HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/28/2001
.
.;
e.
I.
FOR'IANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
March 28,2001
CALL 10 ORDER
,
7 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of March 14, 2001.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - MCA 00-04 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES-
TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE: Adoption of rules regarding the
establishment of telecommunications facilities including towers within the City of Port
Angeles.
2. SHORELINE SUBSTAl\TTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 00-01 - PORT
OF PORT ANGELES. 832Marine Drive: A proposal to relocate existing boat houses
and add a new float to accommodate a large vessel or seaplane within the Port Angeles
Boat Haven, in the Industrial Heavy zone.
3. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 00-02 - PORT
ANGELES YACHT CLUB. 1305 Marine Drive: A proposal to enclose a covered patio
area, construct an 8' x 20' covered addition and a 12' x 20' deck to an existing structure
within the Boat Haven in the Industrial Heavy zone.
4. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 00-03 - CITY
OF PORT ANGELES. Ediz Hook Drive: A proposal to under ground existing power
lines along the shoreline in the Industrial Heavy zone.
V. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
VI. STAFF REPORTS
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
VIII.
ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Linda Nutter (Chair), Chuck Schramm CVicc), Fred Hewins, Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Mary Craver, Wayne DOly
PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins (Planning Director), Sue Roberds (Planning Specialist), Debra Barnes (Associate Planner)
.
.
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
March 28,2001
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Bob Philpott, Fred Norton, Fred Hewins, Chuck Schramm,
Mary Craver, Wayne Doty
Members Excused:
Linda Nutter
Staff Present:
Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Debra Barnes, Ken Dubuc, Jim
Harper, Larry Dunbar
Public Present:
Bill Roberds, Bill Soderlind, Bill Cunningham, Ken
Henshaw, John Pope, John Fred Pope, Ken Sweeney, Tom
Newcomb, Shirley Newcomb, Ed Brown, Sue Maharaj, Stan
Maharaj, Mike Keeley, Rita Noeske, Jerry Noeske, Sue Zook,
Chris Zook, Dan Karl, Bob Sorenson, Arline Dailey, Dennis
Leinaar, Ann Leinaar, Marilyn Jackson, John Jackson, Jim
MacDonald, Alice Webber, Gene Webber, Lillian Beebe, Jim
Harper, Susan Bauer
In the absence of Chair Nutter, Vice Chair Schramm assumed the Chair for the evening and
noted that anyone presenting testimony must first sign in and swear an affidavit to present
truthful information.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Philpott noted several typographical errors. Commissioner Doty
clarified a statement that he made referenced on Page 2. Commissioner Philpott moved
to approve the March 14, 2001, minutes with corrections. Commissioner Norton
seconded the motion which passed 5 - 0 with Commissioner Craver abstaining due to
absence.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - MCA 00-04 - CITY OF PORT
ANGELES - TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE: Adoption of rules
regarding the establishment of telecommunications facilities including towers within
the City of Port Angeles.
Vice Chair Schramm opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28. 2001
Pagel
.
Tom Newcomb, 1857 Harhorcrest Place, thanked the Conunission on behalf of the over
500 HAM radio operators in the area for recognizing such activities as exempt in the draft
Teleconununications Ordinance.
There being no further speakers, Vice Chair Schramm closed the public hearing.
Brief discussion took place regarding setbacks noted as required in residential zones for
towers exceeding 60' in height. It was explained that the requirement to allow one foot of
setback for each foot of tower height exceeding 60' is to assure that in the event of tower
collapse, the structure would fall on the property on which it is situated. Commissioner
Hewins moved to recommend that the City Council approve a new Section 17.52 to the
Port Angeles Municipal Code with regard to wireless telecommunication and tower
facilities. Commissioner Craver seconded the motion. Planning Specialist Roberds
noted that the entire Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Facilities Ordinance
needs to be recognized in the motion. Commissioner Hewins amended the motion to
be that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the Wireless
Telecommunications Towers and Facilities Ordinance citing the following findings and
con du sions:
Findings:
.
