price reductions recently and that the housing market may not be as dire as once believed. She further stated that she agreed with Commissioner Wharton that possibly infill development in areas with fewer environmental constraints should be looked at for future development. Commissioner Wharton added that she is not opposed to the variety of housing types but remains somewhat concerned over the total number of units. Access to the ravine area for future use by nonresidents was discussed. Mr. Armstrong indicated that he is not opposed to allowing access through a trail system in the Valley Creek ravine. However, he expressed some concern over his ability to project what his costs will be considering the newly added conditions. Chair Rasmussen concurred with Mr. Armstrong and stated that his concern is not so much with this particular development but with the City in that necessary street improvements were not made for earlier developments and the required street improvements are now being applied to this development. Mr. Armstrong responded that he is willing to contribute substantially to the traffic mitigation improvements and pointed out that the type of contribution he is willing to make will enable the City to gain access to additional grant monies for street . . . Planmng CommiSSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 6 improvements in that area. Chair Rasmussen indicated that he will insist on a strong recommendation to the City Council ifthis proposal moves forward that street improvements must be in place when the development is complete. Commissioners Kalish, Wharton, and Kidd all spoke in support ofthe project while agreeing that the street and pedestrian issues in the area must be addressed. Chair Rasmussen suggested a statement that he feels should accompany the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. A discussion regarding the streets that should be included in the traffic study ensued, and, it was determined that Peabody Street need not be included in the traffic study. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rasmussen asked for a motion. Commissioner Matthews moved to send a recommendation of approval of the Reserve at Valley Creek PRDlsubdivision to the City Council, citing the following 21 amended Conditions, 36 Findings and 18 Conclusions. Conditions: 1. The final plat shall show the building front lot lines drawn on the face of the plat. All building setback lines on external lot lines shall meet RS-7 Zone requirements (20'). All lot lines (solid lines) and building setback lines (dashed lines) shall be accurately dimensioned on the final plat. 2. Prior to final PRDISubdivision approval, the applicant must complete a traffic study that includes AM peak hour traffic counts at the intersection of Laurel St. and Lauridsen Blvd. (US 101) taken during a period when both Port Angeles School District and Peninsula College are in session. The developer's contribution to street and sidewalk improvements to Laurel Street, Ahlvers Road, and possible signalization at the intersection of Laurel Street and Lauridsen Blvd. (US 101) shall be agreed upon by the developer and the City and shall be based upon results of the traffic study done during the fall of 2005. 3. All necessary on-site easements for access, drainage, and utilities shall be shown on the final plat. 4. A stormwater drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by Public Works and Utilities Department. The drainage plan for on-site and off-site facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final subdivision approval. The stormwater drainage improvements shall be installed or bonded per the City's Urban Services Standards and Guidelines and consistent with the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife hydraulics permit approval requirements and the Department of Ecology NPDES permit requirements. 5. The final plat shall provide for common usable recreational area and common usable open spaceperPAMC Sections 17.19.011 and 17.19.050. Common usable recreation areas shall be generally level, of a regular shape and contain a minimum of 1,000 square feet. The common usable recreational area may be comprised of areas located separately from each other as long as they each contain a minimum of 1,000 square feet. Specific use areas, such as trails in the more accessible areas of the wetland buffers, may be included as common usable recreation area but must not reduce the environmental functions and values of the buffer. 6. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided on-site for each lot in addition to any parking provided elsewhere on the site. 7. Electrical, telecommunications, and street lighting shall be installed or bonded per the Light Division standards. Electric utility service shall be underground. Plannmg CommiSSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 7 Address numbers shall be identified and placed on the final plat as provided by the City. Parking shall be limited to one side ofthe interior streets only. The developer is responsible for providing "NO PARKING" signs on the side of the street that parking is not allowed. Fire hydrants shall be placed per the project drawing included in the application with the modifications required by the City's Fire Department. Twenty (20) feet of clear width shall be required for Fire Department access. Residential fire sprinkler systems as required by the Fire Department shall be a condition of any new residential building permit. Wording shall be placed on the final plat and recorded with the County Auditor upon filing ofthe final subdivision indicating that all multi-family (tri-plex and above) residences shall be fitted with residential sprinkler systems prior to occupancy. 