HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/25/2001
.
.
.
I.
FORrANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
April 25, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
7 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of April!1, 2001.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 00-02 -
PORT ANGELES YACHT CLUB. 1305 Marine Drive: A proposal to enclose
a covered patio area, construct an 8' x 20' covered addition and a deck to an
existing structure within the Boat Haven in the Industrial Heavy zone. (Continued
from March 28, 2001.)
2. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 01-04 -
PUGET SOUND PILOTS - 305 Ediz Hook Road: A proposal to upgrade and
expand the Pilots' facility to berth larger vessels.
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
VI. STAFF REPORTS
1. Report on proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for 2001
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Linda Nutter (Chair), Chuck Schramm (Vice), Fred Hcwins, Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Mary Craver, Rick Porter
PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Debra Barnes, Associate Planner; Sue Roberds, Plantling Specialist.
.
.
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
April 25, 2001
7:00 p,m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Bob Philpott, Fred Norton, Linda Nutter, Fred Hewins,
Chuck Schramm, Mary Craver, Rick Porter
Members Excused:
None
Staff Present:
Brad Collins, Debra Barnes
Public Present:
Ken Henshaw, Bill Roberds, Jerry Noeske, Rita Noeske,
Mike Keeley, Bob Sorenson, Stephanie Lund, Marilyn
Jackson, 1. Scott Jackson, Dennis Leinaar, Ann Leinaar,
Gene Webber, Alice Webber, Arline Dailey, Jimrn Sweet,
Howard Jensen, Bill Bock
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Conunissioner Philpott moved to approve the April11, 2001, meeting minutes as presented.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Norton and passed unanimously with
Commissioner Porter not voting as he was not at the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 01-02 -
PORT ANGELES YACHT CLUB, 1305 Marine Drive: A proposal to enclose a
covered patio area, construct an 8' x 201 covered addition and a deck to an existing
structure within the Boat Haven in the Industrial Heavy zone. (This item was
continued from the March 28,2001 meeting.)
Planner Barnes provided an update of the staff report which summarized the discussion by the
Planning Commission at the March 28, 2001 meeting. Staff recommended that should the Planning
Commission approve the application, the conditions of approval be further clarified. The applicant
provided a letter from the Port of Port Angeles which stated that they had no objection to the deck
design as long as access could be made, and that they could not allocate parking spaces for one use.
Also, a revised deck design was provided by the applicant at the meeting. Staff analyzed the
parking requirements and provided a summary in the packet. A lengthy discussion on parking
regulations and its applicability to the proposal followed. Commissioner Hewins asked about public
access limitations that may result by the proposal, including physical and visual access. Staff
responded that access is currently restricted by the existing fence and that the proposal would not
significantly increase public access impacts. Commissioner Norton noted that the deck size has
been reduced in the new deck design.
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri125,200}
Page 2
.
Commissioners Porter and Nutter stated that they each read the materials and listened to the tape of
the March 28, 2001 meeting and are prepared to review and act on the proposal.
Bill Roberds, 54 West Misty Lane, agent for the applicant spoke in favor of the application noting
that expansion of the Yacht Club facilities to the east was the most cost effective and practical at this
time. He added that the proposal was made after review of the Port's future plans of the marina area
which may include further expansion of the building and a public walkway along the northerly
shoreline. He reiterated that the deck may be cantilevered lO-feet as shown on the site plan. He
answered several questions relating to erosion of the rip rap area.
Commission Porter asked if the riprap near the Yacht Club was under the same design as other areas
of the marina with deeper water. The applicant did not know the answer to the question and added
that the Port is planning future repairs near the Yacht Club, as well as others. Commissioner
Schramm asked for additional infonnation on the location of the deck footing and extent of the
riprap. Mr. Roberds answered that a review of the eroded area indicated the extent of the riprap is
approximately 3 feet behind the log at the top of the bank. He added that the fill and rip rap structure
consists of pit run fill and the armor approximately 2-rocks deep.
.
Commissioner Schramm noted that a significant amount of erosion and repair of the riprap area
occurred at the northeast comer of the fill area in 1964 and asked if test holes were dug to detennine
the extent of the riprap. Mr. Roberds explained that cantilevered design was required by Dept. of
Fisheries to avoid footings in the riprap or water.
