Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/28/1991 1824 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington February 28, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Sargent called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 6:05 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Cornell, Hallett, Lemon, Nicholson, Ostrowski, Wight. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, AttorneyKnutson, Clerk Upton, B. Collins, G. Kenworthy. Public Present: B. Williams, P. Vance, R. Terril, M. Earlywine, B. Anabel, K. Williams, S. & S. Alderdice, J. Wessler, J. Swedstedt, D. Goin, C. Dalton, M. Greubel, B. Dalton, L. Lundberg, K. Edmonds, K. Soewnaon, E. Tiemerson, J. Walton, D. Ward, E. Johnson, T. Rymer, D. & I. Nixon, C. Alexander, L. Nutter, R. Zimmerer, N. Virolo, B. Isenberger, J. Nelson, D. Rudolph, V. Nixon, A. Murray, P. Blake, M. Lindberg, B. Philpott, M. Patton, M. Vanderhoof, M. Patton. III - VII - SUSPENDED VIII LEGISLATION 1. Public Hearing: Planned Residential Development proposal submitted by DelHur Inc. for the DelGuzzi Drive area between State Route 101 and Lindberg Road adjacent to Ennis Creek. Mayor Sargent announced the purpose of the public hearing was to hear and consider pertinent facts relating to a proposal for a Planned Residential Development submitted by DelHur, Inc., for the DelGuzzi Drive area, between State Route 101 and Lindberg Road, adjacent to Ennis Creek. In order to be fair to all wishing to testify, Council had established certain hearing procedures and had specified a reasonable time for each speaker. Those procedures were published on February 17 and 24, 1991. At this time, the Mayor read the procedures as published. Council had also agreed that ten-minute videos could be provided by staff, proponents, and opponents. At this time, the Mayor indicated the only video of the area was made by staff: it had been reviewed by proponents and opponents who decided that other videos were not necessary. Having reviewed the video earlier, the Mayor felt it to be a valuable reference tool in that it provides an overview of the area and shows the character of the land and particulars of the site. The Mayor queried as to whether Councilmembers wished to view the 22.5 minute video at this time, to which they all agreed. In addition, the Mayor noted that written comments and letters had been received and are already a part of the record and will be considered. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M. Planning Director Collins advised Council that the map being used is the latest copy received by the City on February 20th; it was an attempt on the part of the applicant to reflect the recommendation of the Planning Commission. It would, however, be advisable to act on the Planning Commission's modifications, findings, and conclusions as opposed to the map. Any inconsistency with the map would, presumably, be overruled by the Planning Commission's language. Council then viewed the video with the assistance of Director Collins, who pointed out specific areas on the map as they were referenced in the video. Director Collins distributed information to Council delineating the specific views on the video and the exact position on the tape for future reference -1- 1825 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 purposes. In addition, he explained information available to Council in the packet, as well as files, maps, and all other materials pertinent to the project which have been brought to Council Chambers and are available for reference. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Ostrowski, Director Collins showed the location of the proposed trail on the map and discussed the terrain with the 150-foot buffer and non-disturbance area. It has been proposed to have a five-strand wire to discourage people from entering the area. Councilman Cornell referenced the source of numbers on the map in terms of pervious and impervious square-footage and building area. Director Collins responded the numbers had been provided by the developer. Staff had viewed those numbers slightly different, in that common usable open space (not pervious area) was addressed by staff. A PRD requires a certain amount of open space that is common and usable by the people in the PRD. The calculation of the common usable open space is not reflected on the developer's maps, but rather is shown in the staff report. Director Collins then offered clarification as to what was included in staff's definition of common usable open space and the site- specific areas involved. Discussion followed in this regard. John Swedstedt, 1746 East Fifth Street, addressed Council by distributing information pertinent to the Penn Street L.I.D., as well as copies of studies conducted on the effect of the Ennis Creek development on the existing sewer system. Mr. Swedstedt expressed concern with the density of the Ennis Creek Development and the resulting utility capacity~ he felt there would more than likely be a need to upgrade facilities and questioned who would be held responsible for the payment of the upgrades. Mr. Swedstedt referenced specific sewage lines presently in existence and noted the City had installed a 10-inch main pipe in the area of the Penn Street L.IoD. However, an 8-inch pipe is now intended to serve the area east of Penn Street and Mr. Swedstedt felt certain an upgrade will be forthcoming. As an expression of public concern as to the potential cost allocation of such an upgrade, Mr. Swedstedt presented Council with a petition signed by 172 residents of the Penn Street L.I.D. Phil Vance, 592 Black Diamond Road, urged Council to require a full environmental impact statement. He referenced a similar project known as the Uplands, which required an environmental impact statement and did not prove to be nearly as environmentally sensitive. Such a study would scrutinize all potential problems dealing with physical environment' earth, air, water, flora, fauna, noise, light, glare, land use; and the human environment involving population, housing, transportation, public services, energy, utilities, aesthetics, and recreation. Mr. Vance distributed copies of two letters written as late as June, 1990, by City staff addressing concerns about the proposed Uplands project, which was never completed. Mr. Vance questioned how the same concerns would not apply to the Ennis Creek project. Ken Williams, 2504 South Oak Street, stated that he is the City Attorney for the City of Sequim and also has many years of experience as Sequim's planner. In this regard, Mr. Williams addressed issues of a planning nature, wherein it is more desirable to place multi-family density in a central core by reason of cost-effective provision of services. To provide services to an outer area would, in his estimation, lead to increased costs and manpower for the City. Mr. Williams addressed the matter of incremental costs to be incurred dealing with the delivery of services, such as water, sewer, solid waste, and the like. Mr. Williams addressed the matter of logistics for those residents housed on the outer areas, wherein it is more likely those residents will choose to not shop in the downtown core but, rather, will shop in the outer areas. Mr. Williams felt this supported further the concept of locating multi-family housing in a central core so as to avoid downtown decay. Loss of tax revenue must also be a consideration. Mr. Williams urged Council to deny approval of the proposed PRD in the interest of the City's future. Bill Wilbert, DelHur, Inc., 13850 Bel-Red Road, Bellevue, advised Council that the Ennis Creek PRD is a project that has bee~ modeled after public concerns, staff concerns, and the community's needs. It is a site and a project that has survived SEPA, political, and legal challenges. It is a site recommended for RMF development by the City staff, Planning Commission, and approved by this City Council. It is a site-specific PRD which has received a recommendation of approval from the staff and the Planning Commission. It is a project that has merit, is needed, and is a project that can be properly completed. -2- 1826 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 John Ward, 922 Georgiana, addressed Council as the immediate past president of the Olympic Outdoor Sportsmen's Club. The Club had previously taken responsibility for the removal of an old dam which was referenced in the video, and Mr. Ward said there have since been fish spawning in areas of the creek that could not be reached previously. Mr. Ward felt the site and the density of the development would ultimately result in lack of production on the part of coho and steelhead salmon. He expressed concern that the stream would be ruined by the people in the area and the only viable run of coho and steelhead would cease to exist. Mr. Ward felt the developer should be required to adhere to the zoning that existed prior to the time the land in question was acquired and the proposed density not be allowed. Richard Terril, 3123 Old Olympic Highway, referenced the need to see the area in person, as opposed to relying on a video. He expressed concern about the lack of site friendliness of the proposed development. Mr. Terril referenced specific sites in the proposal and urged no construction on the east side of DelGuzzi Drive due to the fragile nature of that specific location. He referenced previous land transactions involving the developer and expressed the opinion that a pursuit of profit is proving to be more important than the well- being of Ennis Creek. Mr. Terril expressed concern about the intention to remove all vegetation specifically located on Lot 16; it was his feeling that all trees should be treated as a valuable asset and that structures and parking lots should be creatively designed around the trees. Mr. Terril opined the proposed project is the wrong one for this particular site. Further, he felt the proposed trail would only serve to draw children to the creek; the development would result in a significant traffic impact. Mr. Terril concluded by urging Councilmembers to be responsible for the decision that will set a precedent for the future and for the quality of life in Port Angeles. He asked to have the proposal denied. Mike Doherty, 617 South "B" Street, requested that Council seek a full environmental impact study. In addition, he addressed certain procedural matters having to do with public hearings conducted before the Planning Commission. He then referenced Mr. Swedstedtfs portion of testimony wherein Mr. Swedstedt~s time had lapsed and he still had commentaries to offer. Therefore, at this time, Mr. Doherty offered the remainder of his time to Mr. Swedstedt. Mr. Swedstedt continued by referencing input he received during the time he was collecting signatures for the petition previously submitted. During that time, he received commentaries from individuals expressing concern about the significant increase in traffic on S.R. 101. In addition, residents queried as to the status of water pressure by the addition of the Ennis Creek development. Previously, when water was received from the Morse Creek line, the pressure was so high that it knocked pipes off basement walls. The water was also extremely muddy. During that time, Mr. Swedstedt indicated the City installed pressure-reducing valves, accepting no damage liability should the valves malfunction. Every effort should be made to avoid a repeat of the water pressure problems for the residents. Paul Blake, 6230 Piedmont Road, advised Council he is a fifth grade teacher; his class is raising salmon which live in Ennis Creek. Mr. Blake expressed the opinion that this building project