HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/27/2005
~ORT ANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
July 13, 2005
6 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of July 13, 2005
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
.
1.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 05-02 - DUNAWAY - 626 E. 9th Street:
Proposal to allow an accessory residential unit in the RS-7 zone.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 05-03 - SEXTRO - 728 Yz E. 8th Street:
Proposal to allow an accessory residential unit in the RS-7 zone.
3. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION - The Reserve at Valley Creek: Southwest comer of Ahlvers
Road/Laurel Street: A proposed development of approximately 30 acres in the RS-7
Residential Single Family zone into 147 residential building sites.
4. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - MCA 05-01 - CITY OF PORT
ANGELES: Proposal to revise Section 16.08 (Subdivision) of the Port Angeles
Municipal Code streamlining the final subdivision review process.
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
VI. STAFF REPORTS
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Len Rasmussen (Chalr),Chene Kldd (VIce Chau),DaveJohnson, KeVin Snyder,Betsy Wharton, Candace KalIsh, John Matthews
PLANNING STAFF Mark Madsen, DIrector, Scott Johns, ASSOCiate Planner, Sue Roberds, ASSIstant Planner
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
July 13, 2005
6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Leonard Rasmussen, Dave Johnson, Cherie Kidd, Kevin
Snyder, Candace Kalish, John Matthews, Betsy Wharton
Members Excused:
None
Staff Present:
Mark Madsen, Scott Johns, Sue Roberds, Ken Dubuc, Jim
Mahlum
Public Present:
Fred and Wendy Rix, Jack and Dolores Stewart, Ethel Butler,
Eric Sandras, LeRoy and Virginia Sproat, Ann Sextro, Randy
Stenger, Andy Meyer, Betty Booher, John Courney, Virginia
del Guzzi, Robert and Mary Phillips, Mike Haggerty, Steve
Zenovic, Andy and Fran Anderson, Clint Berg, Tom
Armstrong, Bruce Moorhead, Don and Jeanette Mudd, Pili
Meyer, Roger and Maura Oakes, Sheila and Matt Ostrowski,
Shawna Rigg, Karen Jensen, Dan and Kelie Morrison, Jim
and Lori Hendrickson, Charlie Palazzo, Joe Hofrichter, Elmer
Tuttle, Barbara Maxwell, Conor Haggerty, Allen Whitaker,
Frank Ducceschi, Susan Hayden
.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
.
Commissioner Snyder moved to approve the June 22, 2005, minutes as presented. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Matthews and passed 5 - 0 with Commissioners Kidd
and Wharton abstaining due to absence at the meeting.
Community and Economic Development Director Mark Madsen noted that maps were
distributed identifying the locations of preliminary subdivisions that have been approved in the City
within the past 18 months and noted that several of those subdivisions have recently received final
approval. Several of the subdivisions have been sold out prior to final approval and a backlog of
building permits exist. The market demand for housing is outstripping the supply. In January, 2005,
the average home price in Port Angeles was $187,000. It is now over $208,000, climbing
approximately $3,000 per month and has not shown a tendency toward a "bubble" but continues to
rise. Approximately one-third of new home purchasers are from the local area, one-third from the
Seattle-Puget Sound 1-5 corridor, and one-third from outside of the State of Washington, mainly
from California. There is a general trend for a demand that is not currently being met by the market.
The purchasing capability of an average two wage household in Clallam County is around $150,000
so many local reSIdents are being locked out of the new housing market. This information is
important relative to how we deal with infill in the community. The City is seeing development
activity on undeveloped parcels now because we are fast running out of infill stock.
Planmng CommiSSIOn Mmutes
July 13, 2005
Page 2
.
Commissioner Kalish asked ifthere has been any analysis ofthe role of speculators in current
development activity. How many people are actually moving to Port Angeles? Director Madsen
responded that in talking to local realtors, he was told that many people are actually buying homes
for future residency - approximately 50%. Very few homes are being purchased as rental speculation
because the market value is beyond that which the rental market can support.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Chair Rasmussen welcomed the audience and indicated that those who testify must sign the
attendance log and affirm that their testimony will be truthful to the best of their knowledge.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 05-02 - DUNAWAY - 626 E. 9th Street: An
accessory residential unit in the RS- 7 zone.
Associate Planner Scott Johns reviewed the Department's report and responded to questions.
Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing.
Pili Meyer, 103 Viewcrest Avenue, represented the applicant and noted that, as the proposal
is basically a remodel. No new construction is required to accomplish the proposal. The second unit
will help address the need for affordable housing.
There being no further comments, Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing. Following
brief discussion, Commissioner Kalish moved to approve the conditional use permit with the
. following conditions and citing the noted findings and conclusions:
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall meet all permitting and utility requirements including the
provision of a total of 4 off-street parking spaces.