Commissioner Nutter asked about stonnwater control improvements. Mr. Roberds answered that
the Port will evaluate the drainage problems as part of the riprap repairs and explained that the
drainage problems were due to grass growing at the edge of the pavement, resulting in a dam which
directed drainage to the north where the low spot is near the dingy dock access ramp. He reiterated
that the Port's future plans include a sidewalk in this area, along with a new catch basin to address
the current drainage patterns.
Commissioner Craver asked if the deck will be constructed after the riprap is repaired which was
answered to the affinnative.
Commissioner Porter stated that he has been familiar with Bill Roberds for over a year.
Being that no other person wished to speak on the application, the public hearing was closed.
.
Commissioner Philpott stated that the applicant was given additional time to obtain more
information and meet with staff to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Commissioner
Hevvins stated that although he supported the Yacht Club and what it provides to the community, the
application materials and staff report are still incomplete and does not contain adequate information
necessary for a substantial development permit, including impacts onto public view, access to the
shoreline and complete remodels by future Port improvements. He added that the proposal would
not be defeated by the current policies. Discussion followed regarding ways to write the conditions
to address any concerns and whether or not subsequent permit requirements would resolve some
.
.
.
PlaMing Commission Minutes
April 2), 2001
Page 3
concerns. A brief discussion occurred relating to the fact that the Planning Commission does not take
into consideration who the applicant is.
Conunissioner Craver recommended a condition that no deck construction should occur until the rip
rap and erosion problem was repaired. Commissioner Norton clarified that this should be done
before the deck is constructed which was affirmed by Commissioner Craver.
Commissioner Schramm recommended a condition that no construction be done until staff review
has been made and permits are obtained. Staff commented that this would occur regardless.
Extensive discussion on parking availability in the marina parking lot occurred, including the
requirements for Destiny Restaurant and management of the parking facility by the Port.
Commissioner Schramm commented that there is a distinction between use of a public parking lot
by a commercial facility as compared to a public, semi-public or non-profit facility. Commissioner
Porter commented that the geographical separation of the buildings and current layout of the parking
area and buildings should not lead to parking conflicts. Commissioner Norton requested clarification
on Condition #5. Director Collins stated that, as written, Condition #5 allows for staff to ensure
parking ordinance compliance.
Planner Barnes offered an update of the conditions of approval based on the discussions thus far.
This included replacement of Condition #2 based on Commissioner Schramm's suggestion about
subsequent staff review and permit requirements as follows: "No excavation or construction of the
building or deck shall occur until staff review has been made and all permits are obtained." This
new condition would replace the recommended Condition #2 as shown in the staff report as there
are no plans for construction to go north. Planner Barnes also recommended the deletion of
Condition #3 as it no longer applies due to the building addition no longer being proposed to be used
as storage. This included adding a sentence or addition to Conditions #4: "such repair shall be made
prior to any construction of the building or deck". Director Collins noted that the requirement should
not apply to the building. Planner Barnes suggests "building or deck" on Condition #4. Planner
Barnes recommended that Condition #6 also be amended to add the following at the beginning of
the sentence: "Prior to issuance of any building permit..."
Commissioner Hewins asked if there is no longer a building setback required which was answered
to the affirmative due to the building not being used for storage. Staff stated that a setback for the
building could be established by the Commission.
Commissioner Norton confirmed that the original Condition #2 is no longer applicable. Planner
Barnes recommended replacing Condition #2 with Commissioner Schramm's suggestion.
Director Collins commented on the setback issue and suggested that one option would be to require
the allowance for public access to the shoreline. Discussion followed, including that the fence
would need to be removed to allow for public access in order to reduce conflicts with public use of
this area. Director Collins gave an example (Highland Court) which had a fenced area that was gated
and had restricted hours but still allowed for some public access to a trail. He added that this could
address some public access concerns that have been raised and allow for access to the site which is
not always used by the Yacht Club or affiliates but should also be discussed with the applicant.
Planning Commission Minutes
Ap,.il25,2001
Page 4
.