1.
The overall demand by citizens for wireless communications services has generated
a need for the installation of wireless communication facilities and towers to serve
the public.
2. Wireless Communication Facilities or portable communication services provide
personal convenience, business, and useful emergency purposes.
3. The Federal Communications Commission requires license holders to provide
coverage to areas where wireless communications licenses have been acquired which
requires that facilities be constructed to accomplish that purpose.
4. The Federal T eleconununications Act (PT A) of 1996 preserves local zoning authority
to reasonably regulate Wireless Communication Facilities provided that the FI A
mandates localities may not unreasonably discriminate among license holders nor
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service.
5. It is the intent ofthe city of Port Angeles to establish guidelines and regulations such
that unregulated or under regulated development of wireless communications
services and uses within rights-of-way do not create significant visual, land use, or
other impacts within the City.
.
6.
Wireless communications services located near residential, commercial, and business
zones can be regulated to assure that reasonable mitigating measures are employed
to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minlltes
March 28. 2001
Page 3
7.
The City of Port Angeles intends to establish a greater sense of quality and unity in
the deve1opmentofwireless teleconununication facilities consistent with the physical
assets and adopted Comprehensive Plan for the community. The entire Plan was
reviewed with respect to the proposed ordinance.
8. The City desires to ensure consistency and predictability for telecommunication
providers requesting to site wireless telecommunication facilities within the City and
for residents who require assurance that the City will assist in making available
desirable technology advancements.
9. The Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of
1996 granted the Federal Communications Commission exclusive jurisdiction over
the regulation of environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions from
Teleconununications Facilities and the regulation of radio signal interference among
users of the RF spectrum.
10. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed with the mandates of the City of Port
Angeles Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and has been found to be in compliance
with the spirit and intent ofthe Plan.
11.
A determination of nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City's SEPA
Responsible Official on March 26,2001, pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2).
12. The proposed ordinance contains provisions intended to limit the number of
structures within the City which exceed the height limitation of the underlying zone
while allowing facilities that are verified as being required in areas where they might
otherwise be prohibited.
13. City residents are accustomed to seeing utility facilities located within public rights-
of-way.
14. Co-location of tower structures rather than construction of single use towers within
the City is a primary objective.
15. The Planning Commission held work sessions to discuss the draft proposal
conducted during regular meetings. Notification of the public hearing scheduled to
discuss the draft proposed regulations was published in the Peninsula Daily News on
March 8, 2001, with notices placed at the Clallam County Courthouse, the Port
Angeles Library, and City Hall. No public comments have been received as a result
of the notification.
16.
A 42-day review period was provided for service providers to provide comment on
the proposed regulations. Those comments have been incorporated into the draft
ordinance.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Millllies
March 28. 2001
Page 4
17.
The Planning Commission conducted work sessions during regular meetings
regarding the proposed ordinances on November 8,2000, and February 14,2001.
A public hearing was duly advertised and conducted on March 28, 2001, on the
proposed ordinances.
18. The City's Utility Advisory Committee met jointly with the Planning Commission
on January 16, 2001, to discuss and review the proposed regulations.
Conclusions:
A. The provisions contained within the proposed ordinance establish wireless
communications regulations, standards, and procedures consistent with the protection
of the public health, safety, and general welfare and interests of the citizens of the
City of Port Angeles and surrounding conununity.
B. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed with respect to the requirements of the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) and has been determined to have no
probably significant adverse environmental impacts.
C. The proposed standards will provide development opportullltles to serve the
community proportionate to the scale of development.
D.
Growth Management Element Goal A, Policy I.e. and g, and Policies 14 and 15; land
Use Map Goal A, Policies 1 and 2, and Objective A.l; Residential goal and Policies
Goal B, Goal C, and Policy 1; Commercial Goal D., and Policy I; Utilities and
Public Services Element Goal B, Policies 3 and 4, Goal C, Goal D, Policy 5, and
Goal E Policy 5 are most relevant in support of the telecommunications ordinance.