2. For Accessory Residential Unit applications the following may apply: Building
location, setbacks and lot coverage for the Accessory Residential Unit shall be as
shown in the site drawing submitted for Conditional Use Permit application (CUP
05-02). The proposed Accessory Residential Unit will contain 308 square feet and
lot coverage of25.57%.
3. Primary access to the site shall be developed from 9th Street, with secondary and
utility access only from the 9/1 0 alley. Parking spaces shall be accessed from the
alley.
Findings:
.
Based on the information provided in the Community Development Staff Report for CUP
05-02 dated July 13, 2005, including all information in the public record file, comments and
testimony presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion and
deliberation, and the above listed conditions of approval, the City of Port Angeles Planning
Commission hereby finds that:
Plannzng CommiSSIOn Mznutes
July 13, 2005
Page 3
.
.
.
1.
Frank Dunaway submitted Conditional Use Permit application CUP 05-02 to convert
an existing "weight room" into an Accessory Residential Unit.
2. The proposed site includes Lot 3, Block 286, Townsite of Port Angeles.
3. The site is zoned RS-7 Single Family Residential. For accessory residential unit
applications the following may apply: Accessory residential units are allowed by
conditional use permit per Section 17.1 0.040(A) P AMC.
4. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as being in an indeterminate area
between an area designated as Low Density Residential and an area designated as
Commercial. The site is located in the City's North Central Planning Area. The
subject site is located in the RS-7 Single Family Residential zone. Development in
the neighborhood includes single family residences and commercial uses.
5. For accessory residential unit applications the following may apply: Section
17.08.025(K) P AMC defines a dwelling unit as "one or more rooms which are
arranged, designed or used as living quarters for one family only. Individual
bathrooms are not necessarily provided, but complete single kitchen facilities,
permanently installed shall always be included for each dwelling unit."
6.
Per 17.96.050 P AMC, the Planning Commission shall consider applications for
conditional use permit uses as specified in the applicable Chapter of the Zoning
Regulations. The Planning Commission may grant said permits which are consistent
and compatible with the purpose of the zone in which the use is located, consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, and not contrary to the public use and interest. In each
application, the Planning Commission may impose whatever restrictions or
conditions are considered essential to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and
to prevent depreciation of neighboring property. For accessory residential unit
applications the following may apply: Established City policy requires that accessory
residential unit uses be scattered throughout single family residential neighborhoods
and that impacts of each proposed accessory residential unit be evaluated to
determine ifthe characteristics ofthe intended use as related to the specific proposed
site would defeat the purpose of the City's Zoning Regulations by introducing
incompatible, detrimental, or hazardous conditions. The Planning Commission may
refuse to issue a conditional use permit if the characteristics of the intended use
would defeat the purpose of the City's zoning regulations.
7.
For accessory residential unit applications the following may apply: While the City's
Comprehensive Plan allows accessory residential units to be developed in residential
single-family areas up to a specified density, nowhere in the City's development
standards is there written criteria that provides a guideline as to where and at what
density accessory residential units may be developed in RS-7 zones of the Port
Angeles Municipal Code which only defines minimum setbacks and lot size.
Accessory residential unit development is decided on a case by case basis by
.
.
.
Plannmg CommiSSIOn Mmutes
July 13. 2005
Page 4
conditional use permit with several issues being considered in that decision.
Consideration should be given to the impact of traffic patterns, the particulars of a
proposed property, other uses in the neighborhood, density, and roads in an area in
determining if a accessory residential unit is an appropriate development in the RS- 7
zone.
8.
The City's Comprehensive Plan was reviewed for consistency with the proposal.
For accessory residential unit applications the following may apply: Land Use
Element Goal A and Policy A.2; Land Use Element Goal B, and Policies B.I and
B.4; Land Use Element Goal C and Policies C.I ;Housing Element Goal A and Policy
A.6, and Goal B and Policy B. 6; Transportation Element Policy B.I; Conservation
Element Goal A and Policy A.I, Goal B and Policies B.I, 2, 4, 5, 8, and Objectives
B.3, 4, and 7; Capital Facilities Element Policies B.I - 7, and Housing Element
Policy B.5 were found to be most relevant to the proposal.
9.
PAMC Chapter 14.40 requires two off-street parking spaces for each residential
dwelling unit.
10.
For accessory residential unit applications the following may apply: Setbacks in the
RS-7 zone for single family development are 20 foot front and rear and 7 foot each
side, and maximum lot coverage is 30% in the RS- 7 Zone.
11.