Commissioner Schramm commented that other Port-leased properties have not been required to
provide public access.
Commissioner Hewins stated that this is an opportunity to provide further public access near the
Pocket Park. Commissioner Nutter stated that pubic access needs to be addressed, Commissioner
Craver added that potential conflicts would result by allowing public access to the deck and that
public access should be required at the time that the Port re-designs this area. Commissioner Nutter
suggested a condition to this effect. Commissioner Hewins stated that no condition should be
required for public access to the deck but the Commission should require a setback for the building.
Commissioner Craver commented that joint use of parking facilities needs to be reviewed further
and promoted. Commissioner Norton commented that the findings need to be revised to reflect the
new deck size and that it may be appropriate to set limits in the condition for the deck size. Staff
responded that the dimensions could be added to Condition # 1, and corrections to Finding # I to
reflect the new deck size. Staff stated that the conditions should be renumbered. Staff repeated the
changes made to the conditions.
.
Chair asked for any additional discussion or a motion. Commissioner Schramm moved to approve
SMA 01-02 citing the revised 5 conditions, 18 findings and 5 conclusions as discussed and modified
(listed below). Commissioner Craver seconded the motion. Commissioner Nutter repeated the
motion and asked if "what Debi did" needs to be repeated in which there was no objection. The
motion passed 5-2 with Chair Nutter and Commissioner Hewins voting against the motion. Chair
Nutter stated her concerns regarding parking issues and construction near or over the rip rap.
Commissioner Hewins stated his concerns over construction at the edge of or over the shoreline, that
the proposal has not been adequately developed, and that adequate information was not provided.
Based on the language of the motion and vote, including that the last reference to the status of the
conditions was what was provided by Planner Barnes, the conditions of approval adopted as follows:
Conditions of Approval
1. The footings for the proposed 10 foot by 30 foot (300 s.f.) deck shall be located landward of
the top of the riprap structure which is approximately 9 feet easterly of the edge of the paved
patio area. No alteration of the riprap structure shall be made for footing placement,
including fill. The uncovered deck can extend easterly over the riprap upon obtaining permit
approval by the various resource agencies no further than 10-feet from the eastern edge of
the building, for a maximum 6-feet over the top of the riprap, and upon the submittal of a
reconnaissance study in accordance with Chapter 4(F)(9) of the Shoreline Master Program
to the City of Port Angeles for review and approval, which may result in additional
conditions and/or mitigation measures, and upon Port approval to address maintenance
access.
2.
No excavation or construction of the building or deck shall occur until staff review has been
made and all permits have been obtained.
.
.
.
.
6.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 2001
Page 5
3.
Repair of the eroded riprap area requires either a substantial development permit, or
shoreline exemption, depending on the scope of the repair, in addition to other agency
approvals and is not authorized as a part of this permit. Such repair shall be made prior to
any construction of the building or deck.
4. Compliance with the PAMC 14.40, Parking Ordinance, is required which may include that
the Port of Port Angeles shall authorize joint use of the parking lot and shall assure that use
of the facilities do not conflict which would result in parking and/or congestion problems.
5. Prior to issuance of any building pennit, appropriate measures shall be made to direct runoff
from existing and new impervious surfaces away from the riprap and erosion area.
Findings
1.
A shoreline substantial development application was submitted by Port Angeles Yacht Club
on January 10,2001 for the enclosure of an attached covered deck area 12 feet by 30 feet in
size (360 s.f.), the construction of a small building addition 8 feet by 30 feet in size (240 s.f.),
and the placement of an uncovered deck (10 ft. by 30 ft, or 300 s.f.) that would extend
waterward of the ordinary high water mark (mean higher high tide), all associated with the
Port Angeles Yacht Club. Cumulatively, the facility would be expanded by the 600 square
foot building addition and the 300 square foot deck. The deck materials include treated
lumber and plastic/wood polymer type decking.
2.
The Yacht Club has been in existence since the 1930s. The existing main building is
approximately 30 feet by 50 feet, or 1500 (gross) square feet in size and contains a meeting
room, kitchen, restrooms and storage areas. There are two small outbuildings, 12 by 20
square feet each in size which are located west of the main building.