is much too dense for the area. He cited the example of the density of Park View Villas in relation to the proposed development on Ennis Creek, noting the significant differences. Further, Mr. Blake indicated it is his job and the Cityfs job to protect the heritage of the quality of the watershed and the habitat for the animals and plants for the future of everyone. Having failed in the past for all of the streams, he indicated it is not too late to save this one. Linda Nutter, 1701 East Third Street, urged Councilmembers to take a walking tour of the area in order to gain full appreciation of the topography. She indicated the proposal is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and should have gone no further. In addition, Ms. Nutter felt certain information was brought forward before the Planning Commission based on misstatements on the part of the developer. She, therefore, questioned the developer's wishes for the community. Ms. Nutter expressed concern about City liability incurred with the likelihood of children playing in Ennis Creek. A five-strand wire is almost ludicrous and great concern exists for the safety of the children. Kent Brauninger, 903 East Park Avenue, expressed his primary concern for fish and wildlife and the fear they will be lost if this project is approved. Citing -3- 1827 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 reasons for his fear, Mr. Brauninger indicated fish and wildlife are in danger because of golf course herbicides and pesticides, as well as heavy siltation due to erosion. Erosion will take place because of construction and human traffic. Vegetation will be uprooted and siltation channels created. Mr. Brauninger addressed the matter of large wildlife needing corridors for travel and the stream ravine ought to be left to give the animals access to various elevations, from sea level up. He reviewed for Council a recent experience of viewing children playing by Peabody Creek and the lack of care with which they were conducting themselves in terms of stream protection. Mr. Brauninger felt Ennis Creek should be protected from people and the creatures should have their place on earth. Further, Mr. Brauninger felt the area in question is not particularly desirable, due to little sunlight, cold air coming down the ravine at night, fog, wood smoke collection, mill smoke, and auto exhaust. Costs will rise disproportionately because of heavy density and friction will exist between the golf course and trespassers. Mr. Brauninger concluded by indicating the area's congenial environment must be preserved. He expressed trust in Council to make the right decision. Marie Greubel, 315 West 15th Street, reviewed for Council certain specific areas of multi-family housing she recently visited, one of which is void of trees or play areas° The other is located in the area of the Tumwater ravine where a wooded area has been preserved and serves as a buffer for traffic noise. The area immediately adjacent to Tumwater canyon has been protected by a high fence; all of the vegetation had been left intact. Ms. Greubel felt issues pertinent to the Ennis Creek proposal, specifically environmental concerns, density, and adequate information concerning the actual design and materials to be used in the building, have been brushed aside and left unaddressed. She felt none of the concerns of residents have been addressed in any of the three plans submitted by the developer. Ennis Creek can achieve the distinction of a success story only if Council returns to the 1984 proposal of 112 single-family homes, for which the ElS was prepared, with no construction east of DelGuzzi Drive. The borrowed statement, "God did not mean that all places should be developed", applies to the area east of DelGuzzi Drive. Bill LaRue, 222 West Park Avenue, addressed comments to the issue of multi- family housing by noting in the last twelve years, the number of multi-family properties which have been developed within the City limits has been minimal. He reviewed certain site-specific developments and other requests for such developments which were denied because of zoning restraints. There is a great deal of property remaining in Port Angeles which is zoned properly and allows for multi-family construction. There is no need to stretch the limits of the imagination by deciding the Ennis Creek development must be built on that particular site. Mr. LaRue indicated it is not likely that a developer will provide housing for low income families unless a subsidy comes forth from the Federal Government. It would be extremely difficult for the developer to incorporate all of the necessary building requirements and still realize a desirable rate of return. It would seem the more likely market would be middle to upper income homeowners. Myrel Earlywine, 2013 East 4th Avenue, addressed the matter of already existing traffic congestion on S.R. 101. The addition of this development would make travel even more difficult and dangerous. In addition, Ms. Earlywine expressed concern about the safety of children in the proposed trail area. Such an area attracts a transient population. Tim Rymer, 2375 Cedar Park Drive, speaking as a representative of the Department of Wildlife, felt it appropriate to clarify the role of the Department of Wildlife and the Department of Fisheries in the area of fish and wildlife protection. The tool used in a project such as this is a hydraulic project approval, which encompasses the area between the ordinary high water marks of all State waters. In conjunction with the HPA authority, through SEPA substantive authority is gained. When a SEPA proposal is submitted, lead agency status is established and subsequent coordination takes place. In this particular case, the Department of Fisheries took lead because the stream has anadronomous fish usage. The checklist was reviewed, potential impacts identified, and a statement made as to how best to avoid or mitigate those impacts. Through the substantive authority, it was possible to require the 150- foot setback, to require erosion control plans, and stormwater plans. The fencing issue was also a part of the substantive authority under SEPA. Mr. Rymer indicated a buffer beyond the 150-foot recommendation would require certain justification. Further, in spite of the erosion control plans, fencing, stormwater management, and an issued permit, Mr. Rymer indicated there would -4- 1828 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 be no guarantees that a problem would not arise in the future during construction. Every effort can be made to protect the fish; however, it is difficult to provide protection for wi%dlife. Mr. Rymer then addressed certain limitations placed on the Department of Wildlife as to protection mechanisms available. Comments offered by the Department often come forth from a general knowledge of the area and may not rely on actual survey input. Mr. Rymer referenced the area in which the proposed trail is to be located. He indicated wildlife usage of the area is going to be minimized because of the trail. There will be a narrow opening along the creek on the upstream end through which wildlife will have to pass through or over a five-strand barbed wire fence. Once inside, it will be difficult to find a way out. It is not in the best interest of all concerned to be ignoring wildlife impacts in all these developments. Although all developments may not have the same degree of impact, there proves to be a cumulative effect which virtually eliminates wildlife from the area. In this particular site, it is very important to wildlife because of its association with the creek and the riparian area, which is heavily used by all species of wildlife. Mr. Rymer summarized his comments by indicating the onus cannot be placed on the Department of Fisheries or the Department of Wildlife to totally protect the fish and wildlife resources. The lead agency, the City, must take the responsibility to continue to have such resources within the City limits. Councilman Hallett requested clarification as to Mr. RymerWs position on behalf of the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife. He queried as to whether the two Departments were stating the project should not be approved. Mr. Rymer responded that such a determination could not be left in the hands of Fisheries and Wildlife, but rather, that responsibility should be left with the lead agency. Mr. Rymer indicated the DepartmentWs authority extends only so far as the HPA and associated substantive authority. If the Department has instituted mitigating features which should protect the fish, then a denial cannot come forth. However, it must again be realized that mitigation measures do not necessarily indicate there will be no impact. Further requests for clarification resulted in Mr. Rymer stating the Department of Fisheries could not justify a buffer of more than 150 feet. Discussion ensued with Councilmembers and Mr. Rymer as to the intention of the PRD versus the possibility of single-family developments and the potential impact on the east side of DelGuzzi Drive. Mr. Rymer stated that there may be more wildlife use of the ravine area if there is just a trail versus housing, which would permanently take the area out of production for wildlife. A question was raised by Councilman Ostrowski as to whether studies have been conducted as to damage or erosion caused by wildlife. Mr. Rymer indicated the agencies are so understaffed that people are not available to conduct studies of that nature. A question was then directed to staff as to the present zoning on the eastern plateau. Planning Director Collins indicated the zoning is RSo 9 on the plateau, which is the area approximated by the trail area up above the banks of the creek. Councilman Hallett cited a hypothetical situation wherein this particular property is owned by someone wishing to develop single-family homes; he inquired as to what type of control on environmental impact the Council, as policy-makers, would have. Director Collins responded that there would be no authority for individual single-family homes; however, for a subdivision, the authority exists to do a SEPA review and the same process as that followed with the PRD would be instituted. In this particular case, the annexation did an environmental impact statement. It included single-family homes on the east side of the creek. The ElS did, in fact, assess the impact of having housing on the east side of the creek. That information is available as to how the impact was viewed and how it can be mitigated. The ensuing discussion involved the question of access to that particular area. Director Collins indicated it would be necessary for the property owner to be granted some type of access. He reviewed three potential points for access; the applicant felt the most appropriate access would be from the west. Mr. Rymer indicated that no matter what type of housing is present, there will be an adverse impact to wildlife. In terms of the recently adopted Growth Management Act, there are certain areas which should be determined as sensitive. Further, determinations must be made as to what types of developments, if any, will be allowed around those sites. Whatever decisions are made, it is important that something be done to mitigate the impacts to wildlife and fish. Dick Goin, 502 Viewcrest, felt it important for Council to be advised as to the specific fish in Ennis Creek: Coho, steelhead, sea-run cutthroats, and rainbow -5- 1829 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 in the upper end. Mr. Goin indicated many of the fish are considered wild, which means they are resident to the creek. They are