Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/22/1990 . . . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMM:ISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 August 22, 1990 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of August 8, 1990 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL by Del HUT. Inc.: Del Guzzi Drive. V. COMMUNlCA TIONS FROM TIlE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VID. ADJOURNMENT NOTES: The Planning Commission will MI. e:<<:epl allhe discretion of the Chainnan, commence a new hearing after 10:00 P.M. Project fiies and applicable City land use reguiaJions may be reviewed prior to the public hearing in lhe Planning Departmenr. Copies of ail material in the files are available at a cost of $. 25 per page. All correspondence pertaining 10 a hearing item received by the Planning Depanmelll alleast one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Planning Commission: Lan}' Leonard. Chair; Ray Grover, Vice-Chair; Bill Anabel; Roger Cans: Donna Davison: Jim Hullett: Bob Philpott. Planning Staff: Brad Collins. Planning Director; Grant Bect, As50ciatc Planner; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washinston August 22, 1990 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Leonard called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Ray Gruver, Roger Catts, Jim Hulett, Larry Leonard, Bill Anabel. Members Excused: Bob Philpott, Donna Davison. staff Present: Grant Beck, Brad Collins, Bruce Becker, Gary Kenworthy, Lucille Schmitt. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Catts moved to approve the minutes of the August 8, 1990, regular meeting. Mr. Anabel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL bv DelHur. Inc.: DelGuzzi Drive. Chairman Leonard stated that before the meeting was opened for public testimony in the matter of the DelHur Planned Residen- tial Development, the Planning Commission must dispose of two other matters. First, the Commission must address letters received from Ken Williams and Alan Middleton, attorneys representing the opponents and proponents of the proj ect, regarding the amount of time the public would have to testify. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to generally limit testimony to those time limits found in the Planning commission By-Laws. Chairman Leonard indicated that persons representing groups would have 10 minutes to testify; individuals would have 5 minutes. Chairman Leonard requested that persons testifying not repeat issues or statements previously heard by the Commission. The second matter before the Commission was a letter from Ken williams regarding an appearance of fairness challenge to Mr. Philpott and Chairman Leonard. Mr. Williams believed these Planning commission members should step down from proceedings regarding the DelHur development, as they are realtors and could conceivably gain economically from the approval of the proj ect. Chairman Leonard stated that the City Attorney, Craig Knutson, had reviewed Mr. Williams I letter and had opined that both Mr. Philpott and Chairman Leonard could act PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 2 . on the application as they did not have appearance of fairness problems. Mr. Collins reviewed the Department Report and updated the Commission on amended or new sections of the Report, specifically sections 8 through 16. Mr. Collins stated that the Planning Department is recommending approval of the Planned Residential Development subject to eight conditions, three of which should be amended from the wording in the Department Report. Condition No. 1 should state, within the PRD not "with the PRD"; and Conditions Nos. 3 and 6 should reference Appendix 2, which is a list of the mitigation conditions from previous environmental review. . Mr. Gruver questioned Mr. Collins regarding the definition of "open space" and "common usable open space", as found in the Planned Residential Development Chapter of the Zoning Code, and whether subdivision timelines for Planning Commission action could come into effect during the commission's review of the PRD. Mr. Collins stated that "usable common open space" is defined by Sections 17.70.011 and 17.70.050(b) of Ordinance 1709 as amended. The State Subdivision Act provides that the legislative body must take action on a subdivision application 90 days from the date of application, while the Port Angeles Subdivision Code states that the Planning commission should take action 60 days from the date of application. Mr. Catts asked if the inaccuracies of the site plan had been corrected. Mr. Collins indicated they had not. Chairman Leonard opened the meeting to public comment. William Wilbert, 13850 Bel-Red Road, Bellevue, Washington, the applicant for the project, stated that the architect would be available to answer any questions the Planning commission may have regarding the proposed Planned Residential Development, which exceeds every City standard for PROs. Mr. Wilbert further stated that the Planning Commission should not discuss every environmental or zoning issue to come before it, as these issues have been discussed and disposed of in the past year. Mr. Wilbert stated he would be available for questions throughout the meeting and that he had no further comments until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. . Linda May, 29 Golf Course Road, indicated that density is the real problem with this development. Ms. May stated that she is a wildlife rescuer and has extensive experience with impacts development has on wildlife habitat. If the Ravine is accessible to the number of people the development will house, the City will see the annihilation of wildlife within six months. The Planning Commission questioned Ms. May regarding her occupation and how many people would be acceptable on this PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 3 . size site. Ms. May explained what a wildlife rescuer does, and stated that any development is harmful to the wildlife, but less development is better. Dick Goin, 502 Viewcrest, representing the Olympic Outdoor Sportsmen I s Association, stated that the available evaluations of the Creek are fairly minor, but they tend to indicate the stream is valuable and unique, as it starts in Olympic National Park. The weaknesses of the stream include sedi- mentation, the loss of the estuary, the lack of a fishway, an old wooden dam (which has been removed), and log jams. In spite of these weaknesses, however, Ennis Creek is head and shoulders above the other streams within the immediate area. Mr. Goin said all developments degrade the habitat of streams. The question becomes to what degree a development will degrade a stream. Morse Creek was destroyed by the development of single-family residences at its lower end. Mr. Goin stated that he believes various groups can work together to minimize the degradation caused by a development; however, most developers do not care to do so. . Mr. Goin went on to say the Planning Commission is charged with the mandate to protect resources and should condition the project to minimize any impacts the development may have on Ennis Creek. All setbacks should be measured on the hori- zontal plane. Wild stocks of anadromous fish need isolation, which would indicate that access to the stream should be limited. Toward this end, the trail system should be removed from the development. Chairman Leonard asked if fishing was currently allowed in Ennis Creek. Mr. Goin stated that the stream was open for certain fish. Chairman Leonard asked what the Planning Commission can do to minimize impacts to Ennis Creek. Mr. Gain indicated that by having a setback from the stream in which vegetation is not disturbed and keeping people away from the stream are the best methods for mitigation. A ISO-foot setback seems to be the best achievable setback in this instance. Mr. Catts asked if the degradation of the stream was due in part to the ITT Rayonier Mill. Mr. Goin stated that over the years the Mill has cleaned up the problems that it created along Ennis Creek and that most of the problem now is due to channelization. The stream is in the process of natural restoration at this time. . Mr. Hulett asked where the channelization occurs, and whether the ISO-foot setback is measured on the horizontal. Mr. Goin stated that channelization occurs all along the stream, especially in residential areas. Mr. Collins stated that the maps show the setback measured on the horizontal plane. Ken Schwartz, 2033 West 15th Street, stated that he had done research for 20 years regarding social issues and has found PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 4 . that development of any size will cause many impacts to a community, including increased taxes due to increased fire and police protection needs, increased school needs, and increased road usage; more young people will cause more vandalism and drug use within the community; more money in the community will cause organized crime to enter the area; and all of these issues can cause street violence, such as drive- by shootings. Mr. Schwartz said if development does come to the area, the Planning Commission must minimize development problems. Twenty years from now, citizens of the area will ask why elected officials let this happen to Port Angeles. Paul Blake, 6230 piedmont Road, stated that Port Angeles was probably not rated as the Number One place to live in the country in a recent survey because of the DelHur development. Mr. Blake teaches in Port Angeles and has a personal commit- ment to maintaining fish runs in Ennis