A development that is approved through the conditional use permit process must
remain in continual compliance with specific conditions of approval or may be
revoked.
12. Reviewing City Departmental comments were considered in the review of this
application. For accessory residential unit applications the following may apply: The
proposed activity will require a valid building permit and the installation of separate
water and electrical meters for each residential unit.
13. Notification of the proposed action and conditional use permit application was
placed in the Peninsula Daily News on June 12,2005. Public notice was mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on June 10,2005. Public
notice was posted on the site on June 12,2005. Written comments were received
from one neighbor in opposition to the proposed accessory residential unit.
14. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this proposed action on July 5,
2005.
15. The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the proposal at the July 13,
2005, regular meeting.
.
.
.
Planmng CommISSIOn Minutes
July 13, 2005
Page 5
Conclusions:
Based on the information provided in the Department of Community and Economic
Development Staff Report for CUP 05-02 dated July 13, 2005, including all of the
information in the public record file, comments, and testimony presented during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed
conditions of approval and listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission
hereby concludes that:
1.
As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the intent ofthe Comprehensive Plan,
specifically with Land Use Element Goal A and Policy A.2; Land Use Element Goal
B, and Policies B.l and B.4; Land Use Element Goal C and Policies C.l;
Transportation Element Policy 8.1; Housing Element Goal A and Policy A.l;
Housing Element Goal B and Policy B.6; Conservation Element Goal A and Policy
A.l, Goal B and Policies 8.1,2,4,5,8, and Objectives B.3, 4, and 7; and Economic
Development Policy 8.5. The Plan specifies that multi - family residential units should
be allowed in certain zones by conditional use approval in order to provide a variety
of, and adequate, affordable housing and also encourages clustering of residential
development where necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas while
preserving the rights of private property ownership. The Plan's residential goals and
policies indicate that a mix of uses is acceptable and even expected when desired
densities are maintained.
2. For accessory residential unit applications the following may apply: The proposed
use complies with Section 17.10. 040(H) (RS-7 Zone) ofthe Port Angeles Municipal
Code and, as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with development standards for
accessory residential unit uses in the RS- 7 Zone.
3. The proposal is consistent with requirements for approval of a conditional use permit
as specified in P AMC 17.96.050.
4. The proposal is consistent with PAMC Chapter 14.40 (Parking Ordinance).
5. As conditioned, the proposal will provide an alternate housing opportunity in
compliance with established building and zoning standards.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wharton and passed 7 - o.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 05-03 - SEXTRO - 728 'li E. 8th Street: An
accessory residential unit in the RS-7 zone.
Assistant Planner Sue Roberds reviewed the Department's report recommending approval
of the proposal. Following questions as to the proximity of the accessory unit to the top of the
Tumwater Creek ravine, Planner Roberds noted that structures on the site have existed for a
.
.
.
Planning CommIssIOn Mmutes
July 13, 2005
Page 6
minimum of twenty years which is prior to the adoption of the City's ordinances relating to
development in sensitive areas. No new construction is proposed. Planner Johns confirmed that the
location of existing structures within the previously altered area would be in compliance with the
City's current regulations regarding development in the environmentally sensitive area. Chair
Rasmussen opened the public hearing.
Following discussion as to the availability of on-site parking, Commissioner Kidd moved
to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions and citing the noted
findings and conclusions:
Conditions:
1. Building permits must be obtained and separate water and electrical meters are
required for each dwelling unit. Addressing for the individual uses shall be clearly
identified as 728 and 728 1/2 for emergency purposes.
2. Two (2) off-street parking spaces are required for each residential dwelling unit for
a total of four (4) spaces. Parking for the use must be located on the site.
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the Planning Division Staff Report for CUP 05-03 dated July
13,2005, including all information in the public record file, comments and testimony presented
during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion and deliberation, and the above listed
condition of approval, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1. Ann Sextro submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a duplex on May 11,
2005, to legitimize an existing secondary residential use at 728 1/2 West Eighth
Street. Mrs. Sextro is the property owner.
2. The site is legally described as Lots 7 & 8 , Block 238, Townsite of Port Angeles and
is found in the RS-7 Residential Single Family zone, and contains a total of 14,000
square feet in area.
3. A primary residential unit and a second residential unit (that was established without
proper permitting) are located on the site with access off the 7/8 Alley. The second
living unit is entirely separate (does not contain a common wall) from the primary
unit but is connected to the structure by a short breezeway. No site access exists off
of West Eighth Street.
4.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site as Low Density
Residential (LDR). Adjacent designations are LDR. The Comprehensive Plan's
goals and policies have been reviewed with regard to the proposed application and
the policies identified in Attachment B to this staff report appear to be the most
relevant to the proposal. Housing Element policies (A.6 and B.6) and Residential
Goals (A.2 and C.2) specifically encourage accessory residential units in residential
single family zones on a case by case basis.
