Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/18/1990 . .. . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 Special Meeting July 18, 1990 7:00 P,M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 11, 1990 IV. SEPA APPEAL PROCEEDING: ID. An appeal by Mantooth, et al, of the Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official's determination to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on April 18, 1990, and an appeal by Del Hur, Inc., of the Responsible Official's determination to modify the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on May 14, 1990. 1. Introduction and overview of process: Larry Leonard, Planning Commission Chairman. 2. Presentation: Brad Collins, SEPA Responsible Official. 3, Presentation: Ken Williams, Attorney for Appellant Mantooth, et al. 4. Presentation: Alan Middleton, Attorney for Appellant DelHur, Inc. 5. Rebuttal: Collins/Williams/Middleton. 6. Planning Commission deliberation. 7. Planning Commission action. v. ADJOURNMENT NOTES: The SEP A Appeal Proceeding is not a public hearing and the Planning Commission will not be taking public testimony. After all requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act have been met, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in order to receive testimony regarding the Planned Residential Development. Contact the Planning Department at 457-0411 ext. 159 for scheduled hearing dates. All pertinent information regarding the SEPA Appeal, including project files and Port Angeles SEP A procedures, is available for review in the Planning Department office. Copies of all material is available at a cost of $.25 per page, . . . Mitigation Measures ... Ennis Creek Estates On April 18, 1990, the City of Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official determined that the development of the Ennis Creek Estates Planned Residential Development would not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment provided the following mitigation measures were attached to the proposal: 1. Prior to approval of a prelimifUuy Planned Residential Development by the City of Port Angeles, the applicant shall submit a recreational use and mitigation plan designed to provide usable common open space within the Ennis Creek ravine (that area of the Planned Residential Development zoned Public Buildings and Parks) while maintaining and protecting fisheries habitat within this area, The plan shall be prepared by a professional water resources finn and shall be approved by the Washington State Department of Fisheries. The plan shall be implemented by the applicant prior to the issuance of occupancy penn its for any habitable structure within the Planned Residential Development. No vegetation within the Planned Residemial Developmem zoned Public Buildings and Parks shall be disturbed, except as approved by the Washington State Department of Fisheries and the Port Angeles Planning Departmem. 2. Prior to issuance of building pennits for any structure designed for hwnan occupancy within the Planned Residential Development, the applicant shall submit a detailed geotechnical foundation report relating to the ability of the building sites to support structures. The study shall be prepared by an engineering finn licensed in the State of Washington specializing in geotechnicall/oundation engineering. 3. Prior to approval of a preliminary Planned Residential Development by the City of Port Angeles, the applicant shall submit a surface water drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a licensed engineer to the Washington Department of Fisheries and Port Angeles Department of Public Works for approval. The plan shall be implemented by the applicant from the onset of any construction within the Planned Residential Development. On May 14. 1990, the Responsible Official modified the above determination to include the following mitigation measures in addition to those previously established: 4, Pursuant to the Washington State Department of Fisheries letter of April 3D, 1990, the applicant shall provide a 150 foot buffer along Ennis Creek in order to provide recruitment of large woody debris. This buffer shall be included in the recreational use and mitigation plan, 5. Pursuant to the Washington State Department of Ecology letter of May 1, 1990, the applicant shall include a wetlands report from a qualified consultant hired to delineate the wetland boundaries using the new federal wetlands delineation methodology. This report should include information on the junctions and values provided by the wetland and proposed mitigation to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the wetland where possible and to compensate for unavoidable impacts. The Planning Commission will review two appeals of the above determinations. The Mantooth appeal requests that the detennination be overturned and an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared. The DelHur appeal requests that the Commission amend condition number 4 to allow some development within 150 feet of Ennis Creek. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington Special Meeting July 18, 1990 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Leonard called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Ray Gruver, Jim Hulett, Roger Catts, Larry Leonard, Bob Philpott, william Anabel. Members Excused: Donna Davison. staff Present: Sue Roberds, Grant Beck, Craig Knutson. Representing Appellant Mantooth: Ken Williams. Representing Appellant DelHur: Alan Middleton, William Wilbert, Jr. , Bill Wey. Representing City of Port Angeles: Brad Collins, Gary Kenworthy. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES This item was continued until July 25, 1990. IV SEPA APPEAL PROCEEDING An appeal by Mantooth, et aI, of the Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official's determination to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance on April 18, 1990, and an appeal by DelHur, Inc., of the Responsible Official's determination to modify the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on Mav 14. 1990. Brad Collins, SEPA Responsible official, was sworn in by Chairman Leonard. Mr. Collins presented a videotape of Ennis Creek taken earlier this spring upstream of the project site. Mr. Collins indicated that protection of the area is not the issue, but how the protection occurs. Mr. Collins reviewed the staff report for the project and noted the requirements of WAC 197-11-330, which describe the threshold determination process. He stated that the actions taken for this project have included an Environmental Checklist submitted on March 5, 1990, which received a mitigated DNS issued on April 18, 1990, and was subsequently modified on May 14, 1990, in direct response to agency comments. The mitigated and the modified mitigated DNS are being appealed. PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1990 Page 2 . The SEPA Responsible Official's determination is that the project, as proposed, will not have a significant adverse impact on the area, provided certain mitigating measures are attached to the proposal. There are 71 mitigating measures identified and considered as conditions of either this deter- mination or incorporated by reference. Part of the proposal, the alternatives and impacts, have been analyzed in previous documents and were incorporated by reference. The Planning Department received a large number of responses from agencies with jurisdiction and from the public. The SEPA Responsible Official reconsidered the Determination of Non-Significance following receipt of comments from agencies and then issued the Mitigated Modified ONS in direct response to comments from Fisheries and Ecology. The Planned Residential Development (PRD) is regulated under the Zoning Code. The City will not lose its ability to require a full SEPA review at a later date by this action. . Mr. Collins indicated that DelHur, Inc., also appealed mitigation measure NO.4, which requires a 150-foot buffer along Ennis Creek in order to provide recruitment of large woody debris. Mitigation Measure No. 4 was attached following consultation from the Department of Fisheries. Commissioner Catts asked who would enforce the mitigation measures and what would happen if it was found that the measures were not put into place. Mr. Collins responded that if the conditions are not met the project could be stopped; a Determination of Non-Significance could be withdrawn; a Determination of Significance could be issued; or the project could be denied under SEPA. . Chairman Leonard swore in Ken Williams, attorney for Mantooth, et aI, the appellants. Mr. Williams stated that his clients do not oppose development in the area or mUlti-family develop- ment. The opposition is to unplanned development. Mr. Williams stated that environmentally bad choices last forever. He stated that the SEPA regulations require that before decision makers act, all possible impacts for a project shall be identified and mitigated, if possible. He noted this is the largest development ever in Port Angeles history and possibly in Clallam County, as well as the first PRD within the City limits. Mr. Williams read into the record a letter from the Department of Wildlife, dated April 24, 1990, expressing grave concern over the project proposal. He noted that the letter referred to the three mitigating measures which had been placed on the Determination of Non-Significance at that date. Mr. Williams noted that staff had stated that the PRD developments are regulated by the Zoning Code, but stated that the ability to regulate the proposal is over when the PRD process is approved. He stated the potential for adverse impacts, if a Determination of significance is not PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1990 Page 3 . required, are unquantifiable loss of natural resources. He further stated there is a need for more information and more expertise, and the information should be sought first, before the decision is made. commissioner Hulett corrected the record that there has been one other PRD