Creek. As an example, Mr. Blake stated that Park View Villas at Gund Plaza has 107 units, while DelHur will have three and one-half times this density. . Marie Gruebel, 315 West 15th Street, stated that her concerns have not been addressed yet and asked if DelHur has ever completed a project similar to the Ennis Creek Estates Planned Residential Development. The planners, the Planning Commis- sion and the City Council come and go, but citizens remain in the area and they will have to live with the results of the DelHur development. The Landing, garbage rates, and city Hall were all bad decisions which are similar to the decision before the Planning commission at this time on Ennis Creek Estates. It cannot be assumed that 1,000 people will auto- matically occupy these structures, which will remain empty for some years. The public will have to assume the costs of this vacancy. Natural resources are fragile and limited and cannot be squandered. Once Ennis Creek is developed, others will follow. So far, the Planning staff and the Planning Commission have not done a good job of reviewing the project. The Planning Commission should reconsider its decision to not require an Environmental Impact Statement on this project. An EIS would allow experts to review and monitor the develop- ment. . Dr. M. Pat Wennekens, 399 Norman street, Sequim, representing the Sierra Club, stated that the Club supports the retention of open space. However, the density, especially on an unstable ravine, is too high for this location. This deter- mination is made based on material available in the Planning Department file, including the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a foundation report prepared by Northwestern Territories, Inc., and a letter submitted by Ron Crawford. Dr. Wennekens stated he will bet the Planning Commission that the slope will fail at some time. An earthquake would devastate this area. The Olympic peninsula is in the highest earthquake zone on the West Coast. Wooden structures equate PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 5 . to increased fire hazard in the area. Surface water runoff will create large-sized debris deposited near the outfall, which would smother the stream. Three-story structures are not compatible with open space. Noise will disturb the wildlife in the Ennis Creek Ravine. The proposal, as submitted, will overwhelm the environmental quality of the area and must be scaled down to single-family dwellings. Chairman Leonard asked Dr. Wennekens about his background. Dr. Wennekens stated he is a retired earth scientist (an oceanographer) . David Hays, 7460 Highway 101 West, stated that he understands there are problems in Sequim Bay due to environmental pollution exacerbated by sewage. Mr. Hayes wanted to ask Dr. Wennekens whether he had reviewed this when looking at the Ennis Creek Estates development. Chairman Leonard informed Mr. Hays that if he had questions of Dr. Wennekens, he could ask him outside the public hearing forum. . David Nixon, 115 East Ninth Street, stated he is obtaining a Master's Degree in environmental studies at the University of Washington. No concessions should be given to development at the expense of the environment. The development, as proposed, will adversely impact the environmental quality of Ennis Creek and the City of Port Angeles. Dr. Jim Walton, 333 Viewcrest, stated that he is in charge of the Fisheries program at Peninsula College. Dr. Walton stated he has done numerous studies of Ennis Creek through the years, and prior to 1984, there were good populations of certain species below Highway 101 and nothing above the Highway, most likely due to a culvert. In 1984 the culvert was fixed and now there are fish above Highway 101. Fish runs should improve even more over time. Dr. Walton stated he is con- cerned with the development as the density is too high for this area and there is too much access to the stream. It is impossible to keep people from accessing the stream. The soils in the area are fragile and development will cause sedimentation and scouring of the ~stream. The developer should be required to put in a barrier to keep people out of the Ravine and should be very careful in design and maintenance of the drainage system. The system should be monitored forever and upgraded as needed. Rehabilitation may be needed to improve habitat in this location. . Faye Schwartz, 2033 West 15th street, wondered whether Port Angeles is going to be a mini-Seattle, and asked what happens when environmental amenities are no longer available on the Olympic Peninsula. Three Townsite lots near Ms. Schwartz's home on 15th Street were cleared for homes, which dislocated deer and other wildlife from the area. PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 6 . Kent Brauninger, 903 East Park