E. The continued development of small telecommunications facilities within public
rights-of-way should result in minimal impacts within al zones ofthe City.
F. Adoption of a permit process will provide clear development standards and will
result in a fast and predictable process for obtaining land use permits associated with
the development of wireless facilities within the City.
Commissioner Norton seconded the amendment. The vote on the amendment was
unanimous. The vote on the original motion was then called for and passed
unanimously.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 00-01 -
PORT OF PORT ANGELES. 832 Marine Drive: A proposal to relocate existing
boat houses and add a new float to accommodate a large vessel or seaplane within
the Port Angeles Boat Haven, in the Industrial Heavy zone.
Associate Planner Debra Barnes reviewed the Planning staffs report recommending
approval of the requested permit with conditions and provided overhead depictions ofthe
site. Vice Chair Schramm opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28, 20D}
Page 5
.
Ken Sweeney, Port of Port Angeles Envirollmelltal Manager, 338 West First Street,
provided a brief history of the proposal and the need to allow for safe sea plane docking
within the Boat Haven. Such berthing is unacceptable at present and is not safe. The float
rearrangement will ensure safety measures and procedures satisfactory to the Harbor Master.
A Hydraulics Project Approval (HP A) has been received by the Department of Fish and
Wildlife for the project. It is possible that when the new dock is not being used for a sea
plane that it could be used to allow short term large vessel docking.
There being no further comments, Vice Chair Schramm closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Craver moved to approve the shoreline substantial development permit
as proposed citing the following conditions, findings, and conclusions:
Conditions:
1. Compliance with the policies and standards of the City's Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) shall be made.
2. The maximum amount of covered moorage shall not exceed 10% of the over water
area of the Boat Haven.
.
3.
Compliance with Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife requirements shall
be made.
Fin din gs:
1. A shoreline substantial development application, SMA 01-01 was submitted by the
Port of Port Angeles on December 29, 2000 for the rearrangement of existing
boathouses and the installation of additional floats in order to accommodate a larger
vessel or seaplane. Existing Boathouse #K39 and #40 will be moved other locations,
one on the K float and the other to the J float. K39 is 20 feet by 36 feet (720 square
feet) in size; K40 is 18 feet by 36 feet (648 square feet) in size. A seaplane float of
8 feet by 30 feet will be placed in newly vacated area on the K float.
2.
The existing, one-story boathouses are constructed with wood framing, aluminum and
sheet steel siding and roofing and are supported by float logs and styrofoam. The
new float will be constructed with concrete, ACZA.60 treated framing material, and
encapsulated, styrofoam floatation billets. The bottom of the float will be
approximately 16 feet above the basin floor at mean higher high tidal elevations.
Neither the boathouses nor the new float will be anchored to the bottom of the
harbor, but will be connected to the existing float system which is anchored to the
shoreline adjacent to Marine Drive. The proposal will result in a net increase of
shade by 240 square feet.
.
3. The Port Angeles Harbor provides near shore marine habitat for juvenile Puget
Sound chinook salmon, which are listed as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. Nearshore marine areas provide habitat for salmon, as well
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28. 2001
Page 6
.
.
.
as for bait fish such as herring and sand lance. Within the Boat Haven, salmon and
herring have been seen; however, their extent in the proposed location of the floats
and boathouses are not known. Eelgrass is known as key habitat for juvenile salmon
as it provides refuge, as well as feeding habitat. Since the decline of salmon
populations and recent federal listings ofthese species, any negative impact to these
aquatic plants or other habitats have been scrutinized. An eelgrass survey has been
underway for the project site.
4.
The Port Angeles Boat Haven has been in operation for several decades. It provides
slips for permanent or transient moorages, as well as gas floats and haul out areas.
Parking for the facility is provided both east and west of the moorage area. The I, J,
K and L floats are in the center of the facility and are accessed via a walkway
adjacent to Marine Drive.
5.