13. Potable water lines shall be provided as shown, with Fire Hydrant installation per the Fire Department comments and located in the middle of the internal roadway per City Urban Standards. 14. Sanitary sewer shall be provided as shown per City Urban Standards. 15. Proposed roadway construction of internal roadways shall be to 28 foot paved width, rolled curbs, and paved sidewalks on one side of the streets, and dedicated to the City. 16. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot strip ofland along the north side ofthe site, from the east property line approximately 570 feet from the eastern property line to a point where the County line intersects the subject site. 17. The legal description of the subject property of the PRD shall be provided. 18. The applicant shall provide an example of an agreement, formation of an association, or other mechanism, that provides for the continued perpetual maintenance of all common areas located in the PRDlsubdivision. The document should provide for the protection of critical areas from inappropriate uses that would be detrimental to the critical areas, maintenance of all utility structures such as storm water and drainage facilities not located in publicly owned areas, and common usable recreational areas, and provide for a method of dispute resolution for residents of the PRDlsubdivision. 19. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the city a proposed set of architectural design elements andlor guidelines to be followed during construction of all residential structures on the site. The architectural guidelines shall be included in a written document that includes CC&Rs, the formation of an owners association, or other mechanism that will provide adequate oversight and authority to ensure a high quality development. 20. A wooden split rail fence shall be constructed along the entire upper rim of the Valley Creek ravine. The barrier shall include the designated common usable open space with the private residential areas of the development. The City shall provide signs indicating that the area is considered an environmentally sensitive area to be placed on the fence at specified locations. 21. Prior to final approval, the applicant shall submit a completed wetland mitigation plan showing all existing wetland areas, additional wetland areas created for mitigation, a planting list, proposed buffer areas and dimensions, location of trails and other amenities, and a monitoring schedule, The plan must indicate that the outer edge of the buffer area will be identified with a split rail wooden fence and signage (supplied by the City) indicating the sensitive nature of the wetlands. A wetland permit must be issued prior to any earth disturbing activity being done within the wetland area. . 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. . . . . . Plannmg CommiSSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 8 Findings: 1. Following a pre-application meeting on March 31, 2005, a PRD application was submitted on May 3, 2005. Following a request for additional information, a revised site plan was submitted on June 5, 2005. The Reserve at Valley Creek application was determined to be complete on June 6, 2005. The revised preliminary plat drawing for The Reserve at Valley Creek shows a 147 lot subdivision proposal. All of the lots access from the intersection of Laurel Street and Ahlvers Road. 2. The preliminary plat would subdivide the approximately 29.84 acres of land into147 residential building lots, ranging from 2,000 to 11,900 square feet (see Attachment C for the preliminary plat). While the proposed subdivision does not conforms to all preliminary plat requirements, smaller lot size and private street access are permissible through City approval of a site specific planned residential development per P AMC Chapter 17.19. 3. The small lots though permissible in a planned residential development are subject to overall density limitation. The overall density of The Reserve at Valley Creek PRD is 4.92 units/acre. Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 17.19 sets forth the City's requirements for the approval of planned residential developments, and P AMC Chapter 16.08 sets forth the City's requirements for the approval of subdivisions. 4. The Revised Code of Washington RCW 58.17 contains the State's guidelines for the uniform division ofland within the State of Washington. Section 58.17.110 requires a city to inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of a subdivision. It shall determine if appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school and whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision. A proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless the city can make written findings that these provisions are made. 5. The purpose of a planned residential development (PRD) is set forth in Section 17.19.010 as follows: This Overlay Zone is to provide alternative zoning regulations which permit and encourage design flexibility, conservation and protection of natural amenities and crztical areas, and innovation in residential developments to those regulations found in the underlying zone. It is intended that a Planned Residential Development will result in a residential environment of higher quality than traditional lot-by-Iot development by use of a design process whlch includes within the site design all the components of a residential neighborhood, such as open space, circulatLOn, building types, and natural features, in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. 