Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/22/1997 . . . HEARING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THOSE NEEDING ASSISTANCE. f VORT 4.... 4.0~Q~ ~ ('~ (j d' ~~ ::of .....:.%i!i! LI H" U r~ ..::.... . e Pl.ANtm"G AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 October 22, 1997 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Special Meeting of October 15, 1997 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMRNT PRRMIT - SMA 97- 13 - Daishowa America, 1900 Block Marine Drive: Request for approval of a shoreline pennit to allow the installation and operation of an additional conveyor system with related hoppers and chip reclaim along an existing loading dock in the IH, Industrial Heavy district. 2. CONDITIONAL U.8E PERMIT - CUP 97-16 - SERENITY HOUSR - 22Ol.West 18th Street: Proposed construction of an approximately 5,000 sq. ft. multi-purpose building that will be used in conjunction with the Evergreen Family Village use that currently occupies the site in the RMD, Residential Medium Density. (This item is being continued to November 12, 1997.) V. OTHER BUSINESS CA LKTNS reques.Uo circulate an annexatio.n..p.etifum: A request by the applicant for further consideration by the Planning Commission to allow a reduced area for annexation consideration from that earlier recommended to the City Council. VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VII. STAFF REPORTS VIII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION: Tim Genn.n, ( Chair), Dean Reed (Vice), Bob King, Cindy Souder.;, Lind. Nutter, M.ry Craver, Fredric Hewins STAFF: Brad Collins, Director, Sue Roberds Planning Speci.list, David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . IX. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence pertaining to a meeting or hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled meeting/ hearing will be provided to Commission members at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents wiIl be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be aIlowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chair may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents will be heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Board, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chair. . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 October 22, 1997 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Fredric Hewins, Cindy Souders, Tim German, Bob King, Mary Craver Member Excused: Linda Nutter, Dean Reed Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Dan McKeen Public Present: Paul Hopkins, Bill Dawson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Souders moved to approve the minutes ofthe special meeting of October 15, 1997, with corrections as noted by Commissioner Hewins. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver and passed 5-0. . PUBLIC HEARINGS: SIlOREI,lNE SUBSTANTIAl, DEYEI,OPMENT PERMIT - SMA 97~ 13 - DAISHOW A AMERICA, 1900 Block Marine Drive: Request for approval of a shoreline permit to allow the installation and operation of an additional conveyor system with related hoppers and chip reclaim along an existing loading dock in the ill, Industrial Heavy district. Planning Specialist Sue Roberds presented the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the shoreline substantial development permit as proposed. She responded to Commissioner Souders regarding the proposed amendment to the standard condition required for shoreline permits with regard to tribal interests due to prior agreement with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. Chair German opened the public hearing. Paul Hopkins, 1902 Marine Drive, Project Manager for Daishowa America, agreed with the staff s analysis and was present for further questions. There being no further testimony, Chair German closed the public hearing. . Planning Specialist Sue Roberds responded to a question regarding the SEP A processing time period for the proposal. Following brief discussion with staff, Commissioner King moved to approve the shoreline substantial development permit with the following conditions, findings and conclusions: . . . Planning Commission Minutes October ll, 1997 Page 2 Conditions of Approval' 1. If, during an excavation, 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 approved by the Elwha Klallam Tribe to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data is properly salvaged. 2. The project shall comply with all regulations of the City's Shoreline Master Program specifically those of Chapters 4, 5,6 and 7. 3. The proposed project shall meet all federal, state, and local requirements, including the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Area Ordinance. 4. The project shall utilize best management practices as identified in the City of Port Angeles Storm water Management Plan to control stormwater runoff into the shoreline area. FindinlJS-:- Based on the information provided in the October 20, 1997 Staff Report for SMA 97-13 (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. The applicant, Daishowa America Co., Ltd. applied for a Shoreline Substantia] Deve]opment Permit on September 4, 1997. The application was determined complete on September ]2, ]997, (Attachment A). 2. A Determination of Non-Significance (#757) was issued by the City of Port Angeles SEP A Responsible Official for the proposal on October 20, 1997 and is attached to the staffreport for SMA 97-13 as Attachment B. 3. The application and hearing process was advertised in accordance with the legal requirements of the City of Port Angeles and the State of Washington. 4. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and critical areas ordinances have been reviewed with respect to this application. 5. The site is designated Industrial in the Citis Comprehensive Plan, Industrial-Heavy in the City's Zoning Ordinance, and Urban-Harbor in the City's Shoreline Master Program. 6. Chapter S of the City's Shoreline Master Program indicates water-dependent industrial uses, such as a wood chip shiploading operation, are permitted uses in the U-H designation. 