Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/16/1991 . ~. ~. AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 Special Meeting January 16, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of January 9, 1991 IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PLANNED RFSIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRD 90(04)1 - DEL BUR. INC.. Del Guzzi Drive: Proposal to aUow a Planned Residential Development on property located south of SR 101, along Del Guzzi Drive, west of Ennis Creek. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VB. REPORTS OF COMMISSION l\1EMBERS vm. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence pertaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Planning Commission: Larry Leonard, Chair; RllY Grover, Vice-chair; Bill Anabel; Roger CAns; Cindy Souders; 1im Hulett; Bob Philpott. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Plsnning Director: Sue Roberds, Planning Office Spccia\iBt. Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for .the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be allowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Planing Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington January 16, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Leonard called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Ray Gruver, Roger Catts, Jim Hulett, Larry Leonard, Bob Philpott, Bill Anabel. Members Excused: cindy Souders. Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Gary Kenworthy, Bruce Becker. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Philpott moved to approve the minutes of the January 9, 1991, meeting as written. Mr. Anabel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. . IV PUBLIC HEARING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRD-90(04)1 - DEL HUR, INC., DeIGuzzi Drive: Proposal to allow a Planned Residential Development on property located south of SR 101, along DelGuzzi Drive. west of Ennis Creek. Chairman Leonard reviewed the public hearing procedure and requested those present to try to adhere to those guidelines as closely as possible. Mr. Collins referenced the Department Memo prepared for the meeting. Mr. Collins noted that the memo included comparisons of items such as site area, unit densities, building types, parking, lot sizes and widths, common open space, and noted that Plan C combines some of the elements of Plans A and B with a slight reduction in units and re-introduction of the trail (submittal of January 8, 1991). Mr. Collins further noted the information distributed concerning changes in site areas as well as findings .and.conclusiDns_prepared to assist .the-commission~ in a decision to either deny or approve Plan C, as submitted. . Chairman Leonard opened the public hearing. Bill Wilbert, 13850 Bel-Red Road, Bellevue, Washington, stated that the Ennis Creek Planned Residential Development subdivi- sion, as proposed, offers answers to different problems concerning housing needs which are present in the Port Angeles area, complete with recreational amenities, close to services, PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 1991 Page 2 . and offering condominiums, mUlti-family units, and single- family housing, as well as affordable housing units. The design meets or exceeds City standards, in most cases. Eighty-three percent of the site is designed and specified for common open space areas. The design is wi thin the Growth Management Act requirements due to its development within the urban core. Port Angeles has, these past months, experienced the worst storms since 1954, but none of the fears spoken of at previous public hearings concerning slippage, erosion, and other hazards, have transpired. The pristine environment of Ennis Creek will be preserved in perpetuity, and this Planned Residential Development would be one that the citizens of Port Angeles could be proud of for many years to come. Mr. wilbert concluded by noting that the site plan, as proposed for development, addresses present and future needs for develop- ment in this area. In response to a question from Chairman Leonard, Mr. wilbert noted that the current site plan (Plan C) is only 34 units more than the opponents' proposal presented earlier in the year. . In further response to questions from Commissioners as to the appearance of the buildings, whether they will be rentals or privately owned, Mr. Wilbert answered that all of the units west of DelGuzzi Drive would be condominiums, not rentals. The units will all be aesthetically similar, whether they are rentals or privately owned, for the entire PRD area. commiss ioner Hulett questioned Mr. Wilbert as to the re- introduction of the trail in the submittal of January 8, 1991. Mr. wilbert answered that he truly felt the trail was a good idea, and some of the testimony given at recent meetings was in support of re-introduction of the trail system. Potential purchasers also indicated that the trail would be a good idea. The Department of Fisheries had no objection to the trail, and testimony given was in regard to the safety of children rather than the use of the trail. Therefore, access to the school site was eliminated to help deter the use of the trail by children. The decision was made by the developer to re- introduce the trail because, in his opinion, enough testimony was not found to eliminate it. Chairman Leonard questioned the applicant as to where the affordable housing ~would",be.. ..Mr.._Nilber.t_answeredthat the '~dupl~x-un{ts-proposed for the south edge of the property would qualify for Section 8, or subsidized housing. . In response to questions from Commissioner Gruver, the appli- cant answered that the trail averages 150 feet from the Creek, as directed by the Department of Fisheries. A five-strand wire fencing is proposed around the trail (east side of Ennis Creek) in order to restrict access to the Creek, but to allow for vegetation to fill in the fencing area. Playground facilities will be constructed on lots when the buildings PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 1991 Page 3 . which the uses are intended to serve are constructed; i.e., the recreational building with the first condominium; the cabana when the condos near the Golf Course are built; etc. Mr. wilbert further answered questions regarding fencing south of the duplexes and the retaining wall shown west of Ennis Creek. Richard Terrill, 3123 Old olympic Highway, stated that the current Plan C is only approximately 10 units less than the previous plan; there are too many units for the site. The City should require the developers to design the buildings around the large groupings of trees present on the site and not allow removal of the trees for placement of the buildings. Four-story structures are more imposing, and the view from those structures is largely of parking lots. He recommended that a more aesthetically pleasing slatted fence be required for the cyclone fence proposed along the western side of the trail; that care be used in grading; as well as RV parking be completely screened, not partially screened, as proposed. Linda May, 29 Golf Course Road, expressed anger at the Plan C submittal in that, in her opinion, the community does not want this project. . Thelma Durham, 673 Reservoir Road, said the feelings of the real estate community are that there is a dire need for housing and those feelings are based on actual dealings with people looking for housing who cannot find such. Ennis Creek is a fragile environment and a bonus to the community which should be protected, but the need for housing is great. There would be a considerable number of jobs created from the development to local residents. Kent Brauninger, 903 East Park Avenue, referred to the Soil Survey of Clallam County Washinqton and indicated the three different areas of soil composition found at the site on a map. He also noted areas where building would not be a problem, but stated that south, along DelGuzzi Drive, the soils deteriorate rapidly and between the Creek and DelGuzzi Drive the hazard of erosion is severe. A road could fail, and landslides are likely to occur in that area. The area evi- dences slippage already, while vegetation is still intact. . Jerry Newlin, 717 South Peabody, NTI Associates, stated he is the engineer responsible for the engineering studies prepared for the site. An inspection of the site prior to this even- ing I s meeting indicated no evidence of undue erosion. The cut banks have healed well. Soil conditions have been inspected and evaluated by engineering specialists. Additional geologi- cal investigations will be done for each building site. The work done so far has been done responsibly and professionally. Foundation designs will be based on intensive, sound, geologi- cal reports. The need for rentals is high in the area, and this development would satisfy that need. PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 1991 Page 4 . Bill Williams, 1308 East Front, *7, stated he is convinced the construction will contaminate Ennis Creek and that the Creek is not safe for children. John Ward, 922 Georgiana, Olympic Outdoor Sportsmen's Club, stated that Ennis Creek is the last remaining Creek in the City with a significant fish run. The fish ladder north of the site has been plugged with material from the site, which has been cleaned by the Olympic Outdoor Sportsmen's Group. The Group has maintained the Creek area for many years and feels that the dense population resulting from the development will destroy the stream habitat. Marie Greubel, 315 West 15th Street, noted that soil experts, Dr. Pat winnekins and Allen Busenbark, pointed out the instability of the soils in the area and the danger of this development. This testimony is in opposition to that of the applicant. Fish experts have pointed out the danger of pollution to Ennis Creek and its pristine environment. She questioned what type of housing is needed in Port Angeles and that perhaps this development is too dense for this site. There should be no development on the east side of DelGuzzi Drive, and the proposal should be returned to 112 single- family units. . Linda Nutter, 1701 East Third Street / stated that in her opinion there is other developable land within the City which could be developed and would serve the need for housing, which is evident in the city. Who will care for the trail once it is developed? The developer was told by the Planning Commis- sion to remove the trail from the proposal, and yet the trail is now back, as proposed in the January 8th submittal. The Plan does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan; nor is it an answer to all the housing needs. She wondered if this proposal would overload the sewage treatment capacity, thereby restricting further development in the City. In closing, Ms. Nutter stated her concern that the city could be liable for litigation which may result from use of the trail at this site. . Tim Rymer, 2735 Cedar Park Drive, Department of Wildlife, noted that in his opinion there is a high likelihood of impacts due to sedimentation and human intrusion to the Creek area which will cause habitat change. The development is too close to the sensitive r,eE;ourc.es _..o.f._..the_creek .Ravine. He added this may be a site where there should be no development within the confines of the Ravine. There will be impacts to wildlife. This nature preserve will be very limited with a trail going through it. He applauded the efforts of the developer to keep as much open space as possible in his proposal, but stated that a trail in this area significantly reduces the protection of the habitat. Mr. Rymer answered detailed questions from the Commission concerning habitat preservation, management, and human intrusion, as well as violations of wildlife regulations and fines. PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 1991 Page 5 . Mr. Gruver asked if Mr. Rymer felt the Department of Fisheries' evaluation and acceptance of the 150-foot buffer was wrong. Mr. Rymer answered that he commended the efforts of Randy Johnson, Department of FiSheries, who spent many hours working with the developer on this proposa, and that Mr. Johnson had done a good job on this project. Dr. Jim Walton, Director of Fisheries Technology at Peninsula College and member of the State Wildlife Commission, noted serious reservations about the development in an area as sensitive as this. He stated the only real run of anandromous fish, steelhead, coho and jump salmon, in the City exists in Ennis Creek. . In response to Chairman Leonard, Dr. Walton stated the west side of DelGuzzi Drive is the only buildable area on the site, and possibly some areas east of DelGuzzi Drive may be suitable for single-family residential development only. In closing, he stated that the City does not owe a developer anything for purchasing environmentally sensitive property. There are areas which are appropriate for development and there are areas which are not appropriate for development. This is a sensitive area. It is not appropriate for development. Ron Richards, East 12th Street, opposed the project. The current proposal is not significantly different from the last plan submitted by the applicant. The Ennis Creek environment will be destroyed by intrusion of this type of development. Don Rudolph, 1013 East Second Street, representing the Olympic Peninsula Economic Research Development Association, empha- sized the need for housing in the area. He urged approval of the proposal. . Jan Hare, 2136 East Lindberg Road, expressed concern about the proposed five-story buildings; however, she was pleased to see that the developer had placed the playgrounds in an area that would be easily accessible to those buildings which the playgrounds would serve. Jim Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, said his family has lived in this area for twen~y.years an4 is_concerned about a "development that would affect Ennis Creek. The density, as proposed, is far too great for this environmentally sensitive area. The only reason this development is being proposed for this site is that the developer owns this property and not some other property. If this area is developed, it should be single-family, as was originally intended, with very large lots and no development near the Creek; however, the neighborhood proposed a compromise earlier, which is still worth considering, with 96 multi-family units to the west of DelGuzzi Drive and single-family homes along the south edge. PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 1991 Page 6 . There were 84 elderly units proposed at the north portion of the project (which the applicant has removed), west of the Super 8 Motel. The neighborhood proposal designated the entire area east of DelGuzzi Drive as an open space area large enough to be usable by people residing in the apartments. The applicant's current plan has nothing that is really usable of any size. Most of the proponents of the PRD say that this compromise is still too dense. It well may be: however, it is a distinct compromise that appears workable. At an earlier meeting of the Planning Commission, an RS-9 Single-Family buffer was proposed at the south end of DelGuzzi Drive (now called Lots 5 through 9) to provide a buffer between this exceptionally dense PRD and the existing residential homes on Lindberg Road. The buffer is now proposed to consist of five duplexes, which defeats the purpose of the buffer. Dr. Mantooth requested this be returned to single-family homes only if any development is allowed there. Furthermore, if it is to be meaningful to keep people from the Creek and neighboring undeveloped property, a boundary fence needs to be extended along the entire south edge of the project. Dr. Mantooth would grant an easement to continue the boundary fence on the property that is presently not owned by the developer in order to obtain the end result. Dr. Mantooth thanked the Commissioners for considering this complex and unprecedented development proposal. . In response to a question from Commissioner Catts, Dr. Mantooth indicated that a proposal of this type needs to be nearer an arterial than this proposal is presently located. The Commission took a 12-minute break at 9 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:12 P.M. . Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, stated that the development is still far too dense for this property. The change in zoning for this property from single-family to mUlti-family was conditioned on an appropriate PRD proposal for the area which would allow a better development than would single-family in this site. She indicated her feeling that the City is not in approval of the PRD that is being proposed at this site. A majority of Commission members have indicated that permitting access to the Ravine's steep slopes and stream would harm the stream in a way the pUblic and their repre- sentatives find totally unacceptable: yet Mr. Wilbert1s latest plan shows not one but. two.crossings of the. stream, and.the trail has been re-introduced with no significant fencing, despi te the Planning Commission I s direction to remove the trail from the development site plan. Mrs. Mantooth felt the latest plan flies in the face of concerns stated by a majority of the Planning Commission following hours of patient study - of documents and consideration of public testimony. Mrs. Mantooth requested that the Commission follow through with their decision in November to deny Plans A and B, before considering Plan C, as well as taking into account the request to require a single-family buffer at the south edge of the PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 1991 Page 7 . proposal, the fencing and a barrier in the Creek area, development on the west side of DelGuzzi Drive only, and about requiring open space areas that are large enough for the residents to actually use in place of traditional yards. In closing, Mrs. Mantooth requested that all traffic except emergency vehicles be restricted to DelGuzzi Drive unless the development is restricted to residential single-family only. Clay Rennie, 401 East vista View, felt this is the type of development that the recent Growth Management legislation, passed by the state, would prohibit. This is the wrong place and the wrong time for a development of this nature. Bob Dalton, 812 East Seventh Street, said to approve this development would set a precedent for further development of a similar nature. He is in opposition to this development, as proposed. Ed Johnson, 312 East 12th street, stated the question is not the need for housing in Port Angeles, but is this the right development for this site. There should be no development east of DelGuzzi Drive. . Mike Doherty, 612 South "B" street, noted that regulations have changed drastically in the State's policy in the past seven years. This proj ect should require another full environmental impact statement. He requested the Commission reject this development until it is properly designed. Ingrid Nixon, 1115 East Ninth street, requested the Commission help preserve the fish habitat by denying this project approval. She stated this is no place for children and a development of this size would destroy the pristine environment of Ennis Creek. K h e.r : 1\..+ v George -ea-r~,l-, 1721 South "N" street, noted that the growth of the City requires development of this type. Growth will occur and needs to be planned for and guided. . viola Nixon, 1115 East Ninth street, moved to the area because of the environmental qualities present here and requested the Commission deny this project, indicating to the developer that a project of this type in this environmentally sensitive area is not acceptable. Edward Hammer;" 927 East Scribner Road, a Port Angeles native, who played in Ennis Creek from the mouth to Horsemen's Mine, has observed the Port Angeles area growing beyond its boundaries for many years. He requested the Commission face the issue of the need for a project of this type, curb the emotional appeal, and decide how to house people who are moving into the area, as well as the people who are here without adequate housing. We have to have housing. PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 1991 Page 8 . David Nixon, 1115 East Ninth Street, who also played in Ennis Creek as a youth, drew comparisons between the lifestyle in Port Angeles and other places he has lived where environ- mentally sensitive areas have been developed with devestation following. The Peninsula is a paradise needing protection and preservation. Pat Willits, 3241 East Greentree Lane, noted that growth is inevitable for the area but should be planned and channeled. She hoped the Commission would continue to listen to those speakers whose only interest is the preservation of the Creek and the Port Angeles environment. She hoped the Commission would see fit to deny the project as proposed. Joe Melton, 717 South Peabody, grew up in the Ennis Creek area and knows the neighborhood very well. Growth is inevitable, and the city needs to plan for appropriate housing for that growth. He felt the habitat could be protected, although it is inevitable that it will be impacted. He urged the Commis- sion to care for the environment but make room for planned growth. . Allen Middleton, 1501 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, was present as the applicant's attorney. Mr. Middleton reviewed past actions of the City Council on the rezone, which was based on a successful PRD for this property. He noted plans have been changed in response to items addressed by the Commission and the city's concerns. The developer is giving up use of the eastern plateau property to add to the open space area; has reduced the density; has redesigned the development to allow parking under the buildings in order to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces. Due to the natural inclines of the site, the building heights are not anticipated to far exceed 35 feet. Storm water drainage will accommodate the present and previous drainage problems resulting from the Golf Course. Further geotechnical review will be done as construction progresses. Ron Richards wished to make it a matter of record that it is unfair to ask questions of the applicant after the close of the public hearing and not allow others to speak. Don Rudolph questioned how the city could prevent a property . <:)wn~r_ !:r'om buildi~g~ on. his own,. property. ._. Harris Sindon, 3131 East Sixth Street, stated this is not the proper project location; and although the city is in need of housing, this is not the place for humanitarian reasons. . Robbie Mantooth again expressed her concern that the plan submitted in December of 1990 for the Commission's review for this meeting, did not have a trail and this one does. Mrs. Mantooth felt there was a definite problem in procedure. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 1991 Page 9 commissioner Catts questioned Mrs. Mantooth in regard to a letter she had written to the Planning Department dated November 23, 1990, involving a question from commissioner Catts to the applicant after the close of the public hearing. commissioner Catts wished to clear up the procedural question surrounding the incident, and restated the question of how far her residence is from the proposed tennis court at the south end of the property. Al though Mrs. Mantooth could not answer, her husband, sitting in the audience, answered it is 400 feet. Commissioner Catts asked Mrs. Mantooth about her concern stated in her letter with the development potential of her own land, being adj acent to this development. Mrs. Mantooth answered that any time a change is made to an individual's land, consideration should be given to the adjoining properties as well, al though they have no intentions to develop their property at this time. Chairman Leonard asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak further. There being no one, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Gruver indicated that due to the crlS1S in the Middle East, further consideration and decision on this request should be tabled to a later date, and stated his opinion as a motion. Mr. Catts seconded the motion. Chairman Leonard asked Mr. Gruver if he had a date in mind. Following discussion, Mr. Gruver amended his motion to continue the meeting to the January 23rd meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Catts concurred. The motion passed unanimously. V ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. .~ ins, secretary DSR:LM PLAN. 419 . .~ . CITY of PORT ANGELES ATTENDANCE ROSTER ,oL04 N1U"() TYPE OF l'1EEI'ING IYa'E OF MEE'l'lliG IOC.ATICN PLANNING COMMISSION J::dt,,,,//U' / /~ /99/ CrrY~r / ./' " (-.. ADDRESS: NAME: dA4A li /14 /7) ( 5, N S,L /l/ ~/? f ~vf"~a ~t7 /lei j::Z:J:ff- O? q . {/ . L / - D r ~.:;I r (()~ j/}C) FC{y t-? I- 4, ' /naLf:;;;/Vt;"jLr~d'- 17 d Cf R ,-;;/l'-A _21-, /:::: If / V ~ ~ ,'3)~3 '0>> 6~~ -&--.f 0 <ZJ C!1rJMJA. lfluliM." 17l)/ b/JiJ( 1/uiJ fA / ~~&t~ ,6gS- c .,)tWSF,V /<fl ;:; /l . \;~ Q . Q'f~~ J7,n- C,,<::~r r(A~ Or, f',~ , Q~ff -~. O:;;~?J~ 7 Z2-~U~/~~ P A- 4U ~ - ~ 1/1> uP'? rJ-A-YlIL+:'-1 ~,-,-c:vvt:€; 1 V'J f\- CIA: k:) Q7/t"". II 1'- E 'I e,4 . ~). ~A..~" If h 9-~.& "- oS( V-?J \ S-- \iL) \ \ s-- q-.-J r~ 4~1~/<_.):1~~~~'C4/- YJr/ 6-: 7;47 - - C).f'<"] If; /'4.~ 1/7 <5 ~~~ .I j) ~t,JJ I..L..(~~M",\" 5 I tJI [,. Y ~~ 0 1JJl 1JJ!v,;, , :5 () J t r /~ 11 7 o ( g) fflL1J /0:1 r LJ 71/1 F:A- kr (rlu0-J9 (p)Jj Crv~ II /fA- 111 ('IIi.!' Q,ltJ :htlL., r/d' '.41 / <... . ,ol.A NN \ 'loG CITY of PORT ANGELES ATTENDANCE ROSTER TYPE OF }1EETING DATE OF MEETING lOCATIrn PLANNING COMMISSION CITY HALL NAME: ADDRESS: . ,., fti1 h.i?:C t~ ~ z y ( E. _ G ~ -c <--C:{ "'--"___ L/L-. f/. 4- c/j~~~/1 LLn~~ /1/o--irLf (-!xl- - -" I \~~~l{:d ~\\\e:v~ r~I)J)L- jei JT-4 /) /I L)D~_f)6t/~-(.-?/Z .c 7__ r/4. J;~1-w ~ )3) \AI 0lJ(t> SJ ~A- y). / S 02- P. ,VI tJ-z:&A-<.~ t? rJ " f. _~ 2!}6 ~j< I~f f X~I ~ ,j \7()~ ~'~"~DIC~/?J ~ 1S;{l1Se^/~~~pj_L- Sf 0 -glwlL ! ( \ I ( I''''':~ J!~~ G n ~ IL f.~ I (j)cY/JL94..-_------P));J.c I e/~. (:. ~~4~ Qf?~fll-l: ~"--/ <<~d /~dV f 57~ OA,-c.L ~:&ald~^&/ /0/1 2~(.U/v-tJ'lt~r~c{ 9tr rfdffi;~ /( /c j~- /?>J7 f- ~_J_I,l~//s-4-.# &- / V' / .