approved in the city; however, the PRD has not been developed. Chairman Leonard questioned Mr. Williams as to whether he felt the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife had indicated whether or not they had had enough time to review the proposal. . Mr. Williams noted that the Departments of Fisheries and Wild- life would be able to respond meaningfully with more time. He stated that the issuance of a Determination of Significance and a subsequent EIS would result in a delay of 45 to 60 days for this project and would not be out of line. Chairman Leonard noted that the Departments of wildlife and Fisheries did not take lead agency status on this proposal. Mr. Williams responded that lead agency is ultimately whoever has the most control over the project. The Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries did not have those resources and it is clearly a city project. Chairman Leonard swore in Alan Middleton, Davis, Wright, Tremain, 9806 32nd Ave. NE, Seattle, attorney for DelHur, Inc. Mr. Middleton noted that william wilbert of DelHur, Inc., and Bill Wey of The Watershed Company, Seattle, were present for questions. Mr. Middleton stated that the issues which concerned his client had been mostly resolved at this point and that his client is not here to appeal the revised Determination of Non- Significance. He stated that the Department of Fisheries had approved a re-wording of Condition No.4, as proposed by Mr. Middleton, to read: liThe applicant shall provide a ISO-foot buffer along Ennis Creek in order to provide recruitment of large woody debris. If. in reviewinq a recreational use and mitigation plan approved as provided in Mitiqation Measure No.1. the city and the Department of Fisheries determine that recreational uses may be sited within the ISO-foot buffer. this Mitiqation Measure No. 4 shall not be read as restrictinq their power to authorize such use. II . Mr. Middleton stated that his client is not here simply to develop and leave the community, but has past long-term and future interests in the City and its development. Mr. Middleton noted that WAC 197-11-350 (3) states that if adverse impacts can be mitigated, a Determination of Non- Significance must be issued. He stated that during the PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1990 Page 4 . annexation, rezone, and the current PRD proposal, extensive review has been conducted concerning environmental issues. The Environmental Impact Statement issued in 1983 stated that measures would be continuing through a development process. Seven geo-technical studies have been done since 1984. How- ever, geo-technical surveys cannot be done for the building sites because the buildings do not exist, and the site plan can be changed. He further stated that during the process of review, the developer has down-sized his project to 366 units. The project is expected to take up to five years to develop. Mr. Middleton stated that the project encompasses 34 acres, not 10 acres as noted by the appellants. The developer plans to concentrate on a smaller area and leave the remainder in its virgin state. The developer will leave a ISO-foot buffer, recognizing Ennis Creek as a valuable environmental area which should be preserved, and agrees with the conditions as approved by the Department of Fisheries (revised Measure No. 4) . . Mr. Middleton said further environmental review will be during the development phases. He stated this is not the city's last shot at review of the proposal; that continuing review will occur by the mitigation measures invoked, or if new informa- tion comes to light during the development process. Mr. Middleton objected to the statement of the attorney for the appellants' that approval of a PRD constitutes a firm con- tract. Mr. Middleton noted there have been 54 mitigating measures imposed during the Environmental Impact statement process in 1983-84; 48 of which concern this development. Twelve measures have been proposed from the rezone; and five during the PRD-SEPA appeal, for a total of 71 mitigation measures. It was stated that all parties concerned believe that at least one crossing of Ennis Creek is necessary to assure the safety of children and people in the area. The Creek recreation area is intended to be well-managed and developed with exercise points at various locations. Commissioner Catts asked Mr. Middleton about Condition No.3, which calls for an erosion control plan, subject to City and Department of Fisheries approval prior to development. He also asked whether the recent clogging of the fish ladder on Highway 101 had been caused by development on this site. William wilbert was sworn in by Chairman Leonard. Mr. Wilbert responded to Commissioner Catts' inquiries and stated that the clogging of the fish ladder occurred as a result of sanding from the recent winter snows and weather on Highway 101. An erosion control plan would be implemented and monitored by the City during the construction phase. . The commission took a ten-minute recess at 8: 50 P.M. meeting