Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/27/1991 . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 February 27, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTFS: Meeting of February 13, 1991 . IV. OLD BUSINESS: CONDmONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 91(02)02 - CHILDERS. Northeast comer of Eunice/Georeiana Streets: Request to allow a day care center in the RS-7, Residential Single-Family District. (Continued from February 13, 1991. Continue to March 13, 1991, due to pending SEPA appeal.) V. WNG RANGE PLANNING: 1. Clearing and Grading Ordinance Review VI. COMMUNlCA TIONS FROM mE PUBLIC VII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - 1991-92 vm. STAFF REPORTS 1. Distribution of revised site plan for Del Bur Planned Residential Development, per Planning Commission's recommendation . AU 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. Planning Commission: Larry Leonard, Chair; Ray Gruver, Vice..chair; Bill Anabel; Roger Calts; Cindy Soudel'll; 1im Hulett; Bob Philpott. Planning SUlff: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist, 10hn Jimenon, Associate Planner. Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 IX. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS '. X. ADJOURNMENT . . 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 Chainnan 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 Planning Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington February 27, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Leonard called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Roger Catts, Jim Hulett, Larry Leonard, Bob Philpott, Cindy Souders, Bill Anabel, Ray Gruver. Members Absent: None. staff Present: Brad Collins, John Jimerson, Bruce Becker. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Anabel noted that on page 2 of the February 13th minutes, fourth paragraph down reads: "Mr. Catts asked if there would be any hazardous materials." He noted that should read Mr. Anabel asked . . Mr. Anabel moved .to approve the minutes of the February 13, 1991, meeting, as revised. The motion was seconded by Mr. Catts, and passed unanimously. IV OLD BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-91(02)92 CHILDERS, Northeast corner of Eunice/Georgiana Streets: Request to allow a day care center in the RS-7, Residential Single-Family District. (Continued from February 13, 1991. Continue to March 13, 1991, due to pending SEPA appeal. ) Due to the timely filing of SEPA appeals on this proposal, Mr. Philpott moved to continue this item to March 13, 1991. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anabel. The Planning Commission unanimously passed the motion. V LONG-RANGE PLANNING Clearinq and Grading Ordinance Review Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Mr. Collins explained that the draft before the Planning commission is simply a model ordinance upon which the eventual Port Angeles Ordinance could be based. He explained that the Planning commission is being asked to review it at this time to examine potential implementational difficulties and to make . PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 1991 Page 2 changes they see pertinent at this early stage of the drafting of the ordinance, rather than reviewing it after a significant amount of work has gone into it. He noted the ordinance will provide a permitting handle which may trigger environmental review, which would affect the Planning Commission in the future. For instance, every permit request that is made would be subj ect to SEPA review which could be appealed to the Planning commission. Mr. Collins also pointed out the preparation of this ordinance has been identified as a City Council Goal. Chairman Leonard stated he did not think the requirement that all significant trees be retained is an appropriate require- ment. The Commission then discussed the merits and potential problems with such a requirement. They discussed the poten- tial erosion caused by removing treest the problem of defining what a significant tree is t how to differentiate between cutting down a tree and digging it up by the rootst the possi- bility that an older tree would fall, creating damage, and thus be a liability to the City. . Mr. Collins noted that the development process is often a phased activity where the damage is often done prior to SEPA review. This Ordinance would allow the City the opportunity to review work done to the earth at an earlier stage. He noted staff was not particularly concerned with saving all the trees in the CitYt rather it is the review process which is important here, before any significant trees are removed. Mr. Catts questioned several of the thresholds in determining whether a project is exempt from the permitting process. He noted that the requirement of stockpiling or broadcasting of less than 500 cubic yards of material is a meaningless stan- dard unless placed in the context of the size of the lot, noting that 500 cubic yards over several acres is not very significant, whereas 500 cubic yards on a 7,000 square-foot lot is significant. He also questioned why the creation of 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces was chosen, noting that creation of 9,500 square feet of impervious surfaces would probably have just as large an