Avenue, representing Save Our Streams, stated that he is not a fisherman and has never fished or been walking along Ennis Creek, but it is nice to have Ennis Creek in an undisturbed condition and available for such activities. The Ravine acts as a trap for air and water pollution from ITT and the Highway and all such benefits of the Ravine will be lost with this development. The vegeta- tion, which stops erosion and filters air pollution, will be lost. The project is just too big, as submitted. The soils on the site are clay, which could cause problems with the structures built at the top of the Ravine. If the hillside were to slump into the Creek, a dam would form at Highway 101 and the Highway, the Sewage Treatment Plant, and ITT could be lost. Mr. Brauninger said people get into the Peabody Creek Ravine regardless of fencing along the stream. Social problems include too dense a development; the Golf Course has been bought off to approve the project, although the proposal will have detrimental impacts to the Course. Mr. Brauninger stated there is basis for a lawsuit as the Planning Commission and staff are ignoring the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. . Chairman Leonard called for a 10-minute break at 9:02 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 P.M. Chairman Leonard stated that prior to continuing with the testimony, the Planning commission needed to discuss the date for a site visit and whether more time was needed for testimony. The Planning Commission came to a consensus that it would meet at the site at 5:00 P.M. August 30th and continue the hearing to the City Council Chambers at 321 East Fifth street to 7:00 P.M. Thursday, August 30th. The Planning Commission came to a consensus that they would take public testimony until 11:00 P.M. Don Rudolph, 1013 East Third street~ stated he was born in Port Angeles and has lived here all his life. So far, only anti-people people have spoken to the Commission. Mr. Rudolph stated his only concern is the need for other access into the city. This project has gone on long enough and the Planning Commission should approve it as soon as possible. . Gerry Powell, 718 Elizabeth Place, wondered how many residents will be teen-agers, who may cause many more problems than adults. There are older persons who use the Golf Course and Lindberg Road for recreation and walking who could be adversely impacted by noise and increased traffic. A cul-de- sac should be added to DelGuzzi Drive. However, if it is a through street, Lindberg should be upgraded by the developer to include sidewalks. PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 7 . Richard Terrell, 3123 Old Olympic Highway found it incredible to discuss the development at this time. The Planning Commis- sion has obviously not walked the site and cannot decide to add 1,000 people to the area without doing so. Mr. Terrell questioned the Commission as to the setback requirements in the PRD. The project may be good overall, but not in its current location on Ennis Creek. Dr. Don Bettger, 1022 South Cherry Street, stated that the Planning commission has done a good job in the past regarding multi-family developments. Concerns regarding this applica- tion include streets and the conflict of interest referenced earlier. Dr. Bettger takes exception to Attorney Knutson's letter indicating that realtors may act on development projects while part of the Planning Commission. Lawsuits have been filed in the past regarding this type of conflict of interest. Dr. Bettger urged the Commission to approve the original plan. Chairman Leonard read a portion of the letter from City Attorney Knutson and indicated that he has not had any contact with the applicant, other than through the public hearing process and that there had been no appearance of fairness violations. . Annette Hansen, 111 Sunset Place, sequim, stated that the development should be monitored for wildlife and family impacts. Children on the Golf Course will pose a major problem. Allowing children to access the Creek can also be dangerous. Children may also harm the wildlife in the area. Bill LaRue, 222 West Park Avenue, spoke in favor of proper developments, but not the proposal before the Planning commission. Although parts of the DelHur development are attractive, the density is the major issue. In the last ten years very few multi-family units have been constructed in the City of Port Angeles. There is a mUlti-family area available on the market now, which remains unsold. , John Svelstadt, 1746 East Fifth Street, stated that Highway 101 may become a dam if the culvert is plugged up. The traffic light at Golf Course Road now adversely impacts traffic along Highway 101, which will only be made worse with the new traffic light at DelGuzzi Drive. . Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, asked whether the Planning Commission had read the letters in the file. Ms. Mantooth stated that the issue was very complex and outlined the major themes as she saw them. The Planning commission should not lose sight of the big picture, which is the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code requires compliance with the comprehensive Plan, although Planning staff has not cited it correctly in its analysis of the project. It should be kept in mind that the Planning staff works for the Planning Commission, not for the public as the Planning Commission does. PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 8 . Ms. Mantooth said the public input process is failing because DelHur keeps chan'ging the project plan. The DNS does not reflect the current project. Agencies with environmental expertise were not notified of the meeting before the Planning Commission. Although staff is meeting the letter of the law, the intent is not being met. Ms. Mantooth stated that Chapter 43.21C RCW must be upheld regarding environmental qual i ty . The open space is not served by a trail system across the Creek. The Planning commission is responsible for all adverse impacts to the environment. The school does not want the trail behind accessing school property. Staff has not discussed this issue with the school. The comprehensive Plan should not be changed to allow a development proposed by an outside developer to proceed. The outside developer should have to conform with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan. . Ms. Mantooth also said the Planning commission should not allow any development within the Creek area, although Planning staff has indicated this may be a taking of property rights. All designs regarding soils, surface water runoff, and erosion control, should be prepared before the preliminary PRD approval, not afterward. Planning staff has not reviewed the density issues and resource agencies do not have the expertise to do so. The Creek area should not be used as usable common open space. There are bad examples of development allover Washington State, and Port Angeles should learn from these mistakes. The Planning Commission should not deny all development, but they should listen to the public which the Planning commission serves. No action should be taken until full plans and additional public notice is given. Bill LaRue questioned the Commission as to how the Growth Management Act affects the project proposal. Jim Mantooth, 2238 Lindberg Road, proposed an alternate plan which shows a compromise solution. The current plan maximizes profits and not the needs of the community or the residents of the site. The compromise protects habitat in the Creek and also proposes a cul-de-sac which minimizes impacts to Lindberg Road and does not jeopardize police and fire access in this area. Alan Hare, 2136 East Lindberg Road, indicated that the latest plan includes a detention pond on Golf Course property. This has not been approved by the Golf Course Board of Directors and it will not be. Mr. Hare's home is located due south of the OelGuzzi Drive/Lindberg Road intersection and the impacts of this intersection have been not~ceable, even though the road is not open. . Harris Hinden, 3131 East sixth street, wished to thank every- body for speaking tonight. He asked the Commission when the developer is going to respond to each issue raised during the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 9 . Maria Patten, 2140 Hudson Road, stated that she lived in California in a similar circumstance where a developer had constructed a large project on a ravine edge. Mud slides had caused development to be abandoned. Ennis Creek is not suitable for such development. Barbara England, 525 West 16th street, said although Port Angeles wants new residents, not every parcel of land is suitable for building. She questioned how the Planning Commission could make a decision on this project if no one had gone to the site and could understand what issues the public was talking about. Chairman Leonard indicated that each member of the Planning Commission had visited the site at one time or another and that the site inspection scheduled for August 30th was simply to review the site as a group. . Ron Crawford, 619 West 11th Street, stated that he teaches geology at Peninsula College and looked at the site at the request of Robbie Mantooth. He stated that the soil may be limiting to development in this location. Tests should be done prior to construction of any structure on the site. A specialist should look at the soils in the winter when they are saturated. Mr. Crawford has i~ been on the site and completed simple tests regarding soil stability. He compared the site with Highway 112 at the site of the slide. Pat Matta, 688-C Bensen Road, stated that her property abuts Ennis Creek, and she is not a NIMBY. However, density is too great on the site, as 371 units on 11 acres is too dense. Jan Hare, 2136 East Lindberg Road, stated that she agrees with everything said so far, and that all problems are related to density, except possibly the footbridge across the stream. There being no further testimony, Chairman Leonard opened the hearing to rebuttal testimony. . William wilbert stated that every map prepared by DelHur, Inc., reflects changes suggested by agencies reviewing the project, including the Washington Department of Wildlife, the Department of Fisheries, and the Port Angeles Planning Department. All zoning codes in Washington State allow 20 to 50 units per acre in multi-family zones. Gund Plaza has an overall density of 15 units per acre. After the road is removed from Ennis Creek Estates, there are 9 units per acre at this site (based upon a 36.5 acre site, with 3 acres used for roads). Randy Johnson of the Department of Fisheries has approved the recreational use plan which requires an 8-foot fence on the west side and a barbed wire fence along the east side, in order to protect the habitat areas from human intrusion. A hard surface trail will be provided. Mr. Wilbert pointed out that throughout the testimony there has not been one citation of the Planned Residential PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 10 . Development Chapter of the Zoning Code, which is the subject of the meeting. Mr. wilbert stated he would like to make everybody happy with the development, but the Planning Commission is hearing only from the people who oppose the project. The housing will be affordable, and 62% of the site will remain in open space, which the neighbors of the project should also provide. Mr. wilbert requested the Planning Commission not ignore professionals (including engineers, architects, and biologists), not to ignore agency experts, and not to ignore staff during the Commission I s review of the project. Mr. Wilbert further said surface soils on the site are unstable, which is why buildings have foundations. The Crawford report is over-simplified. Mr. Catts asked if DelHur had completed similar proj ects elsewhere. Mr. wilbert indicated that his largest residential development to date had been 68 units, and that Ennis Creek Estates would be done in phases. . Robbie Mantooth stated the rezone was contingent upon PRD approval and is not currently in effect. Children do not walk to the school across the highway at this time, and they will use the trail, which is more dangerous than the school bus system. Having the Planning Commission not act on the proposal at this time would not be a delay, as required information has not been provided by the developer. Ken Schwartz, 2033 West 15th Street, stated that the developer has not answered any of his previous points. Chairman Leonard called for a special meeting to start at 5:00 P.M., Thursday, August 30th, at the site of the Ennis Creek Estates Development. Chairman Leonard then continued the public hearing on this matter to 7:00 P.M. Thursday, August 30, 1990, in the City Council Chambers, at which time rebuttal testimony would be taken. Chairman Leonard called a S-minute recess at 11:15 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 11:20 P.M. V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VI STAFF REPORTS . Mr. Collins requested the Commission clarify the time require- ments of the State Subdivision Act. The Commission determined to review this issue at its special meeting of August 30, 1990. VII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None. . . . ~ VIII ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1990 Page 11 Mr. Hulett moved to adjourn at 11:35 P.M. Mr. Catts seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PLAN. 363 .. . Ce.€O _ \> lins, Secretary . . . ~ CITY of PORT ANGELES ATTENDANCE ROSTER .o(~ NN,,,G TYPE OF NEErING Il!\1E OF MEErING I.OC.ATICN NAM E: PLANNING COMMISSION ~-'lrX\+ d-< ,I q \2Q CITY HALL ADDRESS: :J-~ ~ ~ \S 2'? E --:J-.~ Jr /7 e't< 3 .2) ~7- ::0 / ;l..(" vuf. 1/1 e..; ()14.:.. )" ~1I1 V'I--t \. /"/1// .?< ~{ .. C~'-,( f t:~E f::\\\G: l l 'NOS t:l oG~~ ':;"0.1 t '3l.. JJ.+ !~ f~ A. Rr~' . . . CITY of PORT ANGELES ATTENDANCE ROSTER .ftl.., NM\"G ME OF ~1EETING Dl\TE OF 11EETING lDCATIOO PLANNING COMMISSION CITY HALL ADDRESS: NAME: q~ ~ {d., J. 7 [. JV'd 5f, ~~ j/16-G4,d '/3f ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~-f/ PIAl ~~: 31 J 1/ Ie wctet" 51 t I g T.-t:' ~ f!:!..:... 12- J tl%A<lFMT ;t,,; {ll s f 4!k 7- --- & PI1- f /j ( rt rr;. L\MJ(A MJ'~1 \-\<ruJ\T[ ?-q (Q6tf' ~5e Rei. , '(IU ~. Pit /0/ W 2/'J) 57 2 0 :5 3 tv- IS q I , .3q 1 tvo(UJ-L~ ~ ~'EVl//4 510 8 ?I~ ~ m-- ~/O- P, ell" D ; ",-,--",--t:i' K<L (J A /d~2 f ~ $A.