The designation of the subject site is Aquatic Harbor (AH) in the Port Angeles
Shoreline Master Program, Industrial (1) in the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan,
and Industrial Heavy (IH) in the Zoning Code, and boating facilities are permitted
uses in each of these designations. The existing Boat Haven is a longstanding use
that is specifically allowed at this location.
6.
The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master
Program. Those most relevant include the following: Chapter 4 D-Environmental
Impacts Policy 1 and Regulations 1, 4, 7, and 12; E-Environmentally Sensitive
Areas Policy I and Regulation 1; F-Kelp Beds, Eelgrass Beds, Herring Spawning
Areas, Smelt Spawning Areas, Shellfish Areas and Other Critical Salt Water Habitats
Policies 1-9 and Regulations 3, 4, 7; H-Salmon and Steelhead Habitats Policies 1-4
and Regulations 1 and 5, J-Public Access Policies 1-7 and Regulations 4; K-
Shorelines of State-wide Significance Policies 1-6, Chapter 5 Aquatic Harbor
Purposes 1-2, Policy 5 and Use Table H; Chapter 6 B-Boating Facilities Policies I
and 3 and Regulations General 1, 4,9, and 11, Covered Moorage 3, 4, and 5; Chapter
7 K-Piers, Wharves, Docks, Floats and Buoys Policies 1,3,4, and 9, Regulations 1
and 3.
7. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan,
including: Conservation Element Goal A, Policy 1, Goal B and Policies 1-2, 9-10,
19, and 21, Goal D and Policies 1,4,7-8, Utilities and Public Services Element, Goal
A and C, Economic Development Element Goal A and Policies 4, and Goal B and
Policy 1.
8.
The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Zoning Code. Those
most relevant include the following: The Boat Haven is located within the Industrial
Heavy zone which is the least restrictive zone intended to be are in which heavy
industry could develop causing the least impact on other land uses. Marinas are
permitted uses within the IH zone.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28. 200!
Page 7
9.
The proposed additional floats and boathouse re-arrangement should not affect
parking needs.
10. The application materials were sent to the Department of Ecology (DOE), the
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW), Corps of Engineers,
and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal Council for review.
1 I. The Light Department, Fire Department and Public Works Department each
indicated they have no comments or recommended conditions of approval regarding
the application.
12. No public comments were received on this application. The written public conunent
period concluded March 15,2001.
13.
The aquatic shoreline is defined by the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESA) Ordinance, Chapter 15.20, as a "beach and associated coastal drift process
area, and a "Priority Species and Species of Concern Habitat Areas". Buffer and
protective standards for these areas are generally deferred to the Shoreline Master
Program. A habitat management may be required to address impacts and propose
mitigation. In order to determine if the proposed site contains or is near such a
habitat, consultation with the State Fish and Wildlife Agency is required., and
oftentimes, a 'biological assessment' is required to be prepared by a professional
biologist with experience in the habitat type that is question. In this case, the State
Fish and Wildlife Dept. requested that an eelgrass survey be conducted in order to
determine ifhabitat is present which in turn, would allow for conditions or mitigation
to be set forth. The City has determined that the review and process by the other
resource agencies would generally satisfy the requirement set forth in the City Code,
14. Approval of SMA 01-01 shall also be deemed as approval for the activity in
accordance with Chapter 15.20 PAMC.
15. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official, Port of Port
Angeles, issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the project on December
18, 2000.
16. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Chapter 15.12 P AMC, requires that the any
proposal be required to ensure that the base flood or water surface elevation is not
increased more than one foot, which can be made by the proposal.
Conclusions:
1.
The proposal, as conditioned, would allow for reconfiguration of existing covered
moorage without exceeding the maximum allowance established for the Boat Haven.
In addition, it would provide for safe mooring of seaplanes, or larger boats in an open
area of the Boat Haven.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28. 2001
Page 8
.
2.