7. The City's waterfront trail runs along Marine Drive south of the subject site's operations area. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 12.1997 Page 3 8. The proposed additional conveyor will allow for the addition of hemlock chips to the chip storage and transfer area where now only alder chips are handled. 9. Alder chips and hemlock chips are stored separately due to their processing and transporting differences. 10. Approximately 50% of the alder chips stored on-site are processed at the Daishowa Mill while the remainder are barged or trucked into the facility and shipped out as export. All of the hemlock chips are trucked into the facility and barged to other locations in the Puget Sound area. 11. Four previous shoreline permits have been issued for this operation in the past with the earliest one (issued in 1973 and revised in 1978) including landfill and bulkhead work. 12. The proposed area was previously filled for the original chip conveyor use at this location. The entire area is paved and provides on-site storm water runoff detention and treatment. 13. A 1920's Corps of Engineers survey indicated that the proposed area was under water at that time. 14. The Lower EIwha Klallam Tribe submitted a letter (received October 20, 1997) indicating that they are in agreement that an archaeologist will not be required on-site during construction based on the past respectful and responsible actions on the part of Dais how a and based on the understanding that the area of construction will occur on a past fill area with no new land disturbance. Ctmclusions: Based on the information provided in the October 20, 1997 Staff Report for SMA 97-13 including all of its attachments, comments and information presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed conditions of approval and findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes that: A. The following adopted City policies are most relevant to the proposed project, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policy A-2, and Goal H, Policy 4; Conservation Element Policy C-8; Economic Development Element Policy A-3; the City's Industrial, Heavy zone; and the City's Shoreline Master Program's Urban- Harbor designation Chapter 4, Policies B-1 and 2, D-l, E-2, J-2, and N-2; Chapter 5, Policy D-l ; and Chapter 6, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations, E. Industry, Policy 6 and Regulation 2. B. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the following adopted City policies:, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policy A-2 and Goal H., Policy 4; Conservation Element Policy C-8; Economic Development Element Policy A-3; the City's Industrial, Heavy zone; and the City's Shoreline Master Program's Urban- Harbor designation and Chapter 4, Policies B-1 and 2, D-l, E-2, J-2, and N-2; . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 22, /997 Page 4 Chapter 5, Policy D-1; and Chapter 6, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations, E. Industry, Policy 6 and Regulation 2. C. The project will not be detrimental to the shoreline. D. As conditioned, the proposed project will not interfere with the public use of lands or waters subject to the public trust doctrine. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Souders and passed 6-0. CONDITIONAL USE PRRMIT - CUP 97-16 - SERENITY HOlJ~201 West 18th Street: Proposed construction of an approximately 5,000 sq.ft. Multi-purpose building that will be used in conjunction with the Evergreen family Village use that currently occupies the site in the RMD, Residential Medium Density. (This item is being continued to November 12, 1997.) Staff noted that the applicant has requested this item be continued to the regular meeting of November 12, 1997, due to a boundary line adjustment process that is required in order to accommodate the conditional use permit as requested. Chair German opened the public hearing and noted that he would not be acting on the conditional use permit request due to an appearance of fairness. Commissioner Souders indicated the same. Commissioner Hewins moved to continue further action on the CUP until November 12,1997,7 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner King and passed 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS CALKINS reqaeslhlcir.cula.kJlDJlnnexatioA.p~titio.n: A request by the applicant for further consideration by the Planning Commission to allow a reduced area for annexation consideration from that earlier recommended to the City Council. Planning Director Collins noted that the petitioner was unable to obtain a sixty percent (60%) petition for the enlarged area as recommended by the Planning Commission for annexation to the City and has asked the City Council to consider the original petition area at this time. The Council's Real Estate Committee was reluctant to forward a recommendation to the Council with this information without first directing the request back to the Planning Commission for evaluation and recommendation. The Planning Commission had earlier recommended that five additional properties be added to the annexation petition to create a more regular boundary with the City. The primary question is whether the area could be serviced in an acceptable manner despite the hardships that would be created with the irregular boundaries. The Planning Department would continue to support the annexation, The most important factor is planning for the eventual servicing for the City's urban growth areas. Fire Marshall Dan McKeen explained that the City's Fire Department is willing to work with the applicant to address their major concerns and have been working with the applicant since the last meeting. If a favorable recommendation is forwarded to the City Council it should Planning Commission Minutes OClOber 22, 1997 Page 5 . be with the knowledge that the Fire Department will request that all new residential construction in the area shall have