impact. Mr. Catts asked if the fees required for obtaining the permit cover the cost of administration. Mr. Collins responded that fees are generally set using three standards: (1) What other agencies are charging for similar review and permitting process; (2) what it would take to cover the cost of administration; and (3) For any particular purpose beyond the cost of administration. . Mr. Catts asked if Ennis Creek would be required to obtain a permit. Mr. Collins responded any clearing and grading subsequent to the adoption of the Ordinance would be required to obtain a permit. Mr. Collins also explained that the grading and PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 1991 Page 3 . clearing permit would often dovetail with the building permit process, with review occurring simultaneously in the Public Works Department. Chairman Leonard asked who would hear the appeals of this Ordinance. Mr. Collins responded that it probably would be the Board of Appeals, rather than the Planning Commission, since it was a construction-related permit. Chairman Leonard asked if a proj ect is exempt, how would anyone know. Mr. Jimerson responded that to his knowledge, there was no requirement in the ordinance that a public official make a determination that a project is exempt. Mr. Collins added that other reviews do have procedures for a public official to make determinations that a project is exempt, including substantial development permits and SEPA review. . Mr. Catts asked how the City would enter private property as allowed in the code. Would the City contact the property owner before entering the property? Mr. Collins answered that the Public Works Department would probably follow the same procedure they do for Building Code inspections. The City would contact the owner in advance. Mr. Catts asked if the city could be liable for not inspecting a hazardous situation where they are required to do an inspec- tion. Mr. Collins responded yes, the City could be liable. Mr. Catts noted that the Ordinance could require significant staff time inspecting properties. Mr. Catts questioned whether or not the applicant should be required to put up a bond to ensure the work is done per the approved plans, and stated perhaps the city should be responsible for putting up the bond. other Commissioners responded that the purpose of the bond would be to ensure the applicant performs the work as required. . Chairman Leonard polled the Commission as to what the next step in the review process should be. The consensus was that the Public Works and Planning staff should use the minutes of this meeting and any written comments submitted by individual Commissioners in revising the Ordinance. The commission decided to set a public hearing for the meeting of April 24, 1991, to consider the revised draft. PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 1991 Page 4 . VI COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VII ELECTION OF OFFICERS - 1991-92 Mr. Anabel nominated Ray Gruver for the position of Chairman. Mr. Hulett seconded the nomination, which passed unanimously. Mr. Catts nominated Jim Hulett and Mr. Gruver nominated Cindy Sounders for the position of vice-chairman. A vote was conducted, and Ms. Souders was named Vice-Chairman. VIII STAFF REPORTS Distribution of revised site plan for DelHur Planned Residential Development, per Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Collins provided the most recently revised plans for Ennis Creek Estates to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to see the plans before they went to the City Council and to allow them to make a determination as to whether they feel it represents what the Planning Commission had approved. The Planning commission took no action, but individual members could address their views at the City Council public hearing. 4It IX REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Mr. Gruver informed the Commission there would be a model sub- division workshop in Seattle on May 16th and 17th for anyone interested in attending. He also presented a copy of a victoria, B. C., newspaper which had several articles of interest on Victoria's Mayor. Mr. Catts provided an update on the Growth Management Act Committee, noting that the GMAC would be holding four open house meetings to provide information to the public on the update of the Comprehensive Plan; to provide results of the general community survey; and to discuss the planning process involved in developing a new Plan. He noted they would break the public up into five smaller groups to allow public input on each of the five areas of concern for the subcommittees. Mr. Hulett asked for the status of the Western Inn project on DelGuzzi Drive. Mr. Collins responded as far as he knew, the applicant were still going forward in the processing, including working with the Department of Fisheries for a hydraulics permit. . Mr. Anabel noted he will not be in attendance at the first meeting in December, 1991. Mr. Philpott provided a report on a wetlands seminar he had attended on Monday, February 25th. . . . X ADJOURNMENT There being no passed PLAN.435 JJ: LM PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 1991 Page 5 - ~ ins, Secretary . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Name Address ?~ (2)~ OC:<:Js f}~ P)1 . -.