3. The Club leases 6480 square feet of the Boat Haven facility from the Port of Port Angeles
which includes 10 parking spaces.
4. The application also states that a few of the rip rap materials will be removed in order to
anchor the foundation for the proposed deck, and will then be replaced. Included are
excavation of holes into the soil near the riprap structure for the placement of 18-inch
sonotube forms for the concrete footings, as well as fill for the southeast footing placement
(3 foot by 3 foot in diameter). Also mentioned is the need to address erosion problems
which has occurred adjacent to the existing ramp and in the vicinity of the proposed deck
which requires repair by the property owner (port of Port Angeles) prior to deck construction.
5. Adjacent to the site to the north is the Port Angeles Harbor, to the west is a pocket park and
public boat ramp access that are a part of the Boat Haven, further west are industrial uses,
to the south is the parking lot for the west boat haven along with public restrooms and a
restaurant along Marine Drive, and to the east is the marina.
The parking area for the West boat Haven has 154 parking spaces of which 30 spaces are
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25. 2001
Page 6
double in length for boat trailers. Expansions of existing uses also require compliance with
PAMC 14.40, as it applies.
7.
The Port Angeles Harbor provides near shore marine habitat for juvenile Puget Sound
chinook salmon, which are listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
Nearshore marine areas provide habitat for salmon, as well as for bait fish such as herring
and sand lance. Within the Boathaven, salmon and herring have been seen; however, their
extent in the proposed location is not known. Eelgrass and near shore areas are known as key
habitat for juvenile salmon as it provides refuge, as well as feeding habitat.
8.
The designation of the subject site is Urban Harbor (UH) and Aquatic Harbor (AH) in the
Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Industrial (I) in the Port Angeles Comprehensive
Plan, and Industrial Heavy OH) in the Zoning Code, and boating facilities are permitted uses
in each of these designations. The Yacht Club is associated with the marina which is a
longstanding use that is specifically allowed at this location.
9.
The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program.
Those most relevant include the following: Chapter 4 D-Environmental Impacts Policy 1 and
Regulations 1,4, 7, and 12; E-Environmentally Sensitive Areas Policy 1 and Regulation I;
F-Kelp Beds, Eelgrass Beds, Herring Spawning Areas, Smelt Spawning Areas, Shellfish
Areas and Other Critical Salt Water Habitats Policies 1-9 and Regulations 3, 4, 7; H-
Salmon and Steelhead Habitats Policies 1-4 and Regulations 1 and 5, l-Public Access
Policies 1-7 and Regulations 4; K-Shorelines of State-wide Significance Policies 1-6,
Chapter 5 Aquatic Harbor Policy 5, Urban Harbor Policies 1,2,9 and 10, and Use Table H;
Chapter 6 B-Boating Facilities Policies 1,2 and 3 and Regulations General I, 4,9, 11 and
18.
10. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan. Those
most relevant include the following: Conservation Element Goal A, Policy 1, Goal B and
Policies 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 19, and 21, Goal D and Policies I, 4, 7-8, Utilities and Public
Services Element, Goal A and C, Economic Development Element Goal B and Policy 1.
11. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Zoning Code as marinas are
permi tted uses within the IH zone.
12. The application materials were sent to the Department of Ecology (DOE), the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Corps of Engineers, and the Lower Elwha
Klallam Tribal Council for review. Conditions of approval were recommended, as well as
preferred changes to the site design.
13. The Light Department and Public Works Department each indicated they have no comments
or recommended conditions of approval regarding the application. The Fire Department
requested that new construction comply with the Fire Code.
14. One written public comment was received in opposition of this application. The written
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25. 2001
Page 7
public comment period concluded March 15,2001.
15.
The aquatic shoreline is defmed by the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
Ordinance, Chapter 15.20, as a "beach and associated coastal drift process area, and a
<<Priority Species and Species of Concern Habitat Areas". Buffer and protective standards
for these areas are generally deferred to the Shoreline Master Program. A habitat
management may be required to address impacts and propose mitigation.
16.