The proposal, as conditioned, would not negatively affect critical saltwater habitat,
or salmon and steelhead habitat, as defined by the Shoreline Master Program. The
proposal would increase cover a total of 240 square feet which can be mitigated
through collaboration with resource agency experts.
3. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code as a pennitted use with the Industrial Light zone.
4. As long as the habitat issues are adequately addressed, the proposal can be deemed
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program and PAMC 15.20, Environmentally
Sensitive Areas..
Commissioner Doty seconded the motion which passed 6 - O.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 00-02 -
PORT ANGELES YACHT CLUB.130S Marine Drive: A proposal to enclose
a covered patio area, construct an 8' x 20' covered addition and a 12' x 20' deck
to an existing structure within the Boat Haven in the Industrial Heavy zone.
.
Commissioner Wayne Doty acknowledged that he is familiar with Bill Roberds, the
applicant's representative, and Stan Maharaj, a business owner in the area who has submitted
comments regarding the use. Commissioner Bob Philpott noted that he is familiar with
several proponents of the proposal present in the audience. Commissioner Mary Craver
acknowledged that she is also familiar with several of the audience proponents. The
commissioners stated that they felt they could act fairly on the application but would stand
down if there were objections. There being none, they remained.
Planner Barnes reviewed Planning staff's report recommending approval ofthe proposal with
conditions and provided overhead depictions of the site. Vice Chair Schramm opened the
public hearing.
Bill Roberds, 1305 West Marine Drive, represented the Port Angeles Yacht Club. He
provided a brief history ofthe establishment of the Yacht Club at the site and its service to
the marine recreation conununity. The original plans submitted with the application
indicated a larger deck which has since been shortened following discussions with the Army
Corps of Engineers. The project has been amended to cantilever over the bank rather than
provide footings in the base of the rip rap to address the concerns of the resource agencies.
He estimated that the project would take up to two years to complete. Construction materials
and labor would largely be donated or fund raising supported. Construction ofthe planned
viewing deck is dependent on when the Port can repair the eroded bank.
.
He responded to Commissioner Doty that the bank erosion appears to have been caused by
runoff from the parking lot to a course under an access ramp that has been unnoticed for
several years. The erosion was observed when the area was surveyed for the proposed
construction. Club members have offered their assistance to the Port to repair the damage.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28, 2001
Page 9
.
The Department ofFish and Wildlife has indicated the area is a sensitive habitat and a permit
or exemption must be obtained to repair the erosion and that the area may not be reclaimed.
An asphalt berm at the top of the slope directing runoff to the existing storm drain may help
the erosion. The Port of Port Angeles is considering redesign of the entire area and regrading
may also be a solution at a point in the future.
Mr. Roberds responded to Commissioner Hewins that a new lease would need to be
negotiated with the Port to acquire additional property if the addition were to be placed
south of the existing building. The current proposal to extend the existing roof line east is
the most cost efficient plan. Given the westerly winds prone to the area and the need to keep
structures out of the path needed for equipment to access the north rip rap for maintenance,
the east extension was proposed. Mr. Roberds indicated that removal of the deck in the event
of maintenance of the east rip rap could be readily accomplished. The Club is hesitant to
proceed ahead with final construction drawings due to the costs involved until it is learned
if the addition and deck will be approved.
Commissioner Craver requested that the Port officially verify the parking agreement.
.
John Pope, 735 East Sixth Street, represented the YMCA youth sailing program. The Port
Angeles Yacht Club has served as host for the YMCA's sailing program. The proposed
observation deck will prove very useful for directing student activities in the B?at Haven
area. He asked that the proposed construction be approved.
John Fred Pope, 735 East Sixth Street, stated that there has been a significant increase in
sailing activities in the area. Peninsula College has instituted a summer sailing program.
The Port Angeles High School and YMCA programs have been established for several years
and go year round. Expansion of the facility is very positive. He thanked those who
proposed the expansion.
SuzaJtne Malraraj, 1213 West Marine Drive, does not oppose expansion of businesses but
was concerned that parking has not been addressed. She explained that she had problems
with proposed expansions to a restaurant use that she and her husband operated in the same
area.