6. Section 16.08.050(B)(1) P AMC provides that the Planning Commission shall examine the proposed plat, along with written recommendations ofthe City Departments, and shall either approve or disapprove the submittal. A recommendation thereon shall be forwarded to the City Council within a period of 90 days after a preliminary plat has been submitted to the City Planning Department. The City Council shall either approve or disapprove the proposed preliminary plat at a public meeting. Planmng CommISSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 9 . 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. . 13. 14. . 12. The PRD and Subdivision preliminary plat applications were determined to be complete on June 6, 2005. The City Council must act on the PRD and preliminary subdivision by its September 6,2005, meeting to be within the 90-daytime limit set byRCW 58.17.140. The applicant may consent to an extension to the time limit. The proposed 29.84 acre The Reserve at Valley Creek Planned Residential Development (PRD) and Subdivision site is located at the southwest comer of Ahlvers Road and Laurel Street. The development provides for subdivision of the subject site into 147 lots designed for small-lot single family residences, zero lot line duplexes and fourplex row houses. The site is topographically diverse, with the southwest portion of the site containing the Valley Creek Ravine with the northern portion sloping gently from south to north, and resulting in a small depressional wetland adjacent to the northern boundary of the property. A wetland delineation and preliminary wetland mitigation plan have been received by the City of Port Angeles. The mitigation plan indicates that the wetland will be increased in size and the functions and values for stormwater and habitat will be enhanced. The preliminary plat application includes a drawing dated received June 5, 2005, prepared for the applicant, Development and Construction Group by Zenovic and Associates, Inc., provided in Attachment B, and used as the basis of the preliminary plat review. The final plat will be entitled The Reserve at Valley Creek Planned Residential Development and Subdivision. The site is served by Ahlvers Road and Laurel Street, which do not meet City arterial street standards south of Viewer est Street. Utilities are provided to the site. The proposal has been reviewed with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the site is Low Density Residential (LDR). The approximately 29.84 acre property of the PRD was zoned as RS-7 Residential Single Family at the time the property was annexed to the City (ANX 05-02 dated May 31,2005). Other surrounding properties are zoned RS-9 Residential Single Family (located in the City), LD, or RCC5 (located in the County) and are developed with low density residential uses or are undeveloped. The Independent Bible Church is located directly east of the site. The proposed planned residential development and subdivision preliminary plat were reviewed by the City's Fire, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Economic and Community Development Departments. The proposed The Reserve at Valley Creek PRD and Subdivision is in the Fire Department four minute response area. According to PAM C 18.08.110 - Fire Suppression Requirements, each multi-family residence within a new subdivision shall be equipped with a residential sprinkler system that is installed and maintained in accordance with Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and National Fire Protection Association (NFP A) standards. Public notice ofthe PRD and subdivision application was published in the Peninsula Daily News on June 10, 2005, posted on the site on June 10, 2005 and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed subdivision on June 7,2005. The Department ofCommunity and Economic Development received twenty-five public comment letters, which are provided in Attachment D. The subject property is identified as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The following Comprehensive Plan policies are found to be most relevant to the proposal: Growth Management Element Goal A; Land Use 15. 16. 17. 18. Planmng CommIssIon Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 10 . 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. . 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. . 32. 