Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/18/1995 . . . AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGELES PLANNING COJ.\llM:ISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 January 18, 1995 Special Hearing 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL ill. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: Meeting of January 11, 1995 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. DEVEWPMENT STANDARDS FOR URBAN SERVICES ORDINANCE: Adoption of development standards for consistency with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and with the Growth Management Act. (Continued from December 14, 1994.) 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS ORDINANCE (Continued from December 14, 1994.) V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS vm. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence penaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the PLANNING COMMISSION: Orville Campbell, Chair, Cindy Souder:;, Bob Wlnter:;, Bob Philpott, Bob King, Tim German, and Linda Nutter. STAFF; Bred Collins, Director. Sue Roberds Office SpwialiSl, and David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request, Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be allowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents will be heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Board, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 January 18, 1995 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting ROLL CALL Members Present: Orville Campbell, Bob King, Bob Philpott, Cindy Souders, Linda Nutter, Bob Winters, Tim German Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, David Sawyer, Bruce Becker, Jack Pittis, Bob Titus, Steve Hursch, Ed Bonollo Public Present: Jerry Schwagler, Art Dunker, Jim Reed, Joe Michalczik, David Noonan, Katie Jacobs APPROV AL OF MINUTES Commissioner Philpott moved to approve the January 11, 1995, minutes with a correction to page 6 to include the Commission's vote. Commissioner Nutter seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR URBAN SERVICES ORDINANCE: Adoption of development standards for consistency with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and with the Growth Management Act. (Continued from December 14, 1994.) Chair Campbell opened the special public hearing. Senior Planner David Sawyer reviewed the Department Report and recommended adoption of an urban services ordinance (USO) and a comprehensive plan implementation ordinance (CPIA) following the public hearing. He also summarized a letter from the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development regarding the consequences of Growth Management non-compliance. Representatives from the Fire, Light, Public Works Departments were available to respond to questions from the public or Commissioners. Art Dunker, 2114 West Sixth Street, showed a short video demonstrating the use of residential sprinklers and referred to information from the video and written material he presented to support the Homebuilder's Association's position that residential sprinklers are not cost effective nor justifiable and should not be mandated in new construction. Newer construction techniques result in very much safer structures. Only three percent Planning Commission J anuar)' 18, 1995 Page 2 . of fIres occur in newer homes. Ninety-four percent of fires are small and are extinguished by property owners. Residential sprinkler response is nearly seven minutes after a smoke detector response. The average cost for residential sprinkler construction is $2500. Smoke detectors in older homes would be very beneficial and reduce a good number of fire injuries. A functioning smoke detector is the biggest life saving device available. There are only three jurisdictions in the State of Washington that mandate residential sprinklers. Mr. Dunker answered Commissioner Winters that smoke detectors do not detect carbon monixide gas. Eric Tobin, 433 Edgewood Drive, has been a volunteer fireman for the past ten years. It was his opinion that residential sprinklers save property, not lives. A residential . sprinkler system costs approximately $2000 for a fifteen hundred square foot residence, and can result in an approximate ten percent discount on homeowner's insurance rates. New construction requirements result in much safer structures. Emphasis should be on smoke detectors not residential sprinklers. . Jim Reed, 485 Blue Mountain Road, noted that the Light Department appears to be requiring utility construction to be underground. Underground is more expensive and there is not at present a method to recoup the initial investment by a latecomer's agreement. He suggested that if the City is going to require all new residential construction to be telecable ready that the City should require the telecable franchisee to provide the cable to be placed at the time of construction at no charge rather than a charge to the homeowner to lay the cable and hookup at a cost of approximately $115 + per household. He also asked for clarification on a listing or map of streets that are school walking routes which would require sidewalks. There being no further comment from the audience, Chair Campbell closed the public hearing. Jim Reed responded further to Commissioners on the ease of the procedure of laying telecable in an open ditch during construction as opposed to an additional construction expense at a later time, and expressed the opinion that since the telecable company would be recouping its cable cost many times over in cable fees from the homeowner, the initial construction cost could be required to be borne by the company through the City's licensing process. Mr. Sawyer pointed out that the usa draft ordinance only requires telecable access in new subdivisions and short plats, not single home construction. Commissioner German added that in the development of new subdivisions, the telecable company will provide the cable if you give them enough lead time. It is only in the case of a single home that is not already served by a telecable trunk line that new cable must be layed. . The Commission then began review of individual sections of the usa draft ordinance addressed in the public hearing. Following discussion, Commissioner Winters moved to recommend approval of Section 18.08.100 - Telecommunication Service P111D11ing Commiuion January 18, 1995 Page 3 . Requirements as written adding the wording n All lots in new subdivisions and new short subdivisions ..." for clarification. Cotnmis.