There being no further comments, Vice Chair Schramm closed the public hearing.
Planner Barnes responded to Commissioner Norton that the proposed conditions set the
framework for the redesign of the proposed expansion and allow for flexibility. However,
improvements beyond what the conditions allow would require a new permit.
.
Commissioner Hewins was concerned that the construction redesign is not definite, the lease
with the Port regarding parking is not definite, the property owner (Port) has not indicated
approval of the project with respect to extension over the rip rap area, and added erosion
hazards may occur given the addition is proposed very near the top of the bank. He would
not be as concerned if the proposed building was set back from the top of the bank eight to
ten feet.
Planning Commission Minules
March 28. 2001
Page 10
.
Commissioner Philpott asked Director Collins if conditions could be approved to allow the
project to move forward by requiring engineering for the proposal to be approved as a part
of those conditions. Director Collins answered that the applicants are reluctant to spend the
money to finalize engineering plans without assurance that a permit will be approved. The
Commission could approve the proposal with conditions such as staff has recommended,
deny the proposal, or come up with conditions that the Commission prefers.
Conunissioner Norton stated that he would like to see the project move forward but would
like to see the final design and parking agreement before that approval is given.
Commissioner Craver reiterated that she would like to see the deck moved to the north side
of the structure and have the parking arrangement with the Port verified before acting on the
permit.
Planner Barnes noted that the hearing could be continued to allow the applicant to submit
revised drawings and obtain infonnation from the Port that would address the Commission's
concerns.
Vice Chair Schramm suggested that plan for construction north of the existing structure
rather than to the top of the bank and input from the Port would be helpful.
.
Commissioner Norton moved to continue the public hearing to the April 25, 2001,
regular meeting. Commissioner Hewins seconded the motion. In response to
Commissioner Hewins, Mr. Roberds responded that he could address the Commissioners'
questions regarding parking, design and maintenance questions, repair of the eroded area
within two weeks. The current plan would leave 5' to the top of the rip rap.
In response to Commissioner Craver, he answered that the north lawn area should be left as
is for maintenance of the rip rap from the land. If there was a Plan B, it would be to go to
the south which would result in the loss of parking spaces and a renegotiation of the lease
for additional property. The cost ofthe project would double. A two week extension rather
than one month is desired as the process has been lengthy to date. Commissioner Norton did
not wish to amend his motion and stated that he did not wish to pressure the applicant with
a shorter time period. The motion passed 5 - 1, with Commissioner Doty voting against
the motion because it is to continue for one month when the applicant asked for only
a two week extension to avoid pressure which the applicant did not feel. Vice Chair
Schramm confirmed that the motion was to reopen and continue the public hearing to
April 25, 2001, 7 p.m.
The Commission took a break from 8:40 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.
.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 00-03 -
CITY OF PORT ANGELES. Ediz Hook Drive: A proposal to under ground
existing power lines along the shoreline in the Industrial Heavy zone.
Planner Barnes reviewed the Planning staffs recommendation of approval with conditions
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28, 2001
Page J I
and amended condition No.5. Vice Chair Schramm opened the public hearing.
Jim Harper, Port Angeles Public Works Engineering, 321 East Fifth Street, stated that the
major issue under consideration is to under ground existing power lines. The intent is not
to increase capacity but to eliminate the overhead lines for aesthetic considerations.
Conduits for other utility uses will be placed along with conduit for the electrical wiring.
Existing utility poles will not be removed until completion of the entire project which is
expected to take up to eight years.
Mr. Harper responded to Commissioner Doty that the area has been previously disturbed
during another infrastructure project. The approximate area is the same as was previously
disturbed. No evidence of historical artifacts was uncovered.
In response to Conunissioner Schramm, Mr. Harper noted that construction will need to be
completed during the tourist season (summer to fall) in order to complete the work in order
to comply with the Department ofFish and Wildlife restrictions. At the earliest June would
be a starting date with July being the latest.