residential sprinkler systems which will allow an extended response time by the Fire Department to decrease risk of fire hazard. The response times to the area will be greater than what is acceptable to the area. An approved water supply system will be required. A residential sprinkler system would decrease the standard 1000 g.p.m. to 500 g.p.m. with increased fire hydrant spacing. The peninsula configuration will result in a larger burden of responsibility on emergency dispatch and personnel with a greater demand on services and increased risk of error. The response time to existing City areas due to the distance emergency personnel would have to travel back to the City area if they were responding previously in the proposed area will be increased. The applicant appears willing to work on Fire Department concerns by looking at access roads and addressing problems. Annexations of this type will result in the need to locate an emergency response facility on this side of the City in the future. Planning Director Collins reiterated that the primary reason for support by the Planning Department is the notion that it allows the City to begin plans for servicing the urban growth area. Commissioner Souders noted that when the Planning Commission conducted neighborhood meetings in the area when setting the urban growth boundaries several years ago that property owners in the proposed area were the most vociferous group regarding their wish to not be annexed into the City at any time. . Commissioner Craver stated that she is concerned that this area is a true peninsula as it only connects to the City by a small dog-leg that leaves a large area still in the County between the City's existing limits and the easterly edge of the proposed area. In response to Commissioner Craver, Director Collins noted that of the approximately sixty acre area the only part that connects the property with the City limits is 353 feet wide. Larry Williams, First Street, represented the applicant. He provided information that the two additional ownerships that the Planning Commission recommended be added to the petition comprise seven properties. The two property owners are adamantly opposed to annexation to the City. If these properties are required to be added to the annexation request it will effectively kill the proposal as they are improved and their valuations are quite high. These properties are zoned industrial while the properties surrounding them are zoned very low density residentiaL The applicant is not opposed to adding additional properties to the petition request that are interested in annexation. He identified by use of an overhead display those areas that are under consideration and those areas whose owners are opposed but who have been contacted at the direction of the City for inclusion in a petition for annexation. Commissioner Souders noted that the City Council is asking for a recommendation on a request to circulate an annexation petition, not the specific annexation petition. . Commissioner Craver stated that the proposal is not perfect, but she hoped that such a proposal would be a catalyst for further annexation proposals. Commissioner Hewins suggested that the City be specific that in the event of annexation any new construction in the area will be required to have residential sprinkler systems. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1997 Page 6 Commissioner Souders moved to recommend that the City Council allow the circulation of an annexation petition with the following conditions, and citing the noted findings and conclusions: Conditions of Approval: 1. The annexed area shall bear the pro rata share of the City's general obligation indebtedness existing as of the date of the annexation. 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and zoning shall be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan land use designations. 3. An annexation agreement and master plan shall be prepared and signed by the petitioners. 4. Additional right-of-way as necessary to provide 60 foot minimum width for street and utility purposes shall be dedicated to the City for a local access street from Edgewood Dr. to U.S. Highway 101. 5. Non-protest agreements shall be signed by a minimum of 60% of the property owners for the formation of separate L.I.D.'s for roadway and storm improvements, water extensions, and sewer extensions. 6. Water and sewer services from the City shall be provided by property owners approval of a local utility improvement district at the time of annexation. 7. Residential sprinkler systems meeting the City Fire Department's standards shall be required for any new construction within the annexation area. Eindings: 1. On July 29, 1997, the Planning Department received an annexation request from Richard and Anne Calkins for an area located south of the William R. Fairchild International Airport along Tyler and Fey Roads to U.S. Highway 101 ( Attachment A to staffs September 4, 1997 report). 2. On August 19, 1997, the City Council sent the request to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation and set a public meeting on the request for their September 16, 1997, regular meeting. 3. The proposed annexation area is irregular in shape and extends south in a narrow strip from the existing City limits. 4. The proposed annexation area contains approximately 60 acres of land and includes a tributary to Dry Creek. 5. The area is subdivided into ten individual parcels under four separate ownerships with seven large parcels (one ownership) comprising approximately 91 % of the area . . . Planning Commission MinuIes October 22, 1997 Page 7 and 66% of the area's assessed valuation) which is $660,650. The annexation request petition is made by this one property owner with 66% or $435,650 of the assessed valuation of the area. 6. The petitioners wish to develop a 54.5 acre tract of mostly undeveloped land made up of seven parcels into a residential subdivision. 7. Some residential and manufacturing development has taken place on Edgewood Dr. and along U.S. Highway 101. 