Planmng CommiSSIOn Mmutes
July 13, 2005
Page 7
.
.
Conclusions:
5.
PAMC Section 17.10.010 states the purpose of the RS-7 Zone as "a low density
residential zone intended to create and preserve urban single family residential
neighborhoods consisting of predominantly single family homes on standard
Townsite-size lots. Uses which are compatible with and functionally related to a
single family residential environment may also be located in this zone..." The RS-7
zone standards are further defined in Attachment B to this report.
6.
The existing single family resIdential structure has an apparent building footprint of
approximately 1739 square feet. The accessory residential unit has an apparent
footprint of 578 square feet according to City records. The total on-site living area
is 2317 square feet or 17% of the site area.
7.
Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 17.10.010 states the purpose of the
RS- 7 Zone as "a low density residential zone intended to create and preserve urban
single family residential neighborhoods consisting of predominantly single family
homes on standard Townsite-size lots. Uses which are compatible with and
functionally related to a single family residential environment may also be located
in this zone..."
P AMC Section 17.08.025(J) defines a dwelling unit as "one or more rooms which
are arranged, designed or used as living quarters for one family only. Individual
bathrooms are not necessarily provided, but complete szngle kitchen facilities,
permanently installed, shall always be included for each dwelling unit. "
PAMC Section 17.08.010(B) defines an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) as "a
dwelling unit which is incldental to a detached szngle family residence, is
subordinate in space (i. e.,fifty percent or less space than the single family residential
use), and is located on the same zoning lot as the single family residence. An
accessory residential unit is served by water and electrical service that is separate
from the primary residential servlce and has a separate address. "
P AMC Section 17 .08.025(E) defines a Duplex as "a residential building containing
two one-family dwelling units within the four walls of the building. "
8. Notice ofthe proposed activity was placed in the Peninsula Dailv News on May 12,
2005, with the site being posted and notices mailed to surrounding property owners
on May 12,2005. No written comments were received on the proposal.
9. The City's Responsible SEP A Official issued a determination of nonsignificance for
the proposal on June 29, 2005.
Based on the information provided in the Department Staff Report for CUP 05-03 dated July 13,
2005, including all ofthe information in the public record file, comments, and testimony presented
during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above
listed condition of approval and the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning
Commission hereby concludes that:
.
Plannzng CommiSSIOn Mznutes
July 13, 2005
Page 8
.
1. As the existing dwelling units are not contained within the same structure and do not
contain a common wall, they cannot be considered a duplex but would be in
compliance with the definition of an accessory residential unit.
2. The proposal is consistent with the intent ofthe Comprehensive Plan's Low Density
Residential Land Use Designation, the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element
Policies A.2, and C.l, and Housing Element Policies A.6, and B.6.
3. The proposal is consistent with the requirements for approval of an accessory
residential unit (ARU) conditional use permit as specified in P AMC 17.96.050 and
is in compliance with the purpose of the RS-7 Single Family zone and densities
permitted within the RS- 7 zone.
4. The use is in the public interest as it allows for a variety of housing opportunities.
5. The City's responsibility under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) in review
of the proposal has been satisfied.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kalish and passed 7 - O.
.
Chair Rasmussen called for a short break at 6:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7 :00 p.m.
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION - The Reserve at Valley Creek: Southwest comer of Ahlvers
Road/Laurel Street: The proposed development of approximately 30 acres in the RS-7
Residential Single Family zone into 147 residential building sites.
.
Associate Planner Scott Johns reviewed the Department's report. Commissioner Snyder
noted at this point that he was familiar with several audience members and is employed in the
flooring industry. Although he believed that he would be able to act fairly on the proposal, he
wished to reveal the information under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. A member of the
audience (Jim Hendricks) called from the audience that he objected to Commissioner Snyder's
review of the proposal because he is involved in the construction industry, and directed
Commissioner Snyder to leave the room. Commissioner Snyder left the room at this point.
Commissioner Wharton revealed that she lives in the area and uses Laurel Street often.
Commissioner Kidd also noted that she is familiar with several persons in the room. No one
objected to either Commissioner Wharton or Kidd remaining in the room.
Commissioner Kalish posed several questions regarding demographics of the proposed
development, maintenance and use of the site's sensitive areas, housing types, density, off-site
improvements, and traffic issues. She also questioned whether duplexes are considered single
family housing. Director Madsen noted that the City's ordinances allow duplexes to be
developed in single family zones in specific situations.
Planner Johns clarified that the PRD density for the area being