reconvened at 9:03 P.M. The PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1990 Page 5 . During the rebuttal phase of the meeting, Mr. Collins stated that no new significant adverse impacts had been identified that had not already been addressed. In response to the concern that the city cannot further review and mitigate potential impacts which occur following a PRD approval, Mr. Collins read the PRD Ordinance which states that a PRD must comply with all other Ordinances, such as Building Code and SEPA regulations. Mr. Collins indicated that this does not state that the city will not have the ability to control possible environmental impacts which could be further con- ditioned or denied. He stated he believes the work already done for the project has identified possible impacts and addressed them. He also noted that the developer has down- sized the project from the rezone stage, but the project is still larger than the densities evaluated in the 1983 EIS for the site annexation. Commissioner Hulett asked Mr. Collins if it is the Department of Fisheries which issues hydraulics permits. Mr. Collins stated that Wildlife also issues hydraulics permits. . Commissioner Hulett asked if in issuance of a hydraulics permit the Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries would have more time to do more background research on issues which were of concern. Mr. Collins stated "yes". commissioner Gruver asked when other agencies could have assumed lead agency status. Mr. Collins stated that within 15 days of receipt of the Determination of Non-Significance circulated by the city to reviewing agencies per WAC 197-11-340, the agencies with jurisdiction could have assumed lead agency status. Commissioner Gruver asked who would monitor the erosion control measures imposed. Gary Kenworthy, City of Port Angeles City Engineer, was sworn in by Chairman Leonard. Mr. Kenworthy noted that a hydraulics permit would be issued with conditions and inspections would occur during the life of the project. Depending on the sensi- tivity of the project, more inspections could occur. Chairman Leonard asked which agencies had reviewed the Environmental Checklist. . Mr. Collins noted that the Checklist was routed to agencies with possible permitting authority for the project. Grant Beck, Associate Planner for the City of Port Angeles, was sworn in by Chairman Leonard. Mr. Beck noted that the PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1990 Page 6 . Environmental Checklist had been routed to the Department of Ecology, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Wildlife, the point-No-point Treaty Council, and School District #121, and that the mitigated DNS had been put in the SEPA Register for the State on April 16th to April 20th, and the modified mitigated DNS was also put in the SEPA Register. Mr. Collins noted in closing that if the proposal does not comply with the mitigated measures of the Determination of Non-Significance the DNS could be withdrawn and a Deter- mination of Significance could be issued. If further impacts which are greater than anticipated are noted in SEPA review for building permits, the issue can be re-reviewed at that time. Commissioner Philpott wanted to be assured that the city would not be responsible for further maintenance in the area. Ken williams noted that the developer has vested rights and a PRD approval constitutes a contract. There was considerable discussion regarding vested rights. . Commissioner Gruver asked Attorney Williams about Mr. Collins I statement that if impacts were noted in the future, would it be too late to address them. Mr. Williams responded it is usually too late; the parties usually prefer not to bother, and there is no legal vehicle for reviewing at a later date. Chairman Leonard wondered if the Department of Fisheries would have more time to review the proj ect when review of the hydraulics permit occurs; and what types of information is looked at in review of the hydraulics permit application. Mr. williams answered that the Departments usually look at the construction issues and impacts, and do not try to mitigate them out. Chairman Leonard also asked if other agencies did not have an opportunity to thoroughly review the project and why another agency did not assume lead status. Mr. Williams answered that usually another agency will not take the lead agency status when an issue is so patently within another municipality's jurisdiction. . Alan Middleton stated that he had not heard testimony of any new impacts which had not been previously addressed. He noted that the issues addressed by Attorney Williams included traffic and utilities and those issues have been addressed in previous studies and updated to date. He stated there was nothing further to study at this point. Surveys were done which characterized the geo-technical information available. PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1990 Page 7 . Fisheries retains the right to approve a hydraulic permit for storm water drainage. He briefly