products of adaptation many centuries old and they have the ability to propagate naturally. Mr. Goin indicated the fish are a precious resource and every effort should be made to save and protect them. Edwin Johnson, 312 East 12th Street, previously conducted work for the Department of Fisheries. He addressed the matter of poaching in an area where he worked which was undergoing development. In that respect, he expressed concern about the same possibility existing around Ennis Creek. Mr. Johnson advised Council of his concern with trees being cut down, which results in fluctuation and stranding. Additionally, siltation increases directly impact the fish population. Hatchery fish cannot be considered a replacement for the wild fish. If this project is approved, it will serve as another contribution toward the destruction of wild fish. Jan Hare, 2136 East Lindberg Road, questioned the necessity of a project of this size. She indicated the only justification for approving such a project would be an immediate and urgent need for housing. However, Ms. Hare indicated the present growth rate does not justify a housing project of this density. She cited certain statistics relating to growth factors in the area. Further, Ms. Hare raised questions presently left unanswered in terms of where single or multi-family housing is needed; how much; and at what price. Most industrial businesses are located on the west side of town and it would seem logical to locate multi-family housing on the west side as well, in order not to further aggravate already existing traffic congestion. Ms. Hare felt certain studies must be undertaken to answer appropriate questions before any approval is granted for this PRD. She encouraged Council to defer action for that reason. Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, offered clarification in that Council is being asked to approve a preliminary plan only for the PRD in an area which has already been zoned residential. It is not a wilderness area. Mr. Alexander cited specific portions of the Zoning Code in terms of the purpose, intent, and requirements of a Planned Residential Development. He felt the proposal before Council this evening clearly meets all of the requirements as set forth. Mr. Alexander felt the process has been well served: public input has resulted in various changes to the proposal; and the environmental concerns have been addressed and impacts mitigated in advance of specific problems. The PRD concept is a tool which gives greater flexibility than any other device in the zoning toolbox. It allows an unprecedented amount of project control by City officials and by citizen input. It provides for constant participation throughout every phase of project development. The time expended on this particular proposal has been well spent because the development has been improved due to the PRD process. Mr. Alexander then reviewed how the PRD process will continue to work through the project development. Environmental concerns can be monitored even past project completion. If Council should choose to deny the project, then Mr. Alexander felt the PRD process should be reassessed, modified, or possibly stricken from the zoning laws. Anything less would be unfair to the developers who, in good faith, have tried to meet the requirements. Councilman Hallett inquired of staff as to developments presently in existence on the north and south sides of S.R. 101. Director Collins indicated more housing exists on the north side, much of which is constructed right at the edge of the stream. Councilman Hallett inquired as to the short plats and whether someone could build on those properties at this time. Director Collins indicated the short plats referenced by Councilman Hallett are generally located outside of the ravine. He indicated he could not verify there are as many houses close to the ravine on the south side of S.R. 101 as there are north of S.R. 101. Director Collins then reviewed his aerial tour of the area in terms of development north and south of S.R. 101. North of 101, the creek runs through the mill, as well as housing areas on either side. He indicated every effort is being made to keep development away from the immediate area of the creek. Councilman Hallett indicated, in years gone by, it would appear there were no checks and balances in place to monitor development along the creek. Mayor Sargent recessed the hearing for a break at 8:25 P.M. The hearing was reconvened at 8:45 P.M. Pat Willetts, 3241 Greentree Lane, addressed Council as to the need to plan, channel, and monitor growth to assure that Port Angeles remains the kind of place we want to live. It is important to determine what type of housing is in short supply and what income level is involved in that need. Ms. Willetts -6- 1830 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 indicated the developer purchased the property knowing full well what type of zoning was involved. It is not an obligation of the City to change the zoning requirements just so the developer~ cam realize a better profit. Ms. Willetts expressed the opinion that this project is not right for this site. Pat Downie, 331 East llth Street, referenced previous comments submitted with respect to Park View Villas and project comparisons. For purposes of clarification, he offered the information that Park View Villas is presently comprised of 120 units. There are 87 apartment units and 20 cottages in a four- plex design on 7.29 acres. This particular project is definitely considered multi-family; the zoning allows for apartment buildings. Mr. Downie pointed out that single-family dwellings are not necessarily environmentally friendly. The supposition that they are healthier for the environment is not necessarily true. There are many examples throughout the country where it has been proven that multi-family developments have protected the environment. Mr. Downie indicated he had helped draft the PRD process within the Zoning Ordinance and, in his opinion, the developer has done what was expected in conjunction with the PRD requirements. He offered comments of appreciation to the Planning staff and the Planning Commission for efforts expended in regard to this proposal. Mr. Downie asked Council to seriously consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission by moving the project forward to the next phase. Ingrid Nixon, 1115 East Ninth Street, expressed her disappointment with the Planning Commission's lack of objectivity and sensitivity toward the environment. She reviewed how matters had transpired at the Planning Commission wherein the Commission had asked that a trail not be included in the plan. After the developer had indicated a trail might be beneficial, the Commission members approved the trail inclusion with an apparent lack of commitment. Ms. Nixon addressed comments toward the proposed fencing, the wildlife preserve, and the protection of the stream. At the Commission level, it had been suggested that a bond be required to allow the City to obtain funds in the event something went wrong. This led Ms. Nixon to believe the Planning Commission members had serious doubts that the project could move forward without some detriment to the stream. Any amount of money could not possibly replace the stream or the wildlife that will be impacted by this project. Ms. Nixon advised Council that, in good conscience, the plan submitted cannot be approved. Don Rudolph spoke to Council as a representative of the Olympic Peninsula Economic Research Association. He addressed the need for additional housing and the current studies underway concerning low-income housing. The need for low-income housing will not be met if nothing is allowed to be constructed. Mr. Rudolph indicated the reason the vacancy rate for apartments is so low is due to the fact many people are living in motels because of the lack of housing. He expressed the opinion that the developer has already lost much of his initial profit by virtue of the lengthy process involved in receiving approval for the plan. Further, there is nothing wrong with making money. Dr. Jim Walton addressed Council as Director of the Fisheries Technology program at Peninsula College, as a wildlife commissioner, and as a certified Fisheries Biologist. He likened himself to a biological guru who does not like this project at all. He referenced comments previously made concerning the lack of ability on the part of the Department of Wildlife and the Department of Fisheries to have any serious input into preservation of the environment in this particular area. As Director of the State Wildlife Commission at the time the hydraulics code was rewritten several years ago, Dr. Walton indicated a hydraulics permit can only be required in an instance dealing with construction or some kind of impact in the ordinary high water mark. In this case, a hydraulics permit will be required because of the existence of a storm drain. Some constraints might be applied with regard to pilings within the ordinary high water mark in conjunction with a trail passing over the creek. Because the construction itself does not occur in the creek, there can be no constraints. Dr. Walton then further clarified the position of the two Departments on this issue. The real authority comes from the substantive authority in SEPA which just allows for mitigation; therein lies the required 150-foot setback. The mitigation is to set the housing development back far enough so there is not going to be as much erosion or environmental detriment as if it were closer to the stream. The Departments cannot approve or disapprove the project based on what is being given to them at this time. The real authority, according to Dr. Walton, lies with the City and the local planning efforts. He referenced the Growth Management Act and certain legislation presently being considered which more clearly defines what will be expected. Dr. Walton made specific references '7- 1831 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 to the proposed legislation wherein development should be done to protect open space, natural features, parks, natural resource lands, and critical areas within and outside of urban growth areas. Additionally, natural limitations, such as steep slopes, flood plains, and wetlands should not be designated for urban growth. Open spaces and natural features should be preserved within urban areas; open spaces should be used to protect fish and wildlife habitat, and protect environmentally sensitive land and water areas. Dr. Walton felt that by approving this PRD, the City would be undermining the intent of the legislation. Dr. Walton has a class at the College which surveys the stream and has determined there is a viable run of steelhead present. These are not hatchery fish and, therefore, this is a unique genetic strain of wild fish which could be lost if this project moves forward. Dr. Walton indicated the reason the resident fish have not been lost in the area below is because of the existence of a flat area which left the corridor wide enough so as to have some braiding and natural spawning occur. Once above S.R. 101, the habitat is almost pristine. He cited examples throughout town of rip-rapping and channelizing and trash dumping. He pointed out that Ennis Creek is the last sensitive area in the City and, by approval of this project, the fish runs will be destroyed. Councilman Lemon directed questions to Dr. Walton with respect to the property as it existed at the time of the annexation and how certain impacts might have existed then as compared to impacts with this proposed project. Dr. Walton relayed his understanding that, with a subdivision or development proposal, an