Approval of SMA 01-02 shall also be deemed as approval for the activity in accordance with
Chapter 15.20 PAMe.
17.
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Responsible Official issued a Determination
of Non-Significance for the project on March 14,2001.
18.
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Chapter 15.12 PAMC, requires that any proposal be
required to ensure that the base flood or water surface elevation is not increased more than
one foot, which can be made by the proposal.
Conclusions
I. The proposal, as conditioned, would allow for a small expansion of a joint-use recreation
facility .
2.
The proposal, as conditioned, would not negatively affect critical saltwater habitat.
3. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code and is a permitted use with the Industrial Light zone.
4. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program.
5. Shoreline developments that are designed with the least environmental impact to the
shoreline and its resources is in the best public interest and welfare and furthers the goals and
intent of the Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Program.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 01-
04 - PUGET SOUND PILOTS - 305 Ediz Hook Road: A shoreline
substantial development and conditional use permit for the upgrade of the
existing operations facility, including the existing pier, pilings, decking and
expanded moorage platform.
Planner Barnes provided the staff report. Additional materials provided in the packet or at the
meeting included a copy of the lease between the applicant and the City of Port Angeles which
references 3 overflow parking spaces, a 1985 Planning Dept. interpretation which stated that 10
parking spaces are required, a memo from the Fire Dept. requesting an added condition for a
standpipe, and a memo from the City Parks Department about compatibility issues with the adjacent
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25. 2001
Page 8
public boat launch. Staff stated that the questions on Page 4 of the staff report have been answered
by the applicant. Additionally, based on staffs knowledge of mitigation that is being worked out
with W A Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, including the removal of piers and pilings in other locations
in the harbor, should be sufficient to mitigate the impacts onto the public's use of the shorelines in
this area, as well as fish and wildlife impacts. Staff provided a brief overview of the overheads of
the various site plans provided in the application. Corrections to the staff report included the
following:
2. Page 3, Para. 3. Change last sentence to reference 10 existing parking spaces.
3. Page 4, Delete reference to Condition #8 of SMA 00-01 as this condition was not included
in the Planning Commission's decision on that application.
4. Page 4. Staffread into the report the response to these questions by the applicant and stated
that these questions have been answered.
5. Page 5. Last para. Delete reference to chapter 8 of the SMP.
6. Page 9. Last para. Add sentence that additional mitigation beyond what is understood to be
proposed by the applicant is not necessary.
7. Page 10, Condition #6 - drop second sentence.
Commissioner Hewins asked for clarification of the increased amount of protrusion into the
shoreline by the expanded facility. Commissioner Porter asked for clarification of the purpose of
the log boom.
Stephanie Lund, consultant for the applicant, spoke in favor of the application and provided a
history of the project including the environmental assessments and six different alternatives reviewed
by the Puget Sound Pilots Association. The preferred alternative replaces the existing structures with
a larger mooring platform. She corrected the statement about trestle width, adding that the proposed
trestle is the same width, but has a 10-foot longer length. The existing dock is at -9 MLL Wand the
proposed barge would be at -12 MLLW which will have fewer fisheries impacts. Commissioner
Philpott asked for clarification if the size for the mooring area was adequate.
Jimm Sweet, Puget Sound Pilots, spoke in favor of the application reiterating the need for the
upgrades proposed due to safety issues relating to the structure, size of new pilot boats, size of ships
and ship traffic. He added that mitigation measures for the additional over-water cover in other areas
of the harbor have been researched and agreed in conjunction with the W A Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife whereby they have an agreement with the Port of Port Angeles to remove piles off ofEdiz
Hook east of the log dump trestle and pilings, and also 8 pilings west of the Coho ferry dock near
the downtown. Written confirmation of owners of these mitigation project sites were submitted
(Port of Port Angeles and Dept. of Natural Resources). Several questions of the Planning
Commission were answered including the location and use of the mitigation pilings, description of
gangway lifting arm, use of cranes on the mooring platform which was proposed last year, the
necessity for the size of the mooring platform, and parking needs by the pilots. Mr. Sweet added that
the Glosten Report and marine architects have stated that the minimum length of the platform be 112
feet and the width 2-times the width of the vessel which would be 38-feet.