~ioner Nutter seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Commi~ioner Winters moved to amend Section 18.08.020 A. - nefmitions - llDevelopmentn, to read "Development" means any activity requirine: a oennit which would alter the elevation of the land, remove or destroy plant life, cause structures of any kind to be installed, erected, or removed..." Commi~ioner Philpott seconded the motion. Considerable discussion resulted as to what is development, following which the question was called and passed unanimously. Chair Campbell called for a break at 8:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. . Commi~ioner Philpott moved to approve of the wording in Section 18.08.040(D) - Street and Access Requirements as written. The motion died for lack of a second. . Following discussion with staff as to the intent of Section 18.08.040, Commi~sioner Gennan moved to amend the wording in Section 18.08.040(D) - Street and Access Requirements to read "Development that creates pedestrian traffic on aU arterial Streets and any other street identified in the City's transportation plan as school walking routes shall include pedestrian sidewalks." Commissioner Winters seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Public Works Director Jack Pittis provided a map indicating where sidewalks should occur within the City. The Planning Commission asked that a map identifying the location of required sidewalks be included in the Public Works Design Standards notebook. City Light Director Bob Titus responded to the Commission that the Light Department is requiring all new electrical utility service to be placed underground. A $1013 credit is offered to encourage underground service installation, Therefore construction under $1013 is free with the homeowner/contractor only responsible for amounts over $1013. The City's Utility Advisory Committee is working on specific wording for the requirements. In discussion of Section 18.08.110 - Fire Suppression Requirement, Fire Marshall Bruce Becker provided a brief video supporting the requirement for residential sprinklers in new construction. He then provided a brief history of the City's preparation to require residential sprinkler systems in new residential construction. The City has been requiring residential developments outside of a four-minute response radius to install residential sprinkler systems, the reason being to avoid the construction of a second fire station. Ninety percent of the City can be reached in both fire and life safety situations within four minutes. . Mr. Becker likened a sprinkler system to having a fire fighter waiting in each room in the event of a fire. He provided first hand examples of fire situations in which smoke detectors worked but that if sprinklers had been available the life/property loss would Planning Commission January 18. 1995 Page 4 . have been minimized. The use of smoke detectors is sound but not life saving. Smoke detectors are not intended to put out fires or contain themt but are intended and designed to detect smoke and alert, a good deal of the time long after permanent damage and life danger has occurred. He provided a brief description of installation techniques and noted that annual inspections are performed yearly by the Fire Department to ensure the systems are functioning properly. Commissioner Philpott moved to recommend amendment to the proposed Section 18.08.110 - FIre Suppression Requirements to read "All single-family residences and duplexes shaU either be located within a four-minute response time from a City of Port Angeles f"lI'e station or be equipped with a residential sprinkler system that is installed and maintained in accordance with Uniform Frre Code lUFC) and National Fare Protection Association lNFPAl standards adapted hy tfie Yft Chid 8F the Fire . Ciders desigB<<:." Commissioner King seconded the motion. . Commissioner German indicated that he would not be in favor of a standard requiring residential sprinklers. Smoke detectors alert and get people out of a residence. Although he has a residential sprinkler system in his residence (at a cost of approximately $2700), it should be optional. Everyone in the City pays for fire services including residents who reside outside the four-minute response radiust but those residing outside the four-minute response radius to the fire station pay much more because of the City's desire to save the cost of a new fire station. This is in essence an added tax burden and an incentive, perhaps a rebate, should be in place for those who elect and can afford fire sprinklers, but it should not be a requirement to have residential sprinklers. Most new construction is occurring outside the four minute radius. Commissioner Winters noted, in light of the recent Seattle fire tragedy, that sprinklers would likely result in less than a total structure involvement when firefighters