environmental review is necessary. If that is the case, then certain constraints in terms of numbers can be invoked. The number of people involved in single-family residences could not approach the number involved in the PRD as currently proposed. Because of resultant fewer numbers, the impacts would be lessened. Dr. Walton indicated this is not a fish management problem, but rather a people management problem. Councilman Hallett asked for clarification as to the definition of protection. Dr. Walton indicated the only way to protect the area is to minimize the access to the ravine, which is accomplished by not allowing the trail. The existence of the trail allows access which will destroy exactly what needs to be saved. He suggested it would be acceptable to place a trail on the west side, perhaps along DelGuzzi Drive. Dr. Walton emphasized the fact that a trail should not be placed down to the ravine. Councilman Hallett, in referencing requirements on single-family residences, inquired as to whether private property owners could still access the ravine, particularly since there would be no 150-foot setback requirement. Dr. Walton agreed, but countered with the commentary that people housed in 237 units, at two and one-half people per unit, would make more difference than one couple taking a walk down the stream. He indicated it is a matter of density. Councilman Hallett continued by noting there is a density trade-off, but there would be a better chance of protection if there are some controls in place. He felt two people can destroy something a lot easier than 50 people who are responsible. Discussion ensued with Dr. Walton on issues pertaining to density and environmental sensitivity. Bill Williams, 1308 East Front Street, addressed the economic impact of placing such a large development away from the core of the City. He felt it inappropriate to place one of the largest developments in the City in the most sensitive area. The proposed development will impact the wildlife in and on the stream. Mr. Williams indicated he is opposed to the trail and is further opposed to development on the east side of DelGuzzi Drive. Jim Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg, thanked the City Council for conducting this public hearing. A vast majority of the individuals who have spoken have done so in opposition to the project. The Planning Commission's vote would indicate the Commissioners did not agree with the grass-roots movement to change the way the City is being developed. Dr. Mantooth referenced the original plan of 1984 as submitted by DelHur for this same area, which was for thirty-three single- family homes. It serves to point out what would be an alternative for the area. He felt it difficult to compare damage to the environment when considering thirty-three single-family residences versus the high density being proposed through this PRD. Density should decrease when an area has sensitive wildlife, such as a salmon-spawning stream. The net result of trading off density for an undeveloped strip along the stream will be disastrous. Dr. Mantooth suggested it would be more desirable to have sparse development around sensitive areas and creeks. Now is the time to uphold the Comprehensive Plan and protect -8- 1832 CITY COUNCIL MEETING .~ .... ~ February 28, 1991 this last creek and still allow sane development here and in future developments in the City. Dr. Mantooth indicated there are areas in town with decaying buildings which could be rebuilt with a PRD. Zoning is a major issue and several people take exception to allowing a multi-family project such as this to be dropped into their single-family neighborhood without approval and without changes in the underlying neighborhood. This development would certainly change the Mantoothsf neighborhood and would surely set a precedent for the remainder of the City's residential areas. Dr. Mantooth indicated that spot zoning such as this is illegal. He urged Council to disapprove the project. Bob Dalton, 812 East Seventh Street, advised Council the fishing industry in the northwest is in serious trouble. Some of the fish come from streams such as Ennis Creek, and co-existence with Ennis Creek can be accomplished, but only by leaving it alone. Mr. Dalton urged Council to retain the single-family zoning in the area, as it will just be a matter of time before Ennis Creek looks like the remainder of the streams in town. Now is the time to apply common sense by not approving the project. Clay Rennie, 401 East Vista View, referenced the defeat of Initiative 547 primarily because city, county, and state governments told the citizens the Initiative was not needed to manage growth. These entities indicated they could handle growth and the developers, and provide good, managed planning. The hour of truth is approaching. Willie Wirt, 1339 East Lauridsen, indicated that natural surroundings are what Port Angeles is all about; the area provides special opportunities and responsibilities. People are attracted to this area because of the natural environment; that is also why the developers are attracted. If a better place cannot be found for this project, and if it cannot be done without the obvious destruction, then the City is in a lot of trouble. Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, advised Council the process for this PRD has been difficult for all concerned. Even though Councilfs decision to allow a conditional rezone was a mistake, perhaps it was based on lack of information and misinformation. Ms. Mantooth, however, did not blame Council for attempting to see if the developer could cluster the housing units into an acceptable PRD. Ms. Mantooth appreciated Council's time on this issue, as well as that expended for City government. The efforts to decrease density in this development have become unnecessarily confused. A line or two from the Comprehensive Plan has been used to justify actions clearly not intended by the Plan in its entirety. She referenced a 1978 Parks Plan which has not been scrutinized by environmental review but which is being used to justify a trail. Perceived housing needs threaten to cause a decision-making process to get completely off track. Allowing this housing density would be irresponsible to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, as well as to the City and its environment. People have the right to make sure their neighborhoods are protected; concern about this project goes far beyond the immediate neighborhood. The people who have spent so much time studying these issues have no intention of interfering with Mr. Wilbert~s right to develop his property. The problem, when all the extraneous issues are removed, is that what the developer is trying to do far exceeds the rights of anyone. Ms. Mantooth queried as to what right the developer has to increase density beyond that allowed by the zoning which existed when the land was acquired. Even with a less dense zone, how could such a development be allowed when it will cause so much harm? Ms. Mantooth felt information has been somewhat diffused because of the developer's statements that density has been cut in half. It does not make sense to put housing for two hundred in an area which probably should only house thirty or forty. Dedication to just government and administration cannot be distracted by such issues. All citizens want to count on the decisions made in these Chambers, rather than having to go to court to assure protection of their rights. Ms. Mantooth urged everyone to view the site, as surely the conclusion would be reached as to how absurd it would be to pack these buildings into the ravine just above the creek, even if it were legal. She concluded by urging responsible stewardship on the part of Council. Councilman Cornell inquired as to whether this area has been designated as environmentally sensitive. Planning Director Collins recollected that this particular area was outside the City at the time; however, the map showed environmentally sensitive areas in Ennis Creek. Areas below the top of the bank were zoned for PBP in this development. Director Collins reviewed how the top -9- 1833 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 of the bank was defined for purposes of this consideration. Councilman Cornell requested clarification as to comments made as to insufficient water, sewer, and stormwater capacity, and who would be responsible for defraying the cost of any needed expansion. City Engineer Kenworthy responded by addressing all of the infrastructure concerns, in that the City had requested studies on water, sewer, transportation, and storm drainage. The engineer retained by the developer studied what was actually flowing through the sewers. Traditionally, those flows will be less than theoretical flows for calculations. The permitted infill in the lots was considered, as well as the Miller property infill; the full capacity of the original rezone application, and potential additional capacity because of future annexation along Lindberg Road. Assuming full density in the area, the engineer concluded the sewer system downstream was adequate. Engineer Kenworthy indicated this conclusion was accepted by the City with the caveat that ongoing monitoring of the critical sections will be conducted. Should the computations prove to be erroneous, the City can halt development at any point if the capacity is reached. Engineer Kenworthy reviewed the water system where, using the same density figures, the developer was advised of the need to install two pressure-reducing valves along DelGuzzi Drive. There are two future PRVs to be installed along Golf Course Road, which will enable the upper and lower sections to be connected in order to provide more flow. In addition, the project engineer has been instructed to conduct a study during peak summer flows to determine if restrictions need to be placed on P.U.D. draw so the existing services are not degraded. If there is degradation, or if studies show additional improvements are needed, the developer will be limited via the building permit process as to how far he can proceed before improvements are put in place. Concerning the issue of transportation, Engineer Kenworthy indicated the developer had installed the signal at S.R. 101. Studies indicated, based on the full rezone application, that the bulk of the traffic would move down DelGuzzi Drive. Engineer Kenworthy had established certain requirements pertinent to stormwater, a matter also studied by the engineer engaged by the developer. In addition, the City had imposed certain fisheries requirements. Original requirements were instituted for detention, retention, and energy dissipation; fisheries requirements will be added. Engineer Kenworthy related his comfort with the infrastructure pending the results of further studies. He emphasized the fact the City has the prerogative of limiting development should corrections or additions be needed. Should additions be needed for the water system, Engineer Kenworthy opined it would not be appropriate to charge residents who have already paid for the service once. It would be Engineer Kenworthy's recommendation to consider a reservoir, with a possible latecomer fee associated, to include involvement of the developer. Engineer Kenworthy offered further clarification in that presently vacant property in the vicinity of Penn Street has already been factored into the density figures used for purposes of the studies conducted. Monitoring of all systems will be ongoing. Mayor Sargent noted there are members of the Planning Commission present. She inquired as to whether any new testimony has been offered thus far this evening that the Planning Commission did not hear. Larry Leonard responded by indicating that, with the exception of the issue of sewer and water, all other matters were heard by the Planning Commission. Ray Gruver, 2802 South Laurel, also a member of the Planning Commission, offered the fact that testimony pertinent to building multi-family housing in the core of the City may have been introduced for the first time this evening. Councilman Wight inquired of the Planning Commission members as to the reinstatement of the trail. Mr. Leonard responded the Parks & Recreation Trail Plan addresses the need for trails, such as this; and further, the Comprehensive Plan includes language citing trails as a desirable amenity. The ensuing discussion revealed the trail would help to control access and would provide a place for recreational walks. Safety issues had been addressed in terms of removing access for Roosevelt Middle School students. A fence had also been added. The concept of the trail was incorporated in order to reduce density. Mayor Sargent inquired as to whether the School District had offered commentaries, to which Director Collins responded they had not, although they had been contacted. -10- 1834 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 Lengthy discussion followed on the trail concept, with clarification offered that the trail is not included in the percentage requirement for open space.