Commissioner Craver commented that revegetation of disturbed areas was proposed but not
listed as a condition which she preferred. Commissioners Hewins and Schramm drafted
language for Condition #6.
There being no further comments, Vice Chair Schramm closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hewins moved to approve the shoreline substantial development permit
with six conditions, citing the following findings and conclusions:
Conditions:
1. Ifthe subject site has not been previously inventoried, evaluated, and reviewed to the
satisfaction of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the subject site shall be evaluated by
a cultural review team which shall include a professional archaeologist, a
representative of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the site owner, and the City
Planning Department. This team shall detennine the extent of excavation monitoring
for the project during the pennit review process. As an alternative, the applicant may
volunteer to have an approved archaeologist on site during any excavation in lieu of
a review by the aforementioned cultural team. If during an excavation that by
decision of the cultural review team occurs without an approved archaeologist on-
site, any phenomena of possible archaeological interest are uncovered, the developer
shall stop such work and provide for a site inspection and evaluation by a
professional archaeologist to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data is
properly salvaged.
2.
The project shall comply with all regulations ofthe City's Shoreline Master Program
specifically those of Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28,2001
Page 12
.
Findings:
.
.
3.
The proposed project shall meet all federal, state, and local requirements.
4. The project shall utilize best management practices as identified in the City of Port
Angeles Stormwater Management Plan to control stonnwater runoff into the
shoreline area.
5. The proposal shall be not necessitate subsequent shoreline bank protection structures.
6. All disturbed vegetation shall be replaced upon the completion of each project
segment.
Based on the information provided in the March 28, 2001 Staff Report for SMA 01-03
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public
hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, the City of Port
Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1.
An application for a shoreline permit was submitted by the City of Port Angeles,
Light Department, on January 25, 2001 for the replacement of overhead powerlines
with underground power lines on Ediz Hook. The application indicates that the work
will occur within public right-of-way on the harbor side ofthe City's waterfront trail,
except for a certain reach which will require excavation onto the trail due to the
vicinity of the shoreline. The project will begin near the public boat launch area in
the vicinity of the Puget Pilots facility and work westerly/southerly towards the BP
Tanks. The project will be completed in several phases, lasting up to eight years
prior to completion. The work includes the excavation of approximately 8000 feet
of32-40 in width trenches to a depth of 4-feet for the placement of the conduit and
cable. The materials that are excavated will be appropriately stored and then used for
the required backfill. Revegetation of the disturbed area will also occur. Best
management practices will be incorporated to address potential erosion and water
quality impacts from the construction.
2. In accordance with the Shoreline Management Act and the local SMP, a conditional
use may be granted if all five of the specified criteria can be met, as well as
consideration of the cumulative effects of such requests has been made. These
include assurances related to the proposed project that: 1) applicable policies are
maintained, 2) public use of the shoreline is not impacted, 3) compatibility with
adjacent uses can be made, 4) no adverse effects to the shoreline will result, and 5)
that the public interest is maintained. As conditioned, the proposal meets the criteria
specified. In addition, since sewer, water, phone and fiber utilities have been recently
upgraded on Ediz Hook, this last phase of utility upgrades, future additional utility
upgrades are not anticipated.
3.
A Determination of Non-Significance was issued by the City of Port Angeles SEPA
Responsible Official for the proposal on March 14,2001
4. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Planning Commission Minl/tes
March 28. 2001
Page 13
.
.
Conclusi ons:
Ordinance and critical areas ordinances have been reviewed with respect to this
application.
5.
The site is designated Open Space in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Public
Buildings and Parks and Commercial, Arterial in the City's Zoning Ordinance, and
Urban-Harbor in the City's Shoreline Master Program.
6.
Chapter 5.ofthe City's Shoreline Master Program indicates utilities are permitted
uses in the U-H designation, however, Chapter 6) I, Regulation 4, specifies non~water
dependent utilities including electrical lines require a shoreline conditional use
permit.