arrive thus placing the firefighters in less potentially deadly situations. Commissioner King felt a homeowner would recoup more than the $2500 sprinkler investment cost in the event of a fire. Commissioner German reiterated that some people cannot afford the cost of the system and therefore cannot afford a new home. The question was called for and passed 6 - 1 with Commissioner Gennan voting in the negative for the reasons he previously stated. Chair Campbell agreed that the cost of sprinkler systems is a considerable expense but said it is a lot less expensive than the cost of funding a new fire station to the citizens of Port Angeles. Commissioner Souders agreed. Commissioner Nutter added that sprinklers would provide a safety factor needed to save lives. . Commissioner German asked if Section 18.08.120 - Urban Services Required through SEP A Process would result in more impact fees. Planning Director Collins answered that he did not believe so. The intention of the GMA is to allow for impact fees through Planning CommiaaioD January 18, 1995 Page 5 . GMA not SEPA. It does not prohibit or stop other jurisdictions such as transit or schools from imposing impact fees because they have different authorities but would prevent parks/recreation and police from the imposition of impact fees. The section does not open the door for impact fees through GMA. Informative discussion continued on the issue. Regarding Section 18.08.130 - Urban Services Standards and Guidelines, Director Collins noted that the wording allows formalization of current procedures and allows for public scrutiny. Director Pittis added that this section requires all the procedures, whether they be in map form, resolution, ordinances, or in policy manuals to be brought together in one document which is the appropriate method to present the material to developers and the - general public. Commissioner Souders moved to amend the proposed wording in Section 18.08.130(A) Urban Services Standards and Guidelines such that "Each City Department that is responsible for adminiqering the urban services set forth in this Chapter shall ha"t't the atttkarity ta develop, update, administer, and enforce standards and guidelines..." Commissioner German seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. . Commissioner Winters moved to continue the meeting beyond 10 p.m. Commissioner German seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Commissioner German raised the question of when a homeowner who currently has an acceptably functioning septic system would be required to hook into an adjacent sewer system. It would be an unnecessary hookup fee to the homeowner who already has a functioning septic system to be required to then hookup to a sewer system. Public Works Director Pittis responded that if a residence is more than three hundred feet from a sewer facility, the cost of hookup is over two hundred percent of the cost of an approved septic system, the owner signs a non-protest L.I.D., and there are no health problems, the sewer hookup requirement will be waived. Discussion as to the equitabiIity and need to require a homeowner to hookup to the sewer in cases of a functioning septic system continued. Mr. Collins noted that previous wording allowed for the City Manager, Director of Public Works and the Health Officer acting in concert to issue a waiver for sewer hookup in pre-existing residential situations. Director Pittis asked for time to work with the City Attorney on wording which would incorporate language to allow granting of waivers for pre-existing structures when septic systems are working properly. ~ With the exception of the rewording to be prepared with regard to Section 13.61 as it . . d'.A-' relates to pre-existing septic systems, which re-wording will be presented for review by VJc~..:1L- the Planning Commission prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council at I'J->P:P/ / its February 7, 1995, hearing, Commissioner Souders moved to recommend adoption ,_ 'j p_6 ) q &l ..;.. ') V/ . . . Planning CommiSBion January 18, 1995 Page 6 of the draft ordinance proposed implementing the new Comprehensive Plan provisions regarding urban services, amending Ordinance No. 2394 and Chapter 13.61 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code, and adopting Chapter 18.08 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code, with the changes heretofore noted and citing the following fmdings and conclusions: Findings: 1. The Growth Management Act of 1990 required that the City of Port Angeles adopt a Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations consistent with the Act and its goals. 2. Over four" years ago the City of Port Angeles formed a citizen's Growth Management Advisory Committee to recommend a Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations based on community involvement with early and cqntinuous public participation in the planning process. 3. The Growth Management Advisory Committee has met weekly for many of the months during this long planning process, and the City has held numerous public meetings and public hearings on each step in this process. 4. On June 28, 1994, the City of Port Angeles adopted a Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Act and the legislative deadline of July 1, 1994. 5. The City was granted a six month extension of the legislative deadline for adoption of Development Regulations to January 1, 1995. 6. On December 14, 1994 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and received considerable public testimony requesting additional time to review the proposed ordinances. 7. On December 14, 1994 the Planning Commission continued its public hearing on this item to January 18, 1995. 8. On December 20, 1994 the City Council held a public hearing on this item and also received public testimony requesting additional time to review the proposed ordinances. 9. On December 20, 1994 the City Council continued its public hearing on this item to February 7, 1995. 10. Titles 11 (Streets and Sidewalks), 13 (Public Works), 14 (Building & Construction), 15 (Environment), and 16 (Subdivisions) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMe) have been reviewed as part of this analysis. 11. Titles 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the PAMC, are five of the six primary titles that implement the Comprehensive Plan. . . . Planning Commission January 18, 1995 Page 7 12. The City's Development Regulations including Titles 11, 13. 14, 15, and 16 of the (PAMC) must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Goals. Policies and Objectives. 13. Titles 11 and 15 are already generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives. 14. Title 17 (Zoning) of the PAMC is being reviewed and revised for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan separate from this action. 15. The addition of Title 18 (Growth Management) including Chapter 18.04 to the P AMC is required to establish procedures for implementation and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Notice for these amendments to Titles 13, 14 and 16 of the PAMe and the ac;idition of Title 18 including Chapter 18.04 was given per the City and State legal requirements. 17. A programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Plan was issued on August 6, 1993, and included review of impacts related to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives. Conclusions: A. The amendments to Titles 13, 14 and 16 of the PAMC and the addition of Title 18 including Chapter 18.04 are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's, Goals, Policies and Objectives of the Growth Management Act. B. The amendments to Titles 13, 14 and 16 of the PAMC and the addition of Title 18 including Chapter 18.04 are in the public use and interest. Commissioner King seconded the motion which passed 6 - 1 with Commissioner Gennan voting in the negative because of the opinion he stated regarding the mandate for residential sprinklers. The Commission took a break at 10:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:40 p,m. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS ORDINANCE (Continued from December 14, 1994.) Chair Campbell opened the public hearing. Planning Director Collins answered questions concerning the timeframe and procedure for amendment to the new Comprehensive Plan amendment review. Chair Campbell closed the public hearing. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Nutter moved to adopt an ordinance implementing and providing a process for amending the new Comprehensive Plan, establishing a new title in the Port Angeles Municipal Code to be called "Growth Management" and adopting Chapter 18.04 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code citing the fOllowing . . . Planning Commission January 18, 1995 Page 8 fmdings and conclusions: Findings: 1. The Growth Management Act of 1990 required that the City of Port Angeles adopt a Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations consistent with the Act and its goals. 2. Over four years ago the City of Port Angeles formed a citizen's Growth Management Advisory Committee to recommend a Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations based on community involvement with early and continuous public participation in the planning process. '. q3. The Growth Management Advisory Committee has met weekly for many of the months during this long planning process, and the City has held numerous public meetings and public hearings on each step in this process. 4, On June 28, 1994, the City of Port Angeles adopted a Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Act and the legislative deadline of July 1, 1994. 5, The City was granted a six month extension of the legislative deadline for adoption of Development Regulations to January 1, 1995. 6. On December 14, 1994 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and received considerable public testimony requesting additional time to review the proposed ordinances. 7. On December 14, 1994 the Planning Commission continued its public hearing on this item to January 18, 1995. 8. On December 20, 1994 the City Council held a public hearing on this item and also received public testimony requesting additional time to review the proposed ordinances. 9. On December 20, 1994 the City Council continued its public hearing on this item to February 7, 1995. 10. Titles 11 (Streets and Sidewalks), 13 (Public Works), 14 (Building & Construction), 15 (Environment), and 16 (Subdivisions) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMC) have been reviewed as part of this analysis. 11. Titles 11 , 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the PAMC, are five of the six primary titles that implement the Comprehensive Plan. 12. The City's Development Regulations including Titles 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the (PAMC) must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Poli~ies and Objectives. . . . Planning CommiBIJion January 18, 1995 Page 9 13. Titles 11 and 15 are already generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives. 14. Title 17 (Zoning) of the PAMC is being reviewed and revised for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan separate from this action. 