. Howard Jensen, attorney for the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. He responded to
questions raised in the Parks Dept. memo and provided an overview of the general construction
Planning Commission Minutes
April 15,1001
Page 9
.
sequence and hours of operation that are anticipated which are still subject to bid. He stated that the
construction would not restrict public access and cooperation with users of the boat launch and trail
would be done. He reiterated that adjustments would be made in order to accommodate adjacent
recreational uses for any short term effects. He requested that adjustments to some of the language
in the conditions, findings and conclusions be made, as listed below. Discussion followed.
· Condition #6. Delete second sentence.
· Condition #7. Add an exception that Condition #1 of the MONS as it no longer applies.
Also noted was that the staff report should be corrected.
· Condition #9. Replace with a broader condition which is similar to that required by the Corps
of Engineers: "The applicant shall not prevent the full and free use by the public of all
navigable waters or right-of-ways at or adjacent to the project area authorized by this
permit. "
Finding #10. Add a statement that alternative locations were not feasible.
Conclusion #C. Add a statement that the proposal was in the public interest.
Commissioner Hewins inquired about Condition #2 and preferred that the other standard condition
be used to replace the current language in this condition. The anticipated construction sequence and
details were discussed. Effects onto the fish farm upland lease area was discussed. Effects onto
public use of the boat ramps during the upcoming fishing season were discussed. Effects of grated
decking onto fish habitat were explained.
.
Discussion of the revised conditions, findings and conclusion occurred with the applicant. Condition
#13 was added to address the Parks Dept. concerns that aren't addressed by other conditions.
Comments on the revisions were made by the applicant. Continued discussion on the parking issues
related to the proposal occurred. Commissioner Hewins moved to approve SMAO 1-04 citing the
conditions, findings and conclusions as listed below. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Porter and passed unanimously.
Conditions of Approval
1. Approval is for the project identified as Attachment A to the April 25, 200 I, Staff
Report and as hereby conditioned.
2
lfthe subject site has not be previously inventoried, evaluated, and reviewed to the
satisfaction of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the subject site shall be evaluated by
a cultural review team which shall include a professional archaeologist, a
representative of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the site owner, and the City
Planning Department. This team shall detennine the extent of excavation monitoring
for the project during the permit review process. As an alternative, the applicant may
volunteer to have an approved archaeologist on site during any excavation in lieu of
a review by the aforementioned cultural team. If during an excavation that by
decision of the cultural review team occurs without an approved archaeologist
on-site, any phenomena of possible archaeological interest are uncovered, the
developer shall stop such work and provide for a site inspection and evaluation by
a professional archaeologist to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data
.
.'
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 200/
Page 10
is properly salvaged.
3.
The project shall comply with all regulations of the City's Shoreline Master Program,
specifically those of Chapters 4,5,6 and 7.
4.
The proposed project shall meet all federal, state, and local requirements.
5.
The applicant shall obtain a Hydraulics Project Approval (HPA) permit for this
project from the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW).
6.
The property's eastern lease line shall be adjusted as shown on the site plan
submitted as part of Attachment A
7.
Compliance with the SEP A MDNS dated January 6, 2000, shall be required.
8.
Use of right-of-way or other lands managed by the City of Port Angeles for
construction staging or storage requires prior approval and written agreement
acceptable to the City Attorney.
9.
Use of the public boat launch and pier floats shall not be blocked by the construction
activity without prior approval of the City Parks Department.
10.
Disposal of creosote-treated pilings shall be made in accordance with applicable state
laws.
11. The proposal shall not require subsequent shoreline protection measures such as
increased riprap. Alteration ofthe riprap to accommodate the new trestle placement
shall not reduce the integrity of the rip rap structure, nor shall it include additional
rip rap placement. Details of the method of placement of the trestle shall be approved
by staff prior to issuance of the required building permit.
12. The applicant shall install a fire protection stand pipe.
13. The construction shall not interfere with removal or storage of the City pier floats.
Findings
Based on the information provided in the April 25, 2001 Staff Report for SMA-OI-04
(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.
A shoreline application, SMA 01-04, was submitted by Hillis, Clark, Martin, and
Peterson, agent for Puget Sound Pilots on March 8, 2001 for upgrades and expansion
of the existing Puget Sound Pilots facility at 305 Ediz Hook Road. The application
materials include an Eelgrass, Macroalgae, and Macrofauna Habitat Survey Report
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25,2001
Page 11
.
.
.
dated Jillle, 1999, was prepared for the project by Parametrix, Inc., a Biological
Evaluation dated March 2001 and Alternatives Analysis dated November 2000.
2.
The applicant is proposing to replace illlsound creosote-treated pilings, replace the
existing trestle and deck surrounding the operations center with mostly grated
decking, and replace and expand the berthing capacity of the moorage platform to
handle larger vessels. The purposes of the proposal are to improve the structural
integrity of the facility, improve safety measures related to docking the vessels, and
accommodate larger vessels.
3.
Cwnulatively, the proposal will increase the footprint of the various structures from
3,412 total sJ. to 6,108 sJ. whereby the majority of the increased area would be over
water. Due to the grated decking, covered area over shallow waters will be decreased
by 188 s,f. and the additional covered area (moorage platform) would be in deeper
water.
4.
The application notes anticipated short-term impacts due to demolition and new
construction, including increased noise and air emissions from construction and
traffic, potential disruption of recreational opportunities due to the vicinity of the
proposal to a public boat launch, and decreased water quality and potential impacts
onto fish and aquatic life (habitat and migration). Construction would be scheduled
to avoid fish migration, or between July 151h and October 14th, and would last 6-8
weeks.
5. Use of the upland area to the west of the boat launch for a contractor staging area is
also proposed which should reduce the nwnber of vehicle trips on Ediz Hook and
Marine Drive. A crane and pile hammer staged on a barge will be utilized for
removal and placement of the pilings. The barge will be brought in on a daily basis,
taking into consideration high tides to avoid impacts onto aquatic vegetation.
6. The applicants conducted an eelgrass survey in 1999 which revealed the presence of
three small eelgrass patches near the site. One location is west of the trestle; the
others are located either south or east of the decking around the operations center.
There are various eelgrass shoots in the vicinity.
7.
A biological evaluation was conducted which concluded that threatened or
endangered species in the vicinity of the project area includes Chinook salmon, bull
trout, bald eagles and marbled murrelets. The application states that the project will
not impede migration of salmon. Chinook and coho migrate through the Strait of de
Fuca, including the Port Angeles Harbor, and may forage in the Harbor. Anadromous
bull trout also migrate through the Harbor. Juvenile chinook and coho are most likely
found in near shore areas less than 3-meters deep where food is typically most
abundant. Adult salmon and bull trout often migrate and forage further away from
the shoreline but tend to remain at the top 3-9 meters of the water. The Biological
evaluation also concluded that the proposal may affect but is not likely to adversely
affect Chinook salmon, bull trout, coho salmon and marbled murrelets, and will not
affect bald eagles.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 2001
Page 12
.
.
16.
.
8.
Improved fish migration may result by increasing light penetration from the
placement of the grated decking in shallow waters. The number of support piles in
the nearshore area is minimal. The bulk of the over-water structure would be located
seaward of the preferred migration pathway for juvenile salmon. Overall, the
proposal will reduce the number of support piles, will decrease the amount of shading
in the nearshore area, and will decrease the amount of light and glare at the facility.
9. A letter report from The Glosten Associates, Inc. was submitted which included an
assessment of floating berths versus a fixed pier design scenario. The report
concluded that a floating berth would provide increased safety over a fixed pier and
that the size proposed was nearly ideal for current and tidal conditions at the site.
10. The Puget Sound Pilots facility has been located in the Port Angeles since the 1940s.
The operations provide docking and navigational services to commercial and foreign
ship traffic into Puget Sound. The testimony provided by the applicants included that
alternative location to the Pilot's facility is not feasible.
11. In 1985, the City approved a Shoreline Permit (SMA(1 )66) that expanded the
housing capacity of the facility from eight to fifteen pilots. The approval included
an agreement to accept ten parking spaces as the nwnber of spaces required by the
facility after the proposed expansion.
12.
In 2000, the City of Port Angeles approved SMA-OO-Ol that proposed a three-phase
project to replace the existing pier with an expanded pier, to replace the docking
facility with a floating barge in order to accommodate a larger vessel, to replace all
unsound pilings, and to increase the housing capacity of the pilot house.
13. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued by the City of Port
Angeles SEPA Responsible Official for the proposal on January 6, 2000. This
determination is in good standing and is applicable to the current proposal.
14. In accordance with legal requirements of the City of Port Angeles and the State of
Washington, the notice of application and subsequent hearing process was advertised
in the Peninsula Daily News. The public comment period for this application
concluded April 13, 2001.
15. The City Public Works Department did not recommend any conditions of approval
specific to this application.
The following Agencies and Tribes were notified of the application: Washington
Department ofFish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Coast
Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Elwha KIallam Tribal Council.
Comments from the WDFW declared that the HP A was incomplete. Also stated was
that the new proposal was more sensitive to fish habitat concerns and that if the
proposed berthing structure (barge) could not be reduced to further minimize shading
then mitigation was in order which could include removal offish migration or habitat
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 2001
Page 13
barriers at a 1: 1 ratio.
17.
The aquatic shoreline is defined by the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESA) Ordinance as a "beach and associated coastal drift process area". Approval
of SMA 01-04 shall also constitute as an administrative ESA approval required under
PAMC 15.20.
18.
The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning
Ordinance were reviewed with respect to this application.
19.
The site is located in a portion of the Open Space designation as well as part of an
un-designated transitional area of the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. It
is zoned Industrial Heavy [IH] and Public Buildings and Parks [PBP], and is adjacent
to Commercial Arterial [CA].
20.
The Shoreline Designations are Urban Harbor (UH) and Aquatic-Harbor [AH]
whereby maritime transportation facilities are a permitted use. The proposed pier and
dock (moorage float) requires a conditional use permit approval when located in an
area with high environmental value for fish.
21.
Related Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program policies and regulations
are included in Attachment B to the Staff Report.
22.
The City's waterfront trail runs east and west along Ediz Hook Drive and terminates
north of the subject property. Adjacent to the site is a public boat launch.
Conclusions
Based on the information provided in the April 25, 2001, Staff Report for SMA 01-04,
including all of its attachments, comments and information presented during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed
findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes that:
A. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and Shoreline Master Program. The shoreline use as a maritime
transportation facility is a permitted use in the IH zone, and UH and AH shoreline
designations. The proposed pier and dock (moorage facility) requires a conditional
use permit approval if located near an area of high environmental value for fish.
B. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the shoreline and aquatic
environment, and will provide for some enhancement of fish migration and habitat.
C.
The proposed project is a reinvestment in the harbor's freight terminal facilities and
reemphasizes the role of marine traffic in the community's economy. Approval of
the proposed project is in the public interest.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 25, 2001
Page 14
D.
As conditioned, the proposed project will enhance the public health, safety and
welfare.
E. As conditioned, the project will not interfere with public use of or access to public
lands or waters.
F. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the requirements of the Shoreline
Management Act and Shoreline Master Program.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
STAFF REPORTS
CPAOI-Ol. Director Collins provided an overview of the 200l Comprehensive Plan
Amendment application which was included in the packet. A public hearing is scheduled
for May 9,2001 on the proposed amendments. [please note that this has changed to May 23J
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11 :30 p,m.
~~
Brad Collins, Secretary
~~
PREPARED BY: D. Barnes
· ~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON. U. S. A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET
PLEASE SIGN IN
Meeting Agenda of: 4x~'~ ~ -;: ;z,(} () /
I I
PLEASE NOTE: IF you plan to testify. by signature below, you certify that the testimony
given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington.
Si nature below DOES NOT REQUIRE ou to testi - it onl acknowled es our resence.
~
*
.
.~
121..1 e..
ill I STevJthl-r ,1: JUt7-<! Cjut] .J&.-m.tZ t#~
Agenda Item No.
\
J
q~\o
I
L.-
t
<:
.:2-
~