- Councilman Wight inquired as to whether consideration had been given to sc ..... ~ cside the trail for purposes of precluding development at some future date.~" Mr. Gruver indicated the Planning Commission felt this to be a significant possibility. Councilman Hallett requested input from the Commission members as to whether testimony heard this evening would serve to change the decision of the Planning Commission, to which the response was that it would not. Mayor Sargent expressed Council's appreciation to the Planning Commission for the many hours spent in conjunction with this proposal. The Mayor then invited rebuttal to testimony offered thus far. John Swedstedt expressed the opinion that, concerning referenced engineering reports, certain oversights existed and incorrect criteria were incorporated. He felt the conclusions reached indicated the system has more water capacity than it does in reality. He questioned how, in one instance, the 8-inch pipe could be declared insufficient when, in another instance, it has been declared sufficient to serve an even greater density. Mr. Swedstedt questioned issues pertinent to basins, as well as the flow from specific areas in the vicinity. Councilman Hallett submitted an inquiry concerning Mr. Swedstedt's comments on the sufficiency of the 8-inch line and what the City would do if an error has been made in the calculations and studies. City Engineer Kenworthy responded the studies conducted had included actual flows coming out of the area, projected flows from this PRD project, as well as any possible flows coming from future annexed areas. The conclusion reached was the existing capacity and existing infrastructure would be adequate. If the study is incorrect, the City would stop the building permit process until the time the problem has been resolved. The costs incurred would be borne by the developer. Discussion followed, with Engineer Kenworthy offering further clarification on issues pertinent to the adequacy of the infrastructure. Planning Director Collins responded to certain questions raised in the course of the testimony. With respect to the SEPA process, a full Environmental Impact Statement has been completed on this project site; there were two mitigated determinations of non-significance with seventy-one mitigation measures attached. In addition, one of the mitigated determinations of non-significance was appealed and went through a SEPA appeal before the Planning Commission to determine whether or not a correct SEPA analysis had been accomplished. The conclusion reached was that the determination of non-significance was, in fact, adequate. A question had been raised pertinent to the analysis of City services and whether or not the impact of those services had been properly reviewed. Director Collins indicated this review was conducted at the time of the property rezone this past year. Questions relating to lead agency and agency jurisdiction had also been raised. Director Collins pointed out that, in this case, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Wildlife are agencies with jurisdiction. Fisheries took the lead and, when the DNS was issued, if Fisheries felt there were adverse impacts to fish which required an EIS, they could have assumed lead agency status. There was a question as to whether substantive authority allowed for "yea" or "nay", and Director Collins indicated it does. The Department of Fisheries does have the authority to deny a project which has significant adverse impact. Also in regard to the SEPA review of fish and wildlife impacts, Director Collins indicated the City has no particular expertise in the fish and wildlife area and, as a result, has abided by the actions taken by the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife in these matters. Director Collins offered further information pertinent to the trail and fence, noting the PRD requires recreation as one of the elements of the plan. The initial plan viewed the trail as a significant contribution to that recreation. The five-strand fence had been a suggestion submitted by the Department of Fisheries. Director Collins offered input concerning commentaries made on the Growth Management Act. The Act will not be implemented on critical areas until the interim minimum guidelines have been adopted next September. Final guidelines will not be acted upon until 1994. Therefore, applications must be processed in accordance with existing laws. Additionally, concerning housing needs, Director Collins indicated studies being conducted are directed toward assisted housing and not at market rate. -11- 1835 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 Councilman Ostrowski submitted an inquiry concerning Planning staff recommendations. Director Collins indicated findings and conclusions had been generated by staff and acted upon by the Planning Commission after certain revisions. Mayor Sargent inquired as to the lead agency process. Director Collins responded either the Department of Fisheries or the Department of Wildlife must issue a hydraulics project approval. The agency which has the first permit authority usually takes the lead agency position. If there is a disagreement between agencies as to which should take lead agency status, there is a process to determine which is more appropriate. In this particular case, the City had taken the lead agency back when the Environmental Impact Statement was done on the annexation. Because the application was for a rezone and then a PRD, the City again took lead agency status in consultation with the Department of Fisheries. Once the lead agency makes the determination, if that determination is one of non-significance, other agencies with jurisdiction have a period of time in which they can assume lead agency status. This can come about if it is felt there is an adverse impact on the basis of their expertise. The City worked closely with the Department of Fisheries on this matter, and the conclusion was reached that probable significant adverse impacts were adequately mitigated by the proposed measures to make a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on the PRD. Councilman Hallett, in seeking further clarification, noted his impression that the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Wildlife had not made a statement there would be no impacts. They had, however, agreed there was adequate mitigation. Director Collins agreed, and noted both agencies preferred the project not move forward because of the impacts, but their actions indicated the mitigation measures would adequately reduce the level of impact from significant adverse to mitigated impact. Lengthy discussion followed, with further clarification on this issue being offered. Maria Patton, 2140 Hudson Road, felt testimony from the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife had not been heeded. She felt representatives had distinctly stated that if this area is open to development, the stream will be adversely impacted. This area is very unique and must be treated gently. Ken Williams, 2504 South Oak Street, addressed the concept that Council appears to be faced with an unregulated single-family development on this PRD. Mr. Williams reviewed State law and short plat requirements, environmental review, impact statements, and the like. The choice is to have nine houses with unfettered access to the creek or, if more than nine, the City could tailor the development and impose every condition determined appropriate. Beyond that, because of the existence of an impact statement, seventy-one conditions have been imposed and must be imposed on any development, regardless of the development size. Council's choices are, therefore, not limited at all. Mr. Williams continued that an impression seems to exist that approval of the PRD is merely preliminary and changes can be forthcoming. However, he noted any building can only be moved 10 feet before another public hearing is required. This is a site-specific plan which is not subject to further changes in the absence of public hearings. The City has no obligation to provide the developer access to the east side. The concern expressed that single-family residences would result in people walking by the creek is erroneous. Mr. Williams indicated a subdivision would first have to exist. A dedication of 150 feet on either side could still be required and enforced by the City. Concerning the issue of housing need, Mr. Williams indicated a study conducted by Daishowa had cited a vacancy rate of 2.1%. It has yet to be determined if this is good or bad, but the resultant calculation reflects in excess of 100 vacancies available at this time. As to whether this has been declared an environmentally sensitive area, Mr. Williams indicated when this property was rezoned less than one year ago, one of the findings was that Ennis Creek was an environmentally sensitive area. This was fundamental to the decision and is also a matter being reviewed by the judge at the present time. Mr. Williams felt the City Engineer was incorrect in stating who would be responsible for paying the costs: the problem will arise when someone else wants to build and learns there is not enough capacity. Since the Uplands has already paid once and the current developer will have paid, a rate increase will need to be implemented or an L.I.D. formed, and everyone in the area will have to pay. He questioned when the flows were made in the studies, as flows vary greatly, depending on the time taken. The requirement exists that flows must be studied at peak hours. Mr. Williams expanded on these features. -12- 1836 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 Concerning the trail, Mr. Williams advised Council the trail can remain or be removed at Council's discretion. The same requirement can be imposed on single- family residences. Mr. Williams clarified the fact that the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife can, in fact, give recommendations concerning wildlife impacts. Because the City indicated it had no expertise in this area, the purpose of SEPA lends itself well in that an impact statement must be completed. The law requires that zoning changes only occur if there has been a change in the neighborhood which justifies the zoning change. Housing