Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/23/1991 . . .- AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 January 23, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Special meeting of January 16, 1991 IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. SHORT PLAT ORDINANCE REVIEW: Consideration of revision to the City's Short Plat Ordinance #2222. V. OLD BUSINESS: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT - PRO 90(04)1 - DEL BUR. INC.. Del Guzzi Drive: Proposal to allow a Planned Residential Development on property located south of SR 101, along Del Guzzi Drive, west of Ennis Creek. (Continued from January 16, 1991.) VI. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM TIlE PUBLIC Vll. STAFF REPORTS vm. REPORTS OF COMMISSION :MEMBERS IX. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence pertaining 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 hearing. PlaMing Commission: !.any U.ODlIrd, Chair; Ray Grover, Vice-Chair; Bill Anabel; Roger Catts; Cindy Souders; Iim Hulett; Bob Philpott. Planning SUItT: Bmd Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds. Planning Office Specialist. . . . Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 . PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Each person speaking shall give name, address and nature of interest in the matter. 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 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 Planing Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington January 23, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Leonard called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Roger Catts, William Anabel, Bob Philpott, Cindy Souders, Ray Gruver, Jim Hulett, Larry Leonard. Members Absent: None. staff Present: Brad collins, Sue Roberds, craig Knutson, Jack Pittis, Bruce Becker, Gary Kenworthy. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Philpott moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of January 16, 1991, as presented. Mr. Anabel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. . IV PUBLIC HEARING SHORT PLAT ORDINANCE REVIEW: Consideration of revision to the City's Short Plat Ordinance #2222. Chairman Leonard opened the public hearing. Mr. Collins explained that he had not been involved in the original review committee work and the Department Report would be presented verbally by the Public Works Director. Although the Planning Department feels there may be room for further improvement of the current ordinance, the Department concurs wi th the Public 'Works Department's recommendation dealing with reduction in the current minimum street standards. . Jack Pittis, Director of Public Works, stated that this effort to amend the Short Plat Ordinance began a number of years ago. A Short Plat Review Committee composed of concerned indi- viduals and City staff reviewed the Ordinance and proposed revisions. The City essentially feels that if we have to have a gravel standard, the proposal will work, as presented. The problem is with the gravel standard. Director pittis pre- sented a viewfoil comparing the current Ordinance provisions with the current Ordinance amendment proposal. The current Ordinance provides that when a short plat is approved in an area, a 17-foot wide asphalt roadway would be improved on the short plat side, with curb and gutter: and a 10-foot wide strip along the opposite side improved, with a 20-foot roadway from that area to the nearest paved roadway. If development PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 2 . should occur opposite the short plat roadway, the same stan- dard would be applied. The proposed amendment is to require a 20-foot gravel roadway for short plats to service the newly created lots, with modified shoulders, involving a non-protest agreement, a turn-around provided if the roadway is in excess of ISO feet in length, an approved roadway profile provided by the developer if there is no profile or grade established, and the developed side would have an improved shoulder for pedestrians. The issue at hand is whether or not a gravel roadway is an appropriate improvement to provide for an urban area. In his opinion, Director Pittis stated that City resi- dents choose to live in the City because of the urban ameni- ties, including curb and gutter and paved roadways. The concern is with initial costs to developers, being the major reason the City undertook this review. It is not necessarily cost-efficient to construct roadway improvements by LID due to price increases in material costs and other factors, between the time the non-protest agreement is signed and the LID is initiated. The Public Works Department handles numerous requests for service on gravel roads in the City yearly, during dry periods where dust is a problem, and at other times of the year for general maintenance requests caused by gravel roadways. The City does not have a dust palliative program, which is expensive to maintain. If we are going to have a gravel standard, we should get the best standard available. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk should still be required for arterial areas. Areas of the city which are presently experiencing difficulties due to unimproved area roadways (previously platted areas) were discussed. . Mr. Collins noted that as far as the laws of the state are concerned from the Planning Department's perspective, short plats and formal subdivisions should be viewed the same. The primary difference does not have to do with the standards of development, but the process for creating more lots. Short subdivisions are done administratively, with full subdivisions being processed through the Planning Commission and Ci ty Council. The idea of a short plat is that when dealing with only a few pieces of property, 'conceivably an 'administrative decision could be more expeditious; however, the same stan- dards should apply. There should be one standard for development throughout the City. . In response to a question from Chairman Leonard, Attorney Knutson answered that state law leaves short plat standards up to the City to develop on its own. In full SUbdivisions, the state outlines general standards which have to be followed~ the individual city then develops specific street standards through its public works department. The Planning Director's feeling is that from a policy perspective, the standards should be the same. In response to Chairman Leonard, Mr. Collins answered that it is not uncommon to have separate standards for subdivisions and short subdivisions. Mr. Collins understood that the PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 3 . Public Works Department's proposal is to differentiate between short and long subdivision requirements, but the actual traveled roadway would be very similar (i.e., asphalt) and complaints concerning maintenance of graveled roadways would be better addressed. The intent of the Department's revised ordinance is to encourage development without being self- defeating about standards. Director pittis answered questions concerning different methods of road surfacing, expected maintenance schedules and costs, as well as late-comers fees for street improvements. He noted that late-comer fees have not been successful on a general State-wide basis because they are difficult to enforce. Non-protest agreements and LID requirements were discussed. ~ Mr. Collins noted t~ere may be other concerns with the City'S short platting requirements which members of the audience may wish to address and recalled the directions from the City Council following the Abbott short plat application. . Ken Schermer, 738 West Sixth Street, said he is very pleased to see this proposed ordinance finally come before the Planning Commission. Concerns expressed are valid. A problem with the present Ordinance is that it requires developers to improve more area than they are developing. The proper method to develop those areas is by LID. Gravel would be a step toward improvement until the area is developed enough to form an LI D. Jerry Newlin, 717 South Peabody street, served on the Short Plat Review Committee. He stated the City has a need for continuous improved streets, but the need should not be the burden of individual developers. The gravel would be an interim improvement until a higher level of development allows for a non-protest LID. Requirements should be consistent. . Joe Melton, 507 West Seventh street, also served on the Short Plat Review Committee. Mr. Melton gave a brief background of the Committee. It should not be the responsibility of private developers to develop road profiles in the city. It is very difficult to apply the same standards for long subdivisions to short SUbdivisions; there are different needs and design problems. State law recognizes full and short subdivisions individually. Mr. Melton said it is questionable whether the City owns any rights-of-way in the Townsite. He believes ownership of the rights-of-way are in the Federal government. Being our centennial year, it would be a good issue to settle. This area was developed by the Federal government and shows a standard way of dividing suburban lots. Rights-of-way create a hardship for plats in improving both sides of the street. The County requires 20-foot gravel access roads on . plats up to 12 lots. In his opinion, development of new lots in the City is nearly non-existent because the costs of development are too high with the current standards. PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 4 . There being no one else wishing to speak to the matter, Chairman Leonard closed the public hearing. Commissioners Hulett and Philpott expressed concern that gravel may not be sufficient and possibly a required 20-foot asphal t strip, without curbs and gutters, would be more desirable. Following discussion, a compromise was reached that at minimum, a two...;shot BST surface would be acceptable. Chairman Leonard expressed his concern that a full asphalt surface without curb and guttering would result in raveling of the roadway. Director Pittis explained that the shoulder helps retain the edge of the asphalt, protecting against a raveling effect. He indicated that a BST surface would actually ravel more than full asphalt, due to its base surface. Mr. Catts moved to recommend amendment to the Short Plat Ordinance, No. 2222, as proposed, amending the minimum roadway improvement standard to allow a 2 Q-foot wide double-shot bituminous roadway surface (BST) in a configuration as presented by the Public Works Department. Mr. Hulett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. . The Commission took a 15-minute break. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 P.M. Commissioner Souders left the meeting. V OLD BUSINESS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRD-90(04) 1 - DEL HUR, INC., DelGuzzi Drive: Proposal to allow a Planned Residential Development on property located south of SR 101, along DelGuzzi Drive. (Continued from January 16, 1991. ) Chairman Leonard explained the meeting procedure in that the public would be allowed to answer questions in the event questions being asked during deliberations could not be answered satisfactorily by the Planning commissioners or staff present. City Attorney Knutson added that the only reason to allow additional comment would be in response to a question from the Commission to someone who is not on the staff, if someone disagrees or thinks that the answer is not a complete answer, in order to give due process, but not to open the floor to another public hearing. . In response to Commissioner Hulett, concerning buildings on Lots 1 and 4, Mr. Collins responded from the staff memo, which indicated that the minimum setbacks for the underlying zones are not met by some of the buildings on all of the lots, PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 5 . except for Lot 4. The recreation building and the most south- erly apartment building on Lot 1 appear to be closer than 25 feet from the public right-of-way, which was designated as the setback requirement for buildings of more than one story. The corners of several of the buildings on Lot 10 and the easterly building on Lot 16 encroach on DelGuzzi Drive; the buildings on Lots 11 to 14 do not meet the minimum setback requirements for single-family residences; the buildings on Lots 7 and 8 similarly do not meet setback requirements, al though there is ample area for them to do so; and the minimum lot width for Lot 5 should be 100 feet for a duplex in the RS-9 District; however, a PRD does not require those minimums to be met. Lots 11 and 12 were originally proposed as having minimum lot size for the district; however, with the redesign of DelGuzzi Place, the lots were reduced in order to allow the appropriate width for the cul-de-sac at DelGuzzi Place. commissioner Hulett stated he understood that according to the Department of Fisheries, nothing could occur within the 150- foot buffer other than work to bring the drainage system into compliance; yet a retaining wall requires work on both sides of the wall for maintenance and construction, and is proposed in the current site plan. . Mr. Collins agreed that the intent of the 150-foot buffer was as a non-disturbance line. It would be up to the Department of Fisheries to designate if no disturbance would be allowed or if it would allow for maintenance within the buffer area. If the Commission were to act favorably on the project, the developer could be required to move the wall so there would be no disturbance in the buffer area. Redesign of some areas may have to occur if the retaining wall were to be moved; a parking lot layout would be affected, and perhaps relocation of some of the buildings on Lot 1. A hydraulics permit would not be issued if it was felt that the retaining wall would be in an area which is restricted from use of any kind. The Commission discussed height limitations, landscaping symbols used on Plan C, and lot calculation deficiencies. Mr. Catts questioned the developer on the type of construction materials which would be used for the structures. Bill Wilbert answered that cedar siding, with gable roofs of three- tab roofing would be used. He added there would be no parking allowed on DelGuzzi Drive. . In questioning the developer, Mr. Catts stated that although measures are available to mitigate impacts to the environment, they are not easy means to accomplish. He questioned Mr. Wilbert as to his intentions to comply strictly with purely prescriptive measures to minimize and absolutely do away with the potential impact to the environment during development stages of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 6 . Mr. Wilbert answered that he intends to comply with all measures that are required, and added that he had been required to submit a development construction plan for development stages of the project during the SEPA review process. The construction plan deals with sediment and storm water runoff containment. Mr. Hulett asked Attorney Knutson about the city1s ability to fine a developer in the event a need presents itself to restore areas damaged during construction stages of a development. Attorney Knutson answered that it is possible to establish a fund for that eventuality. He stated that usually when law suits or enforcement actions involve the physical environment or coming up with a value that equates to damage, it is left up to the state agencies with that expertise. If the Commis- sion should decide to make a specific condition to that effect, it was suggested that the Departments of FiSheries and Wildlife be contacted as to those figures. A team is avail- able to ascertain those types of damage costs. . Commissioner Hulett was concerned that it be very specific that the 150-foot buffer area is to remain totally undis- turbed, or if maintenance of the infrastructure facilities located in the area