8. The nearest City water service is located at the Airport entrance, and the nearest sewer service is at Fainnont and Lauridsen or at 18th and L Streets. 9. As proposed, City streets do not access the site. Only a small section of Edgewood Drive is included in the annexation area, which is accessed only by County road or Federal highway. 10. Several Departments have raised concerns about the accessibility of the site for City services and whether it is a logical extension of the City limits. Testimony was provided by the City's Fire Marshall who stated that such an annexation will increase the margin of error in emergency response situations for emergency personnel and dispatch. 11. The factors considered under RCW 3SA.14.200 in review of annexation proposals include lithe configuration of the area, comprehensive use plans and zoning, the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years, location and coordination of community facilities and services., the probable effect of the annexation proposal or alternatives on cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area, and the effect of the annexation proposal or alternatives on adjacent areas.lI 12. The area of annexation includes areas likely to be classified by the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Ordinance as environmentally sensitive areas and as such will be subject to the regulations of that ordinance. 13. The topography ofthe area slopes to the north and includes a tributary stream to Dry Creek running south to north through the entire annexation area. 14. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan as amended June, 1997 contains 10 policies (Growth Management Element Policies 1-10) directly related to annexations. 15. The proposed promotional annexation must comply with the City's annexation policies as established in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Resolution 18-78. 16. The proposed annexation area is within the Port Angeles Urban Growth Area. 17. The proposed annexation is contiguous to the established City limits only on the north side, which is the smallest side of an elongated irregular area. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 21. 1997 Page 8 18. The area to be annexed is to be designated as several land uses and zones including Low Density Residential and Industrial on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Single Family Residential RS-9 and Industrial Heavy ill on the City's Zoning Map, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions: 1. As conditioned, the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's annexation policies as established in the City's Comprehensive Plan's Growth Management Element (policies 1-10) and Resolution 18-78. 2. Due to the small size of the proposed annexation and the limited development opportunities of the area (due to the existence of the Dry Creek tributary), the proposed annexation should not result in a reduction of any LOS for existing services. However, the distance to the nearest water and sewer services would make extension of City services costly. 3. As reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments, the area of annexation may propose a challenge to servicing and may not be a logical extension of City services without including more area east to Airport Road as well as portions of Edge wood Dr. and Airport Road connecting to the City's Lauridsen Boulevard. 4. The irregular shape of the proposed annexation area and the "islandU that would be created virtually surrounded by unincorporated area would make servicing the area awkward, if not difficult. 5. A more logical and regular annexation area would progress west from Airport Road. 6. The City's policies encourage annexation within the Port Angeles Urban Growth Area, which was established to accommodate growth which is expected to occur over the next ten years. 7. The proposed annexation area is a prime area identified for water and sewer improvements to serve planned industrial uses adjacent to the site. The annexation and extension of services would greatly help to implement the Comprehensive Plan for this area, particularly if the proposed annexation area was expanded to include the area east to Airport Road. 8. To facilitate a residential subdivision development, the petitioners are seeking annexation to Port Angeles for the purpose of receiving urban services from the City. 9. As conditioned, the annexation will reduce existing potential for interjurisdictional and service problems by creating an area with better accessibility for City services. 10. As conditioned, necessary rights-of-way will be obtained by the City. 11. A portion of the area to be annexed is planned for immediate development, and the proposal is therefore promotional in nature. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 22. /997 Page 9 12. As conditioned, the annexation is in the public interest. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver and passed 6 - o. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. STAFF REPORTS Sue Roberds passed along a thank you from Mr. Schouten who wished to thank the Planning Commission and staff for their extra assistance in his redevelopment plans for the Angeles Millworks property. Director Collins noted that the Planning Commission will be reviewing proposed amendments to the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance at its November 12 meeting. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. B~:~\~ ' 7 PREPARED BY: S. Roberds PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET For the subject of items listed on the meeting Agenda of: :fJz.J/-f.-L- ~ / 99 7 (Date) Note: IE I plan on testifying by signature below I certify that my testimony is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington~ PLEASE SIGN~ . ....... 3tfJ{., w q--bf - P J4 Jt.! / M L/ /1-C4 1 \'1 LA) ~~ ~A Ph Testifying on Agenda Item No. 4"Y Tt} NAME: la.r rV'\ (A.lt, U \ (J;~ j)J A~J/t ~'/I, "I \ Jh~ \.- iAJ..h., C t:}J1,... ADDRESS: