Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/22/2012ROLL CALL Staff Present: PUBLIC HEARING: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 February 22, 2012 6:00 p.m. Members Present: Nancy Powers, Amanda Anderson, David Miller, John Matthews, Tim Boyle Members Absent: Doc Reiss, One Vacancy Dr. Brad Shea and Chuck Tanner (acting on behalf of the City), Heidi Greenwood, Teresa Pierce, Eric Walrath, Mike Puntenney Public Present: Randall McCoy, Steve Zenovic, Paul Cronauer, Dave Shreffler, Tom Sanford PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Matthews opened the regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the regular meeting minutes of February 8, 2012. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Boyle and passed 5 -0. Vice -Chair Matthews read the qualifying questions for quasi judicial proceedings to the Commissioners regarding Appearance of Fairness matters. All Commissioners responded that they had no Appearance of Fairness issues to report. The Vice Chair then reviewed the quasi judicial public hearing procedures for audience members. No concerns were noted. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SMA 11 -08 CITY OF PORT ANGELES WATERFRONT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (WTIP): A redevelopment project along the Port Angeles Waterfront consisting of public amenities including a pedestrian walkway esplanade, expansion and redevelopment of Hollywood Beach, a new west end park near the Valley Creek Estuary, and a pedestrian bridge from Municipal Pier to the west side of Peabody Creek. Dr. G. Bradford (Brad) Shea, Principal for Westech Company, presented the staff report on behalf of the City of Port Angeles Department of Community Economic Development, that is the applicant in this application. Using a map of the waterfront area between Lincoln and Oak Street, Dr. Shea noted the different elements of the project along the shoreline noting Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 201 Page 2 improvements near and away from the water. Improvements also include a pedestrian bridge between the City Pier and Landing Mall. Dr. Shea summarized the 33 -page staff report noting that major issues of review included stormwater compliance components, erosion controls, protection of endangered species in the area. Pile driving sounds can affect certain wildlife including the marbled murrelette birds in the area. To mitigate, it was suggested that a biologist be on site during construction activities to determine if birds are present and to use certain types of pile driving techniques to reduce the sound and impacts to the wildlife if they are found. Mitigation measures for steelhead were also noted with the recommendation to schedule work around the time fish are present in the area of the Valley Creek Estuary. Changes in the floodplain could be possible with reconstruction of the beach and formation of pocket beaches. Certain protective elements should be added to avoid flooding such as logs. The project will be done in phases with some phases not entirely designed at this time. He noted the proposed conditions of approval and explained the basis for each of the conditions and indicated that review of the shoreline substantial development permit will serve as the City's review for flood plain issues. Dr. Shea noted favorable comments from the public including the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe supporting pocket beaches; Dan Williams proposing the connectivity with a zip line use, comments from the Department of Ecology, and philosophical comments from the Center for Community Design. Vice Chair Matthews opened the public hearing. Attorney Greenwood noted that although an abbreviated report was verbally provided, the entire staff report is part of the record. She further noted that, while the project will be done in phases, the development permit is intended to cover the entire project. Commissioner Powers asked about street widths, proposed buildings, the foot bridge, and asked when elk. beavers, and /or bears were seen in the area as the staff report mentioned these animals. Dr. Shea responded that the wildlife reference was in the biological assessment where the general review area was likely the City of Port Angeles wherein large wildlife are still known to be seen. City of Port Angeles Director of the Department of Community Economic Development Nathan West spoke as the applicant. I -Ie thanked Dr. Shea and Mr. Tanner of Westech for their work on the staff report and confirmed that the permit is intended for the entire project to take advantage of efficiencies associated with the project construction. He noted a document that was submitted to Commission members proposing compromises to conditions within the staff report providing a suggested revision to Condition 9, new Conditions 5 and 6, and a new Finding 10 in support of the new conditions. The items specifically addressed highlight the only concerns the applicant has with the conditions and findings proposed in the staff report. The two new conditions address project construction practices that will be overseen by other state and federal agencies so it is not advisable or recommended that the permit also be conditioned addressing those activities. Revised Condition 9 addresses flood plain analysis that is under the purview of the Department of Ecology. Proposed Conditions 5 and 6 require a biologist to be on site during construction and would set a precedent and add significant costs to Planning Comm,ss,on Minutes February 22, 2012 Page 3 the project and future projects along the waterfront. City staff is very concerned about endangered species and took steps to have a biological assessment prepared that addresses endangered species issues. Multiple state and federal permits are required that will specifically address endangered species and wildlife protection. Conditions regarding endangered species and wildlife items of consideration should be addressed by agencies with jurisdiction but need not be dictated at this stage of permitting. If the Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance dictates conditions at this stage of permitting related to endangered species and wildlife, overlapping, inconsistent, or overwhelming conditions could end up being the result by the time the entire project permitting is completed. Mr. West referred to the suggested conditions listed as a compromise to those in the staff report, specifically Conditions 5 and 6. I -Ie proposed that the compromise conditions will result in state and federal regulations being observed without the initial requirement of a professional biologist being on site unless required by state and federal permitting. Fish windows are set by state regulation. In response to Commissioner Powers, Mr. West stated that the proposed building west of Oak Street is approx 5000 square feet in area and is one -story in height. Street width will be modified with the right of way being extended. The travel lane will be reduced to 11 feet each which is the same width on First and Front Street. Mr. West reiterated that the applicant would like to avoid a duplicate set of regulatory conditions that may conflict with each other or overlap causing onerous cost increases to the project. Dr. Shea did not feel that conditions imposed at this early stage of permitting would be precedent setting. Steve Zenovic of Zenovic and Associates, 301 E. 6th Street stated that there is a minimal chance of flooding with the beach redevelopment proposed given the topography and area of water in the Harbor. Of the approximately 1800 acres of Harbor water area, the new beach area results in an area of less than an 1 acre which results in about 1 /10 of 1 The area is so small it is difficult to analyze pragmatically. While he understands flood concerns, this project will not cause concern. He did not agree with Dr. Shea that this issue should not be dealt with as being unnecessary at this point. He believes that Condition 9 is unnecessary and should be struck. If flooding becomes an issue, it will be dealt with. The kayak launch shown on the preliminary drawings is no longer included in the project. In response to Commissioner Powers, Mr. West explained the differences between phases but reiterated that the permit being requested is for the entire project. Paul Cronauer 806 Milwaukee Drive, owns the Landing Mall along the Port Angeles shoreline. Planning Commission approval is just the first step of numerous approvals needed for the project. He noted that the permitting process is lengthy and other agencies will apply several other conditions along the way. This is a great project that is environmentally responsible. The least restrictions now will help later. There have been a lot of compromises to this point in the development of this project. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2012 Page 4 There being no one else to speak to the project, Vice Chair Matthews closed the public hearing at 7:13 PM Commissioner Miller moved to strike Condition 9 of the proposed conditions. Commissioner Powers seconded the motion which passed 5 -0. Commissioner Miller moved to amend Conditions 5 and 6 as proposed by the applicant supported by new Finding 10 in support of new Conditions 5 and 6. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion which passed 5 -0. Commissioner Powers moved to approve the shoreline substantial development permit with the 9 conditions, 10 findings, and 6 conclusions as follows: Conditions 1. The applicant shall obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPDES) Construction permit prior to issuance of any permits for construction as needed to augment the existing city NPDES. 2. Phasing These mitigation measures (conditions) shall apply to all phases of the Project, 3. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits from local, state, and federal agencies. 4. All earth disturbing activities shall be monitored by an approved archaeologist. The archaeologist must meet the Washington State guidelines for a Professional archaeologist and be in contact with the city's archaeologist prior to and during the permitted project. A professional monitoring report will be submitted to the City's Archaeologist upon completion of the ground disturbing actions. In the event archaeological artifacts, features or human remains are discovered, the Applicant will immediately cease all work. The Applicant will immediately notify the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal Chair and specified Tribal staff by both letter and telephone. The City will immediately notify the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, as required in RCW 27.44 and 27.53. 5. Project construction practices shall comply with state and federal policies and requirements to ensure protection of listed, endangered, and threatened species, including such measures to reduce noise impacts to marbled murrelets. 6. Construction involving soil and sediment disturbing activities immediately adjacent to the Valley Creek estuary will be timed to coincide with approved work windows determined by State (WDFW) and Federal (USACE, USFWS, and NMFS) agencies. 7. To insure the quality of sediments added to the pocket beaches, sediments will be obtained from local (North Olympic Peninsula) sources. Specifications for sediments will be provided to the contractor. When delivered, sediments will be inspected by the on -site engineer to insure that they meet the specifications. Planning Comimss,on Minutes February 22, 2012 Page 5 8. Sediments used for pocket beaches and beach restoration will be inspected for possible signs of hazardous material or exotic species. Soils will be observed for any signs of discoloration and excess organic matter. 9. If contamination of soil or groundwater is suspected, discovered or occurs during the project, testing will be conducted by the City. The Department of Ecology will be notified if soil or groundwater contamination is observed. Findings Based on the information provided in the February 17, 2012, Staff Report for SMA 11 -08 including all of its attachments, comments and information presented during public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberations, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that: 1. An application for a shoreline substantial development permit was submitted by the City of Port Angeles to Westech Company acting as lead reviewing agency on December 29, 2011 for the City of Port Angeles Waterfront and Transportation Improvement Plan. 2. A Mitigated Determination of Non Significance was issued by the SEPA responsible party (Dr. Bradford Shea of Westech Company) for the proposal on January 31, 2012. The materials reviewed included an environmental checklist and a Biological Assessment (Shreffler Environmental 2011) of the site and possible project impacts. Issuance of the MDNS satisfies the City's response under SEPA regulations of the State. A written comment period ended on February 17, 2012 following issuance of the MDNS. Written response from the City of Port Angeles was received regarding changes to Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 regarding marbled tnurrelets and steelhead during the comment period. A minor change was made to Condition 8in issuance of the MDNS at the end of the comment period. 3. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and critical areas ordinances have been reviewed in their entirety with respect to this application. 4. The site is designated Commercial in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Central Business District (CBD), Industrial Heavy (IH) and Commercial Arterial (CA) in the City's Zoning Ordinance, and Urban FIarbor /Aquatic Harbor in the City's Shoreline Master Program and Map. 5. The following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies were found to be most relevant to the proposed project: Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Element Goal A Policy 1.i,j., Land Use Element Policies J -1, and Transportation Element Goal A, Policy the City's Shoreline Master Program's Urban Harbor and Aquatic FIarbor designations and Chapter 3 Goals, A. Shoreline Use Element Goals 1, 3,4,5, 6, 7, 8, 11; B. Economic Development Element, Goals 1, 2,5,6; C. Circulation Element Goal 1; D. Conservation Element Goals 1,4,5 6; E. Public Access Element Goals 1 2;F. Recreational Goals 1 G. Historical /Cultural Element Goal 1 Chapter 4, General Policies and Regulations: A. Universally Applicable Regulations 1.4 5; B. Archaeological and Historic Resources Policy 1 C. Clearing and Grading Policies 1,2,3,4,7 &8. D Environmental Impacts Policy -1;E. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Regulations lc and Id; F. Geological Hazard Areas Regulation 5;G. Kelp Beds, Eelgrass Beds Policies 4 9a,b; 1. Salmon and Stcelhead Habitats, Policies 1 2; J. Parking Policy 1,2 K. Panning Commission Minutes February 22, 2012 Page 6 Public Access Policies 1,2,3 7; L. Shorelines of State -wide Significance Policies 2,3,4,5 6; M. Signage Policies 1,2,3 4; N. Utilities Policies 1 2; O. Water Quality Policies 1 2. 6. Public notice of the project was published in the Peninsula Daily News on January 1, 2012. Notice of the proposal was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on January 2, 2012. This site was posted on January 3, 2012.. A period of written public comment was opened until January 31, 2012. 7. One written comment was received on the Biological Assessment in support of the plan by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. One comment was received by the Center for Community Design in opposition to the plan. Two comments were received by the city after the close of the written public comment period, one from the Washington State Department of Ecology noting certain regulatory requirements and one from Mr. Dan Williams regarding a potential zip -line project which might later be incorporated into waterfront improvements if that project was to be implemented. 8. The site is located entirely within the V5 flood zone (Flood Insurance Rate Map), described as areas of 100 -year coastal flooding with velocity. In accordance with Section 15.12.240 PAMC, the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit acts as the necessary floodplain permit. One condition has been stipulated for this finding (Condition 10). 9. The applicant's Substantial Shoreline Development Permit will serve as the appropriate Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) review or Wetland Permit from the City of Port Angeles Pursuant to PAMC 15.12.240(A) and PAMC 15.24.060(D). 10. The Waterfront Transportation Improvement Plan requires permit approval from local, state, and federal agencies. The proposed action also requires review under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act that may identify additional conditions relative to listed, endangered, or threatened species. Conclusions Based on the information provided in the February 17, 2012 Staff Report for SMA 11-08 including all of its attachments, comments and information presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes that: A. The proposed project as conditioned, is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and Shoreline Master Program. B. As proposed and conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the shoreline. C. The project is primarily an improvement to an existing water dependent use. D. The proposed project will not interfere with, but will enhance public use and access to lands and /or waters. E. The project has been thoroughly reviewed through a Biological Asessment provided with the application materials that indicated no adverse impacts would result from the proposal, subject to the conditions included in this report. F. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 15.12.240 PAMC. The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit acts as the necessary floodplain permit. As Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2012 Page 7 conditioned, the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will comply with and satisfy Section 15.08 PAMC for development proposals within the shoreline and environmentally sensitive areas of the City of Port Angeles. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion that passed 5 -0. Attorney Greenwood noted that, as approved, there are two contradictory documents: the approved shoreline permit and the Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance issued by Westech for the permit application. Commissioner Powers moved to request that Westech consider an amendment to the MDNS document in accordance with permit conditions. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion that passed 5 -0. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None STAFF REPORTS Mr. West noted City Council reappointment of Commissions and this being the last meeting for Commissioner Powers and thanked her for her service on the commission and the community. None REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p PREPARED BY: T. Pierce Teresa Pierce, Acting Secretary 9:641, e ohn Matthew Vice -Chair