would be allowed, as well as the permissibility of disturbance of the natural environment during construction of the proposed retaining wall. Following lengthy discussion among the Commission members, it was determined that the l50-foot buffer along Ennis Creek shall remain totally undisturbed except for 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. Commissioner Anabel recommended the removal of one story (11 units) and associated parking area (22 spaces) from buildings proposed for Lot 1, thereby reducing the density and asso- ciated parking area. Mr. Wilbert responded that the buildings on Lot 1 could be redesigned due to the flexibility allowed by the removal of the parking area associated with the reduced floor area. . Commissioner Gruver indicated a concern that there are three driveways in a relatively short space in association with the buildings on Lot 1. His concern was that sight distance and grades may be undesirable for that site: however, he acknowl- edged this would be an engineering problem which would be addressed by the Public Works Department, with approval prior to any construction. It was also noted that the reduction of a building floor from the structures on Lot 1 would allow for a reduction of the units and more design flexibility in relation to the 150-foot buffer and retaining wall. PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 7 . Following considerable discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the buildings on Lot 1 be limited to three inhabitable floors above a parking garage, and the northern- most parking area shall be eliminated. Mr. Collins noted that the Watershed Company trail plan (Plan A) is to be considered part of the proposed plan under discus- sion for approval, rather than the plan currently shown on Plan C (plan under discussion). In response to commissioner Gruver I s request to review the proposed trail plan as it compares to the proposed plan shown on the current site plan, Mr. Collins said the primary difference is there is no second crossing of the trail on the Watershed Plan; the meandering of the trail is not located as it is on the Plan C drawing; Plan C indicates a trail at a minimum of 50 feet from the creek, whereas the Watershed trail is an average of 150 feet from the Creek. commissioner Hulett indicated that the minuses outweighed the pluses in previous discussion of whether or not there should be a trail included in the PRO. He was of the opinion that the trail should be eliminated, as previously directed. . Chairman Leonard stated his opinion that a trail should be included in the PRO plan. For reference material, he referred to the city's comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, which indicates the city should strive for a trail system in ravines and shoreline areas of the City. Chairman Leonard further informed the Commission that if the trail is not required in this PRD, the developer would not be required to reserve this area as open space, but could allow for development in the Ravine area. The area dedicated for the trail on the current plan is not calculated in the 36% open space, based on the open space areas shown on Plan C. Chairman Leonard further quoted from the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, which states: "The best opportunities for recreational space includes the ravines and watercourses and waterfront. City residents report that activities they do most frequently include more passive, individualistic, non-programmed activi- ties such as walking, picnicking and beachcombing. This probably reflects the nature of what is available to them with the abundance of surrounding natural resources. They also report that they would like to see more facilities that support the facilities that they do most, i.e., waterfront park, access to waterfront areas, bike, walking, and horse trails, picnic and open spaces. 11 Chairman Leonard further stated that in the summary and recommendation section of the comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, it states: "We should adopt an open space policy focusing on ravines and watercourses as the major organizing elements . . . Develop an open space system in the Dry Creek, Tumwater Creek, Valley Creek, Peabody Creek, White Creek, and Ennis Creek Ravines. II He further stated that the Plan encourages walking trails in all ravines but the Dry Creek Ravine. Furthermore, a miti- gated measure in the annexation environmental impact statement . PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 8 . prepared for this property was "to provide a pedestrian-only access trail, similar in nature and character to those used in state and national parks, with limited access to the Creek but providing views of the Creek." Chairman Leonard said the City has spent thousands of dollars building trails for its citizens. The community is committed to a trail system throughout the city. This trail would be developed by the developer of the PRD, not with City funds. He pointed out instances of the city's involvement in estab- lishing recreational trail activities at every possible opportunity in the past years. Mr. Hulett expressed concern that a wooded trail of this type has a potential for vagrancy and was concerned over the safety of children and other users of the trail, as well as environ- mental damage which could occur from the proposed trail. Mr. Philpott recommended that the watershed plan, as shown, with one crossing at the north end of the Creek, be considered favorably. He suggested elimination of the trail to the school, thereby containing the trail within the property of the PRD. Lighting would be a welcome extra, as depicted in Plan C. . Mr. Hulett was concerned that fencing should be provided along the eastern boundary of the 150-foot buffer east of Ennis Creek, to ensure the protection of wildlife and disco~rage trespass from that area. Mr. Collins added that the Department of Fisheries' suggestion to the Watershed Company called for a five-strand wire fence to be placed along the eastern boundary of the Ennis Creek buffer to discourage human usage but to allow for wildlife moving along the corridor at this location. commissioner Gruver noted that Dr. Jim Walton had given an excellent suggestion at a previous meeting relative to placing a trail across the Creek. He indicated there are methods the developer could use to enhance the Creek should a trail be developed. The possibilities should be explored with the Department of Fisheries and, if appropriate, the PRD should be conditioned for those enhancements. He further added that in his opinion, testimony received from Tim Rymer, the Depart- ment of Wildlife's representative indicated that the degree of impact of the trail to the wildlife population would be slight. . The Commission reached a consensus that the Watershed Company · s trail proposal as 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 Watershed Company trail shall include a five-strand wire fence between the trail and the east side of Ennis Creek, as PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 9 . 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 ISO-foot buffer on the east side of Ennis Creek, as it intercepts the eastern property line. Enhancements of protec- tive habitats (i.e., holes, pools, etc.) for anadronomous fish shall be provided per Department of Fisheries approval. The Commission took a five-minute recess. The meeting recon- vened at 10:50 P.M. In response to Commission inqu1r1es, Mr. wilbert indicated that the Watershed Company and the Department of Fisheries had been working together on where the metering would come off the detention pond to create over-wintering areas for steelhead smolts. It was his understanding that the Department of Fish- eries was satisfied to deal with the issue when looking at the detention ponds during construction. Commissioner Philpott suggested that fencing for separation be provided between the PRD site and the surrounding residen- tial areas. . Mr. Hulett referenced Dr. Mantooth's statement at the previous special meeting that he was willing to provide an easement for the buffer fence along his property (between Lots 9 and 13). Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that a slatted chain link fence shall extend along the 150- foot buffer on the west side of Ennis Creek, 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. Commissioner Hulett questioned the statement on the Plan stat- ing that a City representative and the developer's representa- tive spot trees prior to construction. Mr. Collins clarified that it was his understanding those areas not directly in- volved in construction activity that have significant stands of trees which could be retained, would be so marked. Areas would be identified prior to Clearing and grading of the site and, depending on the root structure and the health of the individual trees, retained. He added that a covenant restric- tion could be required in order that in the future, if trees which were saved became unhealthy or a danger to residents or properties, they could be removed at the discretion of the PRO homeowners' association. . The Commission briefly discussed fencing around the detention ponds. Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, noted that there had not been any plans submitted as yet for the detention ponds, and without those plans it would be difficult to say if fencing would be required. The Commission was concerned that Mr. Kenworthy would be able to require fencing in the event . PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 10 he felt it was necessary. Mr. Kenworthy indicated he felt he could require fencing if it became necessary, without the Commission's prior approval. Commissioner Anabel questioned whether the wetland noted on the duplex lots (Lots 7 and 8) needs to be addressed. Mr. Collins stated that the site plan shows the area as undis- turbed. Normally / the state would make a determination regarding the wetland on the hydraulics permit. As a result of a question from Commission Philpott concerning the lot line arrangement on Lot No. 7 traveling through a wetland area, Mr. Collins stated it is his understanding that the state does not like fence lines to travel through wetland areas; therefore, it is quite possible that the fence should be routed around that wetland area. Mr. Collins further indicated there are a great many decisions made at the time of final approval concerning these smaller issues where details need to be worked out to a finer degree. The Commission concurred that those changes may need to be made. Concerning