19. Element Goal A, Policy A.2, Goal B, Policies B.l, B.2, & BA, B.6 & 7, Goal C, Policy C.l - 3, Goal I, Objective 1.1; Transportation Element Goal A, Policies A.3 and A.6; Utilities and Public Services Element Policy D.l; Housing Element Goal A; Conservation Element Goal A, Policies A.I-A.3, Goal B, Policies B.I-BA, B.16, Objectives B.3-BA; Capital Facilities Element, Policies A.I0, B.6, C.3. The Comprehensive Plan requires concurrency for streets, water service, sanitary sewer service, and electrical service (Capital Facilities Element Policy A.9). The Comprehensive Plan recommends concurrency for solid waste collection, stormwater management, telecommunications service, and emergency services (police, fire and emergency medical response) (Capital Facilities Element Policy A.l 0). The City's Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Element Goal B) states the intention to have a community where residential development and use of the land are done in a manner that is compatible with the environment, the characteristics ofthe use and the users, and the desired urban design of the City. A planned residential development is one of the innovative techniques the City has to achieve implementation of Open Space and Conservation policies and the desired urban design of the City. The proposal meets the minimum site size for a planned residential development. The subject property in The Reserve at Valley Creek PRD and Subdivision is identified by the Port Angeles Zoning Map as RS-7 Residential Single Family, which allows a density of up to 6.22 units per acre. The revised preliminary plat drawing dated June 5, 2005, indicates that each lot in the proposed subdivision will be at least 2,000 square feet in size and that the size of most ofthe single family residential lots is 6,000 to 7,000 square feet, the duplex lots are between 3,050 square feet and 5,400 square feet and the row house lots are between 2,000 and 3,500 square feet. The small lot and PRD housing model designs are priced to be affordable in costs for new single family homes, providing starter homes for new families and other first time home buyers. This small lot housing design is still rather unique to the City and provides another opportunity similar to Highland Estates, a senior housing development off Golf Course Road and Lauridsen Boulevard. All required utility improvements including potable water, sanitary waste, electrical, and refuse collection have been provided to the subject site or are available in the area. The Port Angeles School District currently serves the area, and school capacity is not an issue with the present trend in declining enrollments. There currently are no designated school walking routes in the vicinity, however the school district is in the process of reevaluating the school walking route map and it is likely that both Laurel Street and Ahlvers Road will be added to the school walking route map. The site is currently served by the City's Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments. Building permits are required for all structures on any approved building lots. All local Building and Fire Codes apply to any new construction on the subject property. Clearing and grading permits are required for any initial site development on sites greater than one acre in size. A Wetland Permit is required prior to the start of the wetland mitigation work. The City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS #1108) on July 6,2005, satisfying the City's SEPA responsibility. . . . Planmng CommISSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page /1 33. 34. 35. 36. City of Port Angeles Public Works and Utilities Department engineering staff determined that the JTE traffic study lacked certain detail that will only be available after the school year begins in the fall. Until further study is completed, the City and the developer cannot know the extent of the impacts to local streets and can therefore not be expected to formulate a detailed agreement to mitigate those impacts. PAM C 17.19.05 O( C) requires all PRDs to provide for continuous and perpetual maintenance of common open space, common recreation facilities, private roads, utilities, parking areas and other similar development within the boundaries of the PRD in form and manner acceptable to the City. P AMC 17.19 .090( G) requires that an applicant for a PRD submit "Preliminary elevation and perspective drawings ofprojects structures" which provide the City and the neighbors with a degree of surety as to the design, look, and feel of a PRD where typical lot sizes and setbacks are likely to be reduced. A revised site plan for the PRD shows a total of 4. 7 acres of open space that can be used for recreational purposes. Conclusions: A. The conditions of The Reserve at Valley Creek PRD and Subdivision are consistent with the Zoning Code, required by the Subdivision Ordinance, and necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan. B. As conditioned, all the necessary public improvements will be installed per the City Urban Services Standards and Guidelines. C. As conditioned, the configuration ofthe proposed subdivision lots and street layouts conform to the desired urban design of the City for the residential developments in outlying areas where there is no grid street pattern and low impact development standards are allowed. The curvilinear streets with a 28 foot paved surface and no parking along one side of the streets reduce stormwater runoff and still provide adequate access for each residential lot. D. As conditioned, the utility services will be provided consistent with the Urban Services Standards and Guidelines and the Capital Facilities Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan level of service standards. Analysis of downstream sanitary sewer capacity has been provided that indicates no capacity improvements are needed for the additional 147 units of The Reserve at Valley Creek PRD. E. Because the City does not have any neighborhood parks or playfields in the vicinity and the subdivision will have more than 30 new home sites, one or more of the community areas shown in the planned residential development and subdivision preliminary plat should be designed as a children's play area. F. The small lots