7.
The following adopted City policies are most relevant to the proposed project:
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policies A-2, and Utilities and Public
Services Element Policies A-I, D-l, D-; the City's Shoreline Master Program's
Urban-Harbor designation and Chapter 4, Policies B-1 and 2, D-I, E-2, H, 1-4) J -2,
M-l and 2, and N-2, Chapter 5, Policies D-I and 2, and Chapter 6, Policies I-I, and
Chapter 8(0)(2), all associated regulations.
8.
The City's waterfront trail runs east and west along the length of the project.
Based on the information provided in the March 28, 2001 Staff Report for SMA 01-03
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 Conunission hereby concludes that
A. The proposed project as conditioned, is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan
Shoreline Master Program.
B. The project will not be detrimental to the shoreline.
C. As conditioned, the proposed project will enhance the shoreline environment along
Ediz Hook.
D. As conditioned, the proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit
E. As conditioned, the proposed project will not interfere with public use of lands or
waters.
Commissioner Craver seconded the motion which passed 6 - O.
. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28, 2001
Page 14
. STAFF REPORTS
Sue Roberds reported that the City had received the Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A)
necessary to continue with the Valley Creek Estuary Bridge Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit approved by the City in 2000. She encouraged the Planning
Commissioners to be sure to attend the Board and Commissions recognition ceremony to be
held at the City Council's regular April3rd meeting, 6 p.m.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Commissioner Norton noted that three commissioners had attended the recently held
planning short course in Sequim which was very interesting. He thanked Planner Barnes for
her organization efforts for the session.
to the Commission,
meeti as he has
q
k-
Commissioner Hewins thanked Sue Roberds for assistance with the Telecommunications
Wireless Ordinance development.
Commissioner Doty noted that although he had recently been appointe
he regretfully would need to resign effective following the April
accepted an employment position in Olympia, Washington. JI
. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
~ (..RG.' ;>
B ad Collms, Secretary
~SlC01vrv-
Chuck Schramm; Vice Chair
PREPARED BY; S. Roberds
.
· FORTANGELES
W A 5 H I N G TON, U. 5. A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET
PLEASE SIGN IN
Meeting Agenda of: ~CV7 0< s: ~CO /
PLEASE NOTE: IF you plan to testify, by signature below, you certify that the testimony
given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington.
Si nature below DOES NOT REQUIRE ou to testify - it onl acknowled es our resence.
J
NAME:
Agenda Item No.
~-3
=n::
-bF3
'#
'Jt""6
· ~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET
PLEASE SIGN IN
Meeting Agenda of:
PLEASE NOTE: IF you plan to testify, by signature below, you certify that the testimony
given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington.
S' b l DOES NOT REQUIRE ify . I k 1 d
lRnature e ow you to testl - tt Only ac now e lRes your presence.
/ NAME: ADDRESS: - Agenda Item No.
v' ---& JI J2cI ~1't--2- /, $;--f" {J.j ~ M (:r}) k flJ 3:
!3a( ~dJur(,)j cL lie v. /2 fL PA- J
.
· ~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET
PLEASE SIGN IN
Meeting Agenda of:
PLEASE NOTE: IE you plan to testify, by signature below, you certify that the testimony
given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington.
.
Sifmature below DOES NOT REQUIRE you to testify - it only acrnowledRes your presence.
NAME: ADDRESS: Agenda Item No.
W JJ ' e Uvdf.! r " hI./. .. I' J-(f I W ~5+ I.{ -HI:>-r P A-
I I:<..e IA. .r{ C .( -.f l...... u -:l- -z- Z3 U. I J-!:: ./,- /'-A
j ...:J 0 h. fL .f)n. /) 1 1)c; i ~~ ~ 3
.; j~ ?- f;pj ;4/~ 7sJ ):: b 1-4 11-5
~ /~ " 3'!8 &. /'ts!- St -Hz.
'-~ S e,.v(?G:>ffY
I