the wetland, and in response to a question from Chairman Leonard, Dr. Mantooth answered there had always been a wetland in the area; however, it is being augmented by drainage from the new road. . Mr. Catts recommended that manufactured homes be restricted from Lots 5 through 9 and Lots 11 through 15, from an appear- ance standpoint. Mr. Philpott, Mr. Anabel and Mr. Gruver concurred. There was discussion concerning the City's regulations regard- ing manufactured homes. Mr. Collins stated that in order to restrict manufactured homes in this area, the Planning Commis- sion would have to reach a conclusion that this area differs from other areas of the City where manufactured homes are allowed. Mr. Collins encouraged the Planning commission to uphold the City I S established policies as they relate to manufactured housing in the city. Following discussion, the applicant stated he anticipated the lots in question to be developed with conventional stick-built homes. The Commission concluded discussion on this topic with Messrs. Catts, Anabel, Philpott, and Gruver recommending the developer restrict the homes on the site by covenant. Chairman Leonard and Mr. Hulett disagreed. Although the PRD regulations do not require specific setbacks for lots, it was decided (5 - 1) that reduced lot sizes (less than 9,000 square feet) would be allowed, as proposed; how- ever, the setbacks must conform to the underlying RS-9 zoning District. Mr. Philpott expressed his dissenting opinion that a 20-foot setback would be appropriate for the area. . The Commission reaffirmed the consensus of October, 1990, in that multi-family buildings under two stories should be located no closer than 10 feet to a street; no mUlti-family structure over three stories should be located closer than 25 PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 11 . feet to a street: no structure should be located closer than 25 feet from an external property line (external to the PRO). Mr. Hulett was concerned about preventive measures which might be taken in order to restore the 150-foot buffer area in the event of disturbance during construction. Mr. Kenworthy noted that an erosion control bond is a common type of bond used in construction projects. An estimate is prepared by an engineer to cover costs for restoration and clean-up of disturbed areas during construction. Chairman Leonard expressed concern that the value of the loss could not be quantified in certain situations, such as envi- ronmentally sensitive areas. Attorney Knutson suggested that two different types of bonds could be used. (1) An erosion control type bond could be required, similar to other construction bonding which will be required during the course of the project. (2) A bond could be required to cover damage to environmental resources which would be treated similarly to other items referred to the Department of Fisheries during the project. It would be something we would like to see, but the city would defer to the Department of Fisheries for final action. . FOllowing discussion of different types of bonds and insurance available to accomplish the goal of providing for restoration of areas which might be disturbed during construction, it was the consensus of the Commission that some form of bonding or insurance be required. staff was asked to investigate (1) an erosion control bond as described by the City Engineer, and (2) a bond or equivalent measure to allow for restoration of those disturbed areas, as described by the city Attorney. commissioner Hulett expressed his concern that the trail would not be open to the public. Mr. Collins noted that if the trail is open to the general public, control and maintenance of the trail would be the responsibility of a public agency. The Parks Department has indicated that it is their preference at this time that the trail be private. However, this should not preclude future link of the PRD trail to other public trail systems. Chairman Leonard noted that the developer would gain a 10% credit if the trail is provided to the public. The City's PRD regulations state that a developer who provides for recreational facilities, including trails and neighborhood parks which provide access to others than those in the PRD, is allowed a 10% density credit. . It was decided that at such time a public trail system is developed in Ennis Creek, that portion of the PRO trail connecting to the public trail would be dedicated to the public by the homeowners' association. PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 12 . Signage on the 100-foot buffer area along Ennis Creek was discussed. It was decided that signage would be provided as determined by City staff in order to restrict access to the environmentally sensitive Creek area. At the request of Fire Marshal Becker the commission concurred to recommend that all inhabitable structures, including duplexes and single-family dwellings, be sprinklered in this PRD. Commissioner Anabel recommended that a sight-obscuring or vegetative screening fence, as well as asphalt paving, be provided around the RV parking area shown on the plan, as proposed on the landscaping portion of the current plan. The Commission concurred. There was Morse and property. development properties. that access considerable discussion regarding access to the Brooks