proposed for The Reserve at Valley Creek PRD and Subdivision are desired for the following reasons: 1) the provision of attractive and affordable homes for new families and other first time home buyers, and 2) the lots satisfy the desired urban design of the City, except for their small size, which fits the density requirements ofthe RS- 7 zone and the PRD Overlay Zone. G. This is not the basic urban land use pattern for the City's lower density single family residential neighborhoods. The density is much more like a multi-family residential neighborhood due to the concentration of homes outside ofthe critical areas. The PRD does provide for a higher density single family development with surrounding open spaces consistent with the PRD Overlay Zone. Plannmg CommiSSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 12 . K. . N. P. R. H. The Reserve at Valley Creek PRD and Subdivision provide an alternative residential development design to the basic single family residential neighborhood and the basic multi- family residential neighborhood in a manner that is affordable as starter homes for new families and other first time home buyers. Conditions are recommended that would satisfy the PRD standards that are not included in the proposal plans. As conditioned, The Reserve at Valley Creek PRD and Subdivision preliminary plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. As conditioned, The Reserve at Valley Creek PRD and Subdivision preliminary plat is in conformance with the Port Angeles Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 16.08 P AMC, and the Washington State Subdivision Act, Chapter 58.17 RCW. As conditioned, appropriate provisions have been made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school. As conditioned, the public interest is served in the preliminary approval of planned residential development and platting of the subdivision as articulated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision, Ordinance. The subdivision provides for development of new homes within the City of Port Angeles consistent with the Growth Management Act and beneficial to the City's tax base. The final drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer, and the City's stormwater drainage standards will require that the proposed development not impact downstream properties anymore than pre-development conditions. The drainage and erosion control plans also are subject to the Department of Ecology NPDES permit. The P AMC Chapter 17.19 Planned Residential Development Overlay Zone and Chapter 16.08 Subdivision Regulations allow for variations from standards variations in street improvements, blocks, lots, and building line setbacks. Conditions are recommended where certain proposed variation should not be approved due to the small lot design, which allows for less on-site variation. A more detailed traffic study that meets the City's expectations will provide a basis for evaluation and mitigation of traffic impacts. As conditioned, the City will be assured that common space areas located in the PRD will be provided with adequate maintenance. As conditioned, the inclusion of specific building design or the use of design guidelines, the City will be able to control the look and feel of the structures in the PRD by the strict application of the designs or guidelines at the time building permits are issued. The revised site plan for the PRD provides adequate area for common usable open space, half of which is usable for recreation purposes. I. J. L. M. O. Q. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kidd and passed 5 - 1, with Commissioned Kalish voting no. Commissioner Kalish stated that the traffic conditions are insurmountable regardless of any action the developer may take and that the developer cannot be required to do all that is necessary to remedy the traffic situation in the area. Chair Rasmussen then questioned Commissioner Kalish if other developments in the area are brought forth, would she then also vote in opposition to those developments. Commissioner Kalish indicated that ifthe situation in the area were to change then she would be able to support . Planmng CommiSSIOn Mmutes August 3, 2005 Page 13 . further development proposals. She further stated that it would be incumbent upon the City to come up with a plan that included a time line for street improvements and unless that happens then the situation will continue to deteriorate. Chair Rasmussen agreed with Commissioner Kalish's comment but added that he is optimistic with this recommendation that Council will see the gravity of the situation and come up with a solution. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None STAFF REPORTS None REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None ADJOURNMENT . ~Yri(1<~ Mar Madsen, Secretary The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. PREPARED BY: S. Johns . · ~ORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON. U.S. A. R~N.vOJ1 COrtf'm,-SS, oN -: ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-IJP SHEET PLEASB SIGN IN Meeting Agenda of: Auqu~ 3) ;;).cof) . PLEASE NOTE: IF you plan to testify, by signature below, you certify that the testimony given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington. Signature below DOES NOT REQUIRE you to testify - it only acknowledges your presence. NAME: ADDRESS: Agenda Item No. . i'~ J- c..J / d f' . ,~t ! /... 1/ "'..,-c () I :<'57'3 E, ~A./e Pit ~ve ~ O"ll f-.. '01.~ <;., .p~ 1000..'1 ~ "2..