described his understanding of the developer's vested rights on future development and stated that the City will not lose its right to change, modify, or add a mitigation measure at a later date. Mr. Middleton noted there is a substantial record on this review and each issue raised by the appellant. He did not see there is any new information which had not been considered pre- viously. Mr. Middleton answered questions from the Commission concerning the hydraulic permit and control of run-off. In response to Commissioner Hulett's inquiry as to the City's opportunity for further review, Craig Knutson, city of Port Angeles City Attorney, was sworn in by Chairman Leonard. Mr. Knutson stated there will be some continuing enforcement involved. The Commission should be sure to cover all issues now. Further SEPA review may not be necessary if the issue is thoroughly reviewed and appropriate measures are added at this time. Geo-technical studies may be done by the Building Official if there is any question during the time of construc- tion. All studies required will be necessary to have been completed prior to the PRD approval, with the exception of the geo-technical studies. . The Commission took a five-minute recess at 10:30 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:35 P.M. The Commission discussed at length the testimony received. Commissioner Hulett expressed concern that the City could lose control at a later date if the impacts changed. commissioner Gruver expressed concern that the issues may not have been studied thoroughly enough, and urged the Commission to acknowledge the request of the appellants and issue a Determination of Significance for this project. Commissioner Hulett noted that further studies could and should be done during the continuing phases of the construc- tion of a project of this type; namely, the PRO. He noted that the erosion and run-off issue had been discussed thoroughly. Commissioner Gruver reiterated his concerns as this is the single largest residential project of its type in the city and possibly in the County; the area is recognized by all as an environmentally sensitive area and should be preserve; and noted that the site, upon completion, would contain nearly 6% of the city I s total population. He noted that a PRO is a very specific project. . Commissioner Anabel asked Director Collins how many other agencies would be contacted if an Environmental Impact state- ment were to be required. . , . PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Collins noted that 19 agencies had been sent the earlier EIS as an estimate of the additional agencies who could respond, if appropriate. Following continued discussion, commissioner Philpott moved to uphold the SEPA Responsible Official's decision to issue the revised Determination of Non-Significance and concur and modify Mitigated Measure No. 4 with the wording as noted by the Department of Fisheries. commissioner Hulett seconded the motion. commissioner Gruver suggested that all the previously attached conditions be included in the motion. commissioner Philpott noted that all the previously referred to conditions would be incorporated by reference. The question was called and passed 4 - 2, with Messrs. Gruver and Anabel voting "No". commissioner Catts moved to approve and adopt the findings as noted in the Determination of April 18, 1990, and Conditions 9 and 10 of May 14, 1990, and Conclusion A in April 18, 1990. commissioner Hulett seconded the motion, which passed 4 - 2, with Messes. Anabel and Gruver voting "No". commissioner Hulett moved to accept withdrawal of the DelHur appeal. Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. commissioner Hulett moved to deny the appeal of Mantooth, et ale Commissioner Catts seconded the motion, which passed 5 - 1 with Mr. Gruver voting "Noll. Review of the Planned Residential Development, scheduled for July 25, 1990, was discussed. commissioner Gruver asked if Mr. Collins would have the report ready for the Commission's review by the July 25th meeting. Director Collins noted the staff would not have a complete report by that date, but could present some information through a preliminary report to the Commission for its review. Director Collins noted that probably more than one meeting will be required for complete review of the PRD process. It was decided that the Commission would continue with the meeting scheduled for July 25, 1990, to begin review of the PRO, as well as the scheduled review of the CIP and Zoning south of City Hall. ." . . . V ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M. PLAN.341 PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1990 Page 9 . oOt.A NtU~G . CITY of PORT ANGELES ATTENDANCE ROSTER NAME: 'rIPE OF ~1EETING PLANNING COMMISSION Ill\1E OF MEETING '7- I [) -- 90 LOCATIOO CITY HALL ADDRESS: aM./} s-LO "2- z;CL) q K"'O' '31-J fJQ ft / G f..Ut -tttt ~~ '71lahL tvhdJ;:-:J> .~~ 'Ko~ar Z I MKf"(2E{\ ~.~ .~ 17'27 ~ yd 6'98 c ~cfJ.fC,IC./K~ ?A. . LWV r;A_ j8/s e ')~::! pn ~ 1-0 7 IU e.fA(~ ~~ ;)'/2 e;;!e- .