properties at the south end of the PRD It was the decision of the Commission that of this PRD area shall not deny access to those Further discussion resulted in the recommendation be made available at fair market value. . Phasing of the development was discussed. Mr. Wilbert indi- cated that the project should take four and one-half to five years to complete. The Commission expressed concern that phasing be addressed during the final stages of approval, as well as that recreational facilities be provided during the early phases of the project I s development. As noted in previous meetings, the Commission reiterated its concern that common open space areas, including playgrounds, recreation building and cabanas, would be developed on the lots as dwelling units on those lots were constructed. Attorney Knutson suggested the Commission defer the final phasing for recreational facilities until final approval of the PRO, as provided in the PRD ordinance. Mr. Collins requested the relocation of the beginning of the trail, as proposed, from Lot 1 to Lot 3, in order to allow the common open space area to be the obligation of the Homeowners Association on Lots 2 and 3, and not on property which could be sold separately, such as Lot 1. The commission concurred. Mr. Philpott moved to recommend approval of Plan C, as pro- posed, subject to the conditions as listed previously herein (attached as Exhibit "An), and citing the following findings and conclusions: . 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 PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 13 ~ 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 dwell- ings, 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 PRO, result- ing in a density of 19.3 units/acre, compared to allow- able 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 resi- dents, 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 PRO 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 lSD-foot natural vegeta- tion buffers for the ravine floor area of the subject site. . 12. The applicant indicates that Ennis Creek Estates is planned to take advantage of and enhance the natural ameni ties to create a residential park development, while preserving these natural amenities and emphasizing the protection and conservation of the Ravine. PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 14 . 13. It is intended that Planned Residential Developments will result in a residential environment of higher quality than traditional lot-by-Iot 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 DelGuzzi Drive and utility improve- ments 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 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 develop- ment." "Wherever possible, unique environmental and topographic features should be preserved.1t "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 PRO meets the allowances in section 17.70.060 and should be approved consistent with mitigation measures of environmental impacts. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 15 C. The usable common open space provided by the PRO exceeds the required 30% and preserves on-site the unique natural feature of Ennis Creek. D. The proposed development creates a residential environ- ment 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. All necessary municipal utilities, services, and facili- ties, existing and proposed, are adequate to serve the proposed development, as conditioned. G. The proposed street system is adequate for the antici- pated 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, restric- tions, 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 subdivi- sion, which make appropriate provisions for the public health, safety, and welfare. Mr. Catts seconded the motion which passed unanimously. VI COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VII STAFF REPORTS Mr. Collins noted an opportunity for leadership training sponsored by the Clallam County Economic Development Council, will be held on February 8th and 9th at Peninsula College. Mr. Collins suggested those interested should contact the Planning Department at the earliest opportunity. VIII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Mr. Catts requested the indexed version of SHB 2929 be distributed to all Commission members. PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1991 Page 16 ~ ~ IX ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:57 A.M. . . ,=. .~ I ns, Secretary SR: LM PLAN. 420 . . . (January 23, 1991) EXHIBIT nAil 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 I s trail proposal as 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 protec- tive 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 Creek, the. east property line, and the south property line; provided that the property owner.s(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. CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of meeting Date of meeting " . ,;)-. I Sa i73GN So~ f31 ~hlTY\ )tlE? Z 9 r ,P of'? ~ RA . . --PFt- ~A- . "'-. tI {) :2-Lf ~ CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of meeting ,M /t 17"' /-t ( J>-;7'77 /1J Date of meeting / z.--.9~3 - 9/ Location {~::f2~ ;~~ ul~~-;;;~) ~:. \\"Yl ~ C ~ ^.-\ ~ \ 2- \ ~ s..-o: \-\ I' ~, -L . GJ""'f'fd r='. 6Lr.t-y-A. Lilt:> e' ","doPE)?!!, ? J1. . . .