15. The addition of Title 18 (Growth Management) including Chapter 18.04 to the PAMe is required to establish procedures for implementation and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Notice for these amendments to Titles 13, 14 and 16 of the PAMC and the addition of Title 18 including Chapter 18.04 was given per the City and State legal requirements. 17. Aprogrammatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Plan was issued on August 6, 1993, and included review of impacts related to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives. Conclusions: A. The amendments to Titles 13, 14 and 16 of the PAMC and the addition of Title 18 including Chapter 18.04 are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's, Goals, Policies and Objectives of the Growth Management Act. B. The amendments to Titles 13, 14 and 16 of the PAMe and the addition of Title 18 including Chapter 18.04 are in the public use and interest. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIC None. STAFF REPORTS Director Collins was pleased to announce that Commissioners Souders and Campbell had agreed to and been reappointed for additional four-year terms beginning March C 1995. . . . Planning Commission January 18, 1995 Page 10 REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. ~~ B d CollIns, Secretary ~!!~~<- PREPARED BY: S. Roberds . . - ATTACHMENT to JANUARY 18.1995 MINUTES The following wording to Section 13.61 is recommended as referenced on page 5 of the January 18, 1995, Planning Commission Minutes as follows: Section 2. Chapter II, Section 7 of Ordinance 2394 and P AMC 13.61.070 are hereby amended to read as follows: 13.61.070 Sewer Required. The owner or owners of each lot or parcel of real property within the area served or to be served by the pl:tblieCity sanitary sewer system as it now exists or as it may be extended, upon which lot or parcel is situated any building or structure for '. Q!lman occupation or for any purpose requiring the use of water which will produce sewage, shall, prior to ap.pfOval by the City of a certificate of occupancy or upon notice from the Director, Cause a connection to be made at his af theirthe expense of the owner or owners between said I'HBlieCity sanitary sewer system and each such building or structure unless otherwise allowed pursuant to PAMC 13.61.090. ,A.U premises withift the sewer serviee area 9.Rd y/ithift 300 feet af a Sftflitftry sewer ar lateral H:tereef Hp6B .....kieh any fJOrtiOft of s6eh 6liiltliRg af strueftlrt: is sitliftteEl :fflttH Be tieemea te Be with:iB the area servoo BY sliell pttb.l:ie se.....er; pmvide8 1hat the City Manager, the Direettlr EtfIe the Health Oftirer, aeaRg ia eefteert, Hitty is:nte a fe'/eeable permit Wai',iRg this requiremeat if, ia their uftB:Rimeus ot>iRiOfl, sucb an installa.tion is ee01'\omiet1:l1y linfeasiBle tilie to tOfJOgfllphie c6flditioftS anti a sanitary problem will Rat be ereftted. Afty perseR fe<:lliestiRg slieh a J'6'ffiit and BeiRg deRie<! ORe mtty appeel the deeisiOH ttl the Cit), Cel:tReil withiR thiff'j (30) days after reeeh' iRg Retire of aenial of ~Ilieh permit. The ElecisioR of tbe City COtiBcil SHall be fiRal witluntt MY furt-her B.f>I:leal tEl t1te eeurts. Section 3. Chapter II, Section 9 of Ordinance 2394 and P AMC 13.61.090 are hereby amended to read as follows: 13.61.090 Private Wastewater Disposal System Required Allowed - When. 'NAere a pliolie Sftftitary or eOffioi8oo sewer is 80t ft"t'itileble, the t:l1:iildiftg se'Jler shall Be eeRfteete6 k:) a priva.te WB.:3EeWater dispoS8:l system. BefeK eemme8Cemeftt of cOflstruetieH of a I'ri'+'8.te wastewater disposal system tHe owfter(s) shall first ebft1:iH e. .:..ritteR permit sigHed by the HealtH Offieer. Stich permit shaH be ebttlifte6 befere a Btiilttiftg permit will be issuoo atltheftz iHg any eoftstruetioft where se"'"age disposal is Feql:liretl Me He seYler is available. A. A revocable permit for an existing orivate wastewater disposal system may be obtained from the Public Works Director after consultation with the County Health Officer for as long as the existing svstem meets state and county requirements and does not cause any sanitary or other health problems. lh Either prior to approval by the City of a buildinf: permit for construction on a single lot existing on January I. 1995. or when a private wastewater disposal system had been but is no longer permitted pursuant to PAMC 13.61.090 A. the owner or owners may apply to the Director of Public Works for an exemption from the requirement in FAMC 18.08.060 and PAMC 13.61.070 that the building be served by the City sanitary sewer system. The exemption . may be granted only if all of the following requirements are met: .L. The lot is further than 300 feet from the City sanitary sewer system or a lateral thereof: b The cost of extending the City sanitary sewer system would be an economic hardship on the owner or owners in that the estimated cost of a sewer extension would be over 200% of the cost of an approved septic or other private wastewater disposal system: J... The owner or owners have signed a non-protest agreement for an LID to extend the City sanitary sewer system to the area: and. 4. The exemption will not be effective until a written permit for the septic or other private wastewater disposal system is obtained from the Clallam County Health Department. . . .c.... This Section shall not be construed to interfere with any additional requirements that may be imposed by the Health Officer. At such time as a public sewer becomes available to a property served by a private wastewater disposal system, a direct connection shall be made to the public sewer within ninety (90) days in compliance with this Chapter, and any septic tanks, cesspools, and similar private wastewater disposal facilities shall be cleaned of sludge and fLIled with suitable material. . .