needs within the City are not sufficient justification and Mr. Williams expressed his confidence that this issue will be resolved against the City and all the time expended on this will be a waste. He urged Council to adopt a proposal that meets the environmental needs. Mr. Williams referenced commentaries made as to the developer's need to realize a profit on his investment; he summarized certain real estate transactions involving the developer; and urged an inquiry as to the monies involved in these transactions. Alan Middleton, Law Offices of Davis, Wright, Tremaine, spoke as a representative of the developer. In referencing comments made by Mr. Williams having to do with the right of the City to impose any requirements or limitations on this project, the City can exercise certain control to limit growth and impact. However, this control is not unlimited and, at some point, the City must justify whether those limitations are appropriate. Previous testimony from the Department of Wildlife indicated the Department of Fisheries could not justify a setback of greater than 150 feet in this case; the imposition of a larger setback would have been irrational, insupportable, and would have been overturned. Constitutional provisions prevail at this point with respect to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It appears the development will be limited to such a degree so as to create a constitutional taking. The argument of preliminary approval does not mean the City is without controls further on in this effort. The building permit process allows the City to study impacts on sewer and water flows; development can be halted if the studies presented are misleading. There is a constitutional provision pertaining to land-locked parcels. It is against public policy of the State to leave land inaccessible. If that land cannot be accessed, the developer would be within his constitutional rights to bring forward a condemnation action. In terms of growth factors, Mr. Middleton referenced comments by Mr. Williams having to do with 2.1% vacancy. Common sense can be applied to these proceedings; it can be learned by reading the local newspaper that vacancies exist; the population of Clallam County and Port Angeles is growing; and, in the immediate future as well as the immediate past, there is an established need for multi-family housing. Although it has been determined that Ennis Creek is an environmentally sensitive area, it does not fit into a statutorial scheme which requires the Council to make certain determinations. However, through the PRD process, the entire eastern plateau is not to be developed; a 150-foot buffer on either side of the creek is not to be developed. The trail system was put in the plans at the request of the City Planning Commission and it appears it is being used as an excuse to lower density. Mr. Middleton expressed the opinion that this entire process has resulted in compromise by DelHur. The original plan before the City, at the time of the rezone, was for 450 units. At this time, the proposal includes 222 multi-family units. This is only a "stone~s throw" from a plan submitted by one of the opponents to the plan, who suggested a development of 192 units. A pattern is developing where compromise on the issue of density and setbacks is continually expected of the developer without similar commitments on the part of the opponents. This has resulted in many people adopting and maintaining contrary positions. Mr. Middleton addressed the matter of the lead agency in conjunction with the Fisheries and Wildlife. It is clear, under State law, that Fisheries and Wildlife have the opportunity under SEPA to assume lead agency status and to require a supplemental ElS or a full ElS. When the ElS was performed in 1984, it considered most, if not all, of the impacts addressed here. As the proposal became more specific, the City demanded more technical information by way of geotechnical studies, stormwater and sewer studies and water supply studies. The City has basically satisfied itself through this process that this site can accommodate not only this project, but a project in excess of 430 units. Mr. Middleton expressed the opinion that a change in the character of the neighborhood before a rezone is granted is a matter to be clarified by the 1837 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 courts. It is one probably to be addressed in the next two to three weeks. Mr. Middleton then addressed comments previously made as to property sales and the timing of those real estate closings in conjunction with the lawsuit filed by the Mantooths. There has been no attempt by DelHur to reap a secret profit. Mr. Middleton indicated the staff has done an excellent job in presenting exactly where the project rests as of now. On the basis of this evidence, the only course of action is to approve the PRD as proposed. Richard Terril, 3123 Old Olympic Highway, referenced previous comments that more than a 150-foot setback could not be justified because of political constraints. Testimony has been offered by the developer of the great need for apartments, regardless of the affordability, yet the first units to be constructed are condominiums. He questioned when the first apartments would be constructed. Mr. Terril further questioned the developer's priorities in construction. He expressed the opinion there can be no relation of a harbor trail to Ennis Creek, as there is nothing environmentally sensitive about a trail to Daishowa. He indicated the trail would not belong to the City, but rather would belong to the developer. In that regard, it is possible that other citizens would be precluded from the use of the trail. Further, it is extremely questionable how the stream can be protected, considering the anticipated tree removal, based on the proposal submitted. Councilman Hallett directed a question to staff as to the City's authority in terms of construction site preparation, tree removal, erosion control, and the like. Director Collins responded this involves one of the specific mitigation measures in that no further development can occur on the site prior to an erosion control plan being approved by the City and the Department of Fisheries. Pat Downie, 331 East llth Street, responded to commentaries by Ken Williams regarding the fact the downtown shopping area would lose business to those located on the outer perimeters. Mr. Downie submitted it would take longer to drive to K-Mart than it would to drive downtown. In terms of planning and the need to cluster housing near existing commercial services and retail outlets, if that is a legitimate argument, then it must be pointed out the one retail outlet to gain the most would be Safeway Plaza, which is less than one-half mile away. This demonstrates good planning because of being functionally close to a neighborhood shopping center. Kent Brauninger, 903 East Park Avenue, agreed entirely with the statements made by Ken Williams. In response to Mr. Downie, the project is far from services which will call for increased increments of police and fire protection and trash collection. The question to be answered is what increased cost of service will the City have to bear. Concerning Mr. Middleton~s commentaries on every parcel of land requiring access, he recalled the Peninsula College Board of Trustees declining the gift of a piece of land because it was land-locked and inaccessible. He offered the opinion the City might be misreading the meaning of Mr. Rymer~s testimony in terms of not having the right to impose a new EIS. Councilman Hallett queried as to whether each resident of the City presently pays the same rates for water, sewer, and solid waste, no matter where they reside. City Engineer Kenworthy responded that was accurate. Jim Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, offered rebuttal to Mr. Middleton~s testimony concerning the Mantooths' previous proposal being a "stone~s throw" from the developer's proposal. This is inaccurate, in that the Mantooths had proposed 96 multiple family units, all on the west side of DelGuzzi Drive, with nothing on the east side of DelGuzzi Drive, with the exception of an elderly housing unit. Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, indicated statements had been made to the extent the requirements of the PRD had been met through the ideal of cooperation, compromise, creativity - all of this is far from the truth. Ms. Mantooth felt a measure of compromise has not really existed on the part of the developer. The concept of the PRD is to provide a higher level of benefit to the City and offer all that any normal neighborhood would offer. This project does not meet the criteria in that regard. With regard to the top of the bank, Ms. Mantooth reminded Council that the steepest of the areas was on the west side of DelGuzzi Drive. Ms. Mantooth offered the opinion that testimony given by Dr. Walton and Dr. Rymer had been badly twisted; their testimony was used to justify the trail, which is contrary to the intent of the testimony. Ms. Mantooth challenged anyone to be able to find open usable space for ball fields in this proposal. There are just little strips available. -14- 1838 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 Concerning the fence, there is no good solution because of the density and the people problem created. As to when the findings and conclusions were drafted, the Planning Commission directed the Planning Director to draft conclusions against the proposal. However, the Director arrived at a meeting with conclusions in favor of the proposal and when Ms. Mantooth inquired as to how this occurred, she was told it was because a Planning Commission member had submitted such a request. Ms. Mantooth charged this occurred outside of a public meeting, with which she expressed great concern. She indicated the mitigations taken from the ElS did not apply in that they were arrived at for single-family homes and not this particular project. Ms. Mantooth continued she has been trying to get something done to resolve erosion problems and has been unable to get action. This is the type of matter which must be addressed. There being no further testimony, Mayor Sargent closed the public hearing at 10:45 P.M. Discussion followed concerning the Environmental Impact Statement which was done in the 1983-84 timeframe at the time of an annexation for single-family residences. The original study was applied to this PRD; there were many mitigating measures because of the impacts evident at that time. Because of the increased density, Councilman Hallett inquired if the same mitigating measures could be applied to this project. Director Collins indicated there were new mitigating measures applied to the PRD specifically because of the increased density, one of which related to the infrastructure and others related to impacts on the creek itself, because of the sensitive nature. Some of the original mitigating measures would not apply at this time, such as the requirement for a stop sign at S.R. 101 and DelGuzzi Drive. Director Collins indicated the stoplight since installed would make the stop sign no longer germane. Lengthy discussion followed concerning the issue of the ElS and SEPA. Councilman Lemon asked for clarification on the issue of density, based on the plan submitted in 1984, as compared to the proposal currently being considered. Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 10:50 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 11:00 P.M. Mayor Sargent reviewed options open to Council at this time as to how to proceed: Take more time to study the issues; accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission, citing findings, conclusions, and modifications; suggest some modifications and request staff to draft appropriate wording to be considered at a later meeting; or deny the proposal, asking staff to draft the appropriate findings and conclusions to be considered at a later meeting. Councilman Wight observed the Council has collectively and individually been indicted as being anti-environmentally sensitive. He felt his personal track record reflects a concern for environment, quality of life, and the general well-being of the community. He was certain this represents fully the position of all Councilmembers. He cited the example of observing Peninsula College dumping construction debris into the White's Creek ravine. He asked City staff to investigate the matter and the College President was asked to cooperate and discontinue the practice in the name of being environmentally sensitive. Councilman Wight expressed his strong belief that all residential neighborhoods of all classifications, whether they be multi- or single-family in nature, are entitled to certain basic amenities and qualities of life. It is improper for this community to cloister all of its high-density housing into small areas so as to create what equates to a ghetto. The CityVs Comprehensive Plan speaks to that specific issue by encouraging the interspersing of multi-family housing or higher density housing into traditional lower density residential neighborhoods as a proper way to proceed. In terms of this specific project, the scenario created is very appealing. He believes the PRD process, in spite of the fact there have been many argumentative positions taken, has been one which has generated a fair amount of de facto compromise. Having considered the testimony offered, Councilman Wight indicated he believes the process has worked in order to seek the most appropriate compromises. As such, Councilman Wight moved to approve the Planned Residential Development Plan "C", as modified by the Planning Commission in Exhibit "A", citing the following findings and conclusions: EXHIBIT "A": (1) The 150-foot buffer along Ennis Creek shall remain totally undisturbed, except for the trail as noted in Condition #3, grading or other disturbance affecting the buffer area in accordance with approval of the Department of Fisheries, to be given prior to any construction in that 150-foot area; (2) Buildings on Lot 1 shall be limited to three inhabitable floors above a parking garage, and the northernmost parking area (Plan C) shall be eliminated; (3) The Watershed Company's trail proposal as 1839 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 approved by the Department of Fisheries shall be constructed with the elimination of the trail connection to the Port Angeles School District property, with lighted areas similar to that shown in Plan C. The trail shall include a five-strand wire fence between the trail and the east side of Ennis Creek, as previously approved by the Department of Fisheries. This five-strand wire fence shall be connected to a chain link fence running along the eastern property boundary and north of the 150-foot buffer on the east side of Ennis Creek, as it intercepts the eastern property line. Enhancements of protective habitats (i.e., holes, pools, etc.) for anadronomous fish shall be provided per Department of Fisheries approval; (4) A slatted chain link fence shall extend along the 150-foot buffer on the west side of Ennis Greek, the east property line, and the south property line; provided that the property owners (Dr. and Mrs. Mantooth) provide an easement for a fence on Lots 9 and 13. However, the easement will not be a condition of approval; (5) Reduced lot sizes (less than 9,000 square feet) would be allowed, as proposed; however, the setbacks must conform to the underlying RS-9 Zoning District; (6) Multi-family buildings under two stories shall be located no closer than 10 feet to a street; no multi-family structure over three stories shall be located closer than 25 feet to a street; no structure shall be located closer than 25 feet from an external property line (external to the PRD); (7) An erosion control bond and a bond or equivalent measure to allow for restoration of sensitive areas disturbed during the construction process are required prior to issuance of any building permits; (8) At such time as a public trail system is developed in Ennis Creek, that portion of the PRD trail connecting to the public trail would be dedicated to the public by the homeowners' association; (9) Signage will be provided as determined by City staff in order to restrict access to the environmentally sensitive Creek area; (10) All inhabitable structures shall be sprinklered in this PRD; (11) A sight-obscuring or vegetative screening fence, as well as asphalt paving will be provided around the RV parking area shown on the plan, as proposed on the landscaping portion of the current plan (Plan C); (12) Development of the PRD shall not deny future access to the Morse and Brooks properties. Access shall be made available at fair market value; (13) The trail, as described in Condition #3, shall be located entirely on Lots 2 and 3; FINDINGS: (1) The Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Port Angeles have been reviewed with respect to the proposed Planned Residential Development; (2) The proposed PRD is situated on 31.8 acres of land zoned RMF, RS-9, and PBP; (3) The proposed PRD is for 236 units of multi-family dwellings, 5 units of single-family residences, and 10 duplex units, which require a Conditional use Permit; (4) The Planning Commission's recommendation on population density shall be based upon Sections 17.70.060, .061, and .120 of the Zoning Code and is calculated to be 435 housing units for the 36.5 acres of the subject site; (5) There are 12 acres of RMF zoned area in the PRD, resulting in a density of 19.3 units/acre, compared to allowable RMF density of 28.2 units/acre. There are 31.8 acres in the PRD area resulting in a density of 7.8 units/acre, compared to allowable PRD density of 13.1 units/acre; (6) Common open space is defined in Sections 17.70.011 and .050(B) of the Zoning Code as accessible to all residents, either unoccupied or recreation facilities, and not usable if a street right-of-way, driveway, parking area, or utility structure or if a separate parcel not owned by a homeowners association; (7) The site plan of record for the PRD and the preliminary plat application was filed with the City on January 8, 1991; (8) The Planning Commission's recommendation on preliminary PRD approval shall be based upon compliance with Sections 17.70.050 and .120 of the Zoning Code; (9) The phased SEPA review of the subject site and proposal has resulted in the identification of 71 mitigation measures; (10) Ennis Creek, an anadronomous fish-bearing stream, is an important natural feature found on the site, which also has a rolling terrain with steep slopes, particularly along the Ennis Creek Ravine; (11) The Washington State Department of Fisheries has approved a recreational trail plan with 150-foot natural vegetation buffers for the ravine floor area of the subject site; (12) The applicant indicates the Ennis Creek Estates is planned to take advantage of and enhance the natural amenities to create a residential park development, while preserving these natural amenities and emphasizing the protection and conservation of the Ravine; (12) It is intended the Planned Residential Developments will result in a residential environment of higher quality than traditional lot-by-lot development by use of a design process which includes within the site design all the components of a residential neighborhood, such as open space, circulation, building types, and natural features, in a manner consonant with the public health, safety, and welfare; (14) The PRD is served by DelGuzzt Drive and utility improvements made through LID #211; (15) The total area of landscaped yards and community play areas and recreation facilities adds up to approximately 36% of the PRD site area as usable common open space; (16) Lot 2 open space recreation area adds up to approximately 35% of the PRD site area as undisturbed or common usable -16~ 1840 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 open space; (17) Approximately 23 acres (62% of the site) is left in its relatively undisturbed natural vegetation state; CONCLUSIONS: (A) The proposed Ennis Creek Estates is consistent with'the-Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and in particular the following policy statements: "Residential developments should allow Planned Unit Development techniques where emphasis is on the overall density of the development rather than individual lots or dwelling units. Standards should be established to assure access and services adequate for the density and type of residential development proposed." "High density development should be allowed in areas which would provide aesthetic amenities or suburban environmental characteristics to a larger percentage of the population, provided such development would not have adverse impacts on the surrounding low density development." "Wherever possible, unique environmental and topographic features should be preserved." "Natural topographic conditions and soil conditions should be a major determinant of the intensity of development of all areas of the community."; (B) The proposed density of the PRD meets the allowances in Section 17.70.060 and should be approved consistent with mitigations measures of environmental impacts; (G) The usable common open space provided by the PRD exceeds the required 30% and preserves on-site the unique natural feature of Ennis Creek; (D) The proposed development creates a residential environment of higher quality than that normally achieved by traditional development of a subdivision; (E) Through buffers of landscaping and single-family and duplex uses, the PRD will be compatible with adjacent existing and future developments; (F) Ail necessary municipal utilities, services, and facilities, existing and proposed, are adequate to serve the proposed development, as conditioned; (G) The proposed street system is adequate for the anticipated traffic levels and functionally connected to a principal arterial; (H) Phasing of PRD improvements is not proposed, although individual buildings may be developed in phases; (I) The proposed duplexes satisfy the requirements for Conditional Use Permit approval; (J) Provisions for continuous maintenance and ownership of common open space areas and common and private PRD facilities will be assured by the covenants, restrictions, and conditions in the homeowners' association; (K) The public use and interest will be served by the Planned Residential Development and the platting of the subdivision, which make appropriate provisions for the public health, safety, and welfare. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett. Councilman Cornell expressed concern about the open space included in the proposal which, in his opinion, would not enhance the lifestyles of the residents as intended. Related to this was his concern with the density issue. Councilman Cornell addressed specific common areas, parks, playgrounds, a recreation center, one tennis court and one trail, and the need to measure the actual size which would not meet the needs of the residents. He felt the Council is charged with the responsibility of enhancing the style of life of the people living in the development. He felt this would not be accomplished. He questioned the width of DelGuzzi Drive and whether the width is sufficient to accommodate the amount of traffic. Additionally, he questioned safety for the residents. Councilman Lemon opined the City has deviated from the original concept in terms of density; he expressed concern with the impact to the community. He referenced the history of the zoning and annexation in the area and noted different groups are presently studying community need in terms of multi-family housing. He expressed concern with the message which would be relayed by the approval of the PRD. It has been pointed out that other property is available within the City limits for purposes of multi-family housing. Councilman Lemon felt the community needs have not been met for those individuals already - residing on the east side in terms of parks and places for children to go. He expressed concern the children would go to the ravine, a concern already stated. He felt there is an infrastructure problem in existence; existing systems need to be upgraded now in terms of pump stations, larger lines, and the like. He was concerned the costs would be borne by the community and not the developers. Councilman Lemon indicated he was not opposed to a development in the area, but rather was opposed to the density which has not been addressed properly through this PRD. Councilman Ostrowski agreed this is an environmentally sensitive area. The issue of quality of life must be a consideration; yet it must be realized there is a need for additional housing. He expressed the opinion this area cannot accommodate the density as proposed and indicated his willingness to consider more input. Discussion followed concerning the open space, sidewalks, street width, density, and the like. Director Collins explained open space and playground and 1841 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 recreational space involved in terms of national standards already established. It had been the position of the Planning Commission that such space should be dispersed more throughout the entire development. Until a final building plan is available, Director Collins indicated it is difficult to explain the areas in detail. Concerning the tennis court, Director Collins indicated this type of facility is not provided to the general public in the same proportion as it would in this particular development. The area for the trails was considered to be a significant area, comprising approximately 11 acres on the east side of Ennis Creek, as well as a section on the west side. In the City's Park Plan, one of the assessments indicated the trails were one of the more heavily used recreational facilities and were, therefore, highly desirable. In planning for this project, particularly because it included a nursing home facility, it was expected that a large number of the residents would more than likely be retired individuals. The expectation was that the par course and the trail were intended primarily for people using walking as an exercise. Various subjective judgments must be made as to quality, specific design, and number of recreation units. In responding to an inquiry from Councilman Hallett, Director Collins addressed matters pertinent to road width, safety, sidewalks, bicycles, and the like. State subdivision laws make a strong point for providing pedestrian connection for school children to school facilities. The School District had indicated there would be a bus route through the area. According to the current plans, Director Collins indicated there would be a sidewalk on the east side of DelGuzzi Drive and an asphalt par course on the west. Councilman Hallett inquired as to whether it would be important to review results of the housing needs survey before a final determination is made on this proposal. Director Collins responded the City made a conscious decision a year ago to zone part of the property to multi-family residential based on need. No quantified study has been conducted; however, there was information gained in the environmental review process as to vacancy rates at the time this proposal was made. This information was relied upon in the review process to justify there was a need for additional housing in the City, particularly multi- family housing. Councilman Hallett asked how one can factually link environmental issues to quality of life and further, how can a determination be made as to how a particular area can support a development of this type to a point where anything beyond that destroys the integrity of that area. Director Collins referenced previous commentaries as to the extent of the buffer and how the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife can justify as necessary. Another consideration is how an optimum density standard is adopted. Analyses of the density have been completed in relationship to the type of development allowed by the code. It is generally accepted that a mixture of density has enhanced the quality of life and the environment in the neighborhood. Director Collins directed comments toward the phasing of the construction in the development Additionally, it has been determined the project meets the criteria for planned residential development, satisfies mitigation of environmental impacts, and satisfies the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmembers then addressed the issue of density and the frustration in finding an area which is acceptable for multi-family housing. Councilman Cornell addressed concern as to what density is appropriate for this particular area. Councilman Wight noted the past difficulties in trying to locate multi- family housing throughout town which would be acceptable to all concerned. Councilman Nicholson indicated the PRD mechanism is the ideal way to obtain affordable multi-family housing. It is incumbent on Council to make decisions which serve the best interest of the City. There appears to be no place in the City where multi-family housing can be located without the populace saying the property in question is unique and should be excluded from consideration because of traffic congestion, environmental issues, and the like. Councilman Nicholson felt Council would have no better opportunity than this to provide multi-family housing. He felt the Planning Commission had done an outstanding job in dealing with all of the issues, trying to resolve the issues and arrive at a desirable end product. Mayor Sargent asked for clarification in that, if the project were denied, would the PRD be denied or could a motion be made in order to allow for another proposal. Attorney Knutson responded that the rezone ordinance provides that an acceptable PRD has to be presented to the City Council before an RMF rezone would take effect. Unless the Council specifically stated that no PRD could 1842 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 be presented which would be acceptable for that area, then the property owner could return with another proposal. If the Council determined that this PRD should be denied, the motion could be to deny the PRD either with prejudice or without prejudice for a resubmittal of a different PRD application. Discussion continued with respect to determining the appropriate level of density. Councilman Hallett felt the City will be subject to future growth and issues such as this must be dealt with in making decisions to meet the needs of the community. In this particular case, he felt the development has merit~ however, defining optimum density continues to be a frustration. Further, Councilman Hallett felt environmental issues will be a part of every consideration in this community. Councilman Wight offered the possibility of reducing the density and, in that regard, discussion followed as to how to best resolve that specific concern. Councilmembers gave lengthy consideration to various sites and building types and densities in the proposed development and the possible scenarios for density reduction. Councilman Lemon referenced a map from 1984 reflecting proposed construction for the area at that time. Consideration was also given to future growth in the Uplands and what density had been agreed upon for that area. Mayor Sargent summarized what Council had expressed, in that there is support of the PRD concept; there is a need for RMF~ and this project meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, but there is concern about the density. Should Council decide to reduce the density, the Mayor indicated another public hearing would not be necessary. Councilman Wight raised the question that, if Council were to modify the site plan proposal in terms of different requirements or reduced densities, what would then be required of Council? Attorney Knutson responded that, to some extent, it would depend on what type of modifications would be suggested. The PRD ordinance allows for Council to make modification to the Planning Commission's recommendation. If the modifications require changes to the actual plans, then it would be appropriate to have the plans revised in order to have something in the record to reflect the actual plans as agreed upon. This would probably necessitate the applicant modifying the plans. In addition, modifications to the findings and conclusions would have to be made, as well as the conditions in Exhibit "A". At this time, Councilman Wight withdrew his motion. Councilman Hallett moved to consider changing Lot #1 to a 42-bed congregate care facility (elderly housing) and to consider changing Lot #4 to Single-Family or Duplex mix, with the matter returning to Council at its March 5, 1991, meeting for action or other form of consideration, after which time Council would direct staff to prepare conditions, findings, and conclusions. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ostrowski. After further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. Councilman Gornell moved to also consider the issue of the trail at the March 5, 1991, meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon. A vote was taken on the motion which carried by a majority vote, with Councilmen Cornell, Lemon, Nicholson and Ostrowski voting in favor of the motion, and Councilmen Hallett and Wight voting in opposition. 2. Discussion of Community Development Block Grant Application - City Manager Pomeranz reviewed discussion held at the last City Council meeting at which time the Council directed staff to prepare a Community Development Block Grant application for a social services center to be located at the current Senior Center. It would be anticipated that the current Senior Center would be vacated upon the construction of a new facility. The staff spent a great deal of time evaluating the proposal and found the concept to be excellent. However, in discussing the concept with State officials, it was learned that, in order to submit the strongest application possible, the City should place additional focus on the application. It has been suggested that the Senior Center be combined with the social services. Manager Pomeranz submitted this as a proposal to continue the pursuit of the CDBG application and combine the Senior Center with various other senior-related social service programs. This would be at a site other than the current Senior Center site. Councilman Nicholson moved to adopt the proposal as submitted by Manager Pomeranz to pursue the Community Development Block Grant with an ~pplication for a Senior Center combined with various other senior-related 1843 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 28, 1991 social service programs, with the site other than the present Senior Center site. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. After limited discussion, a vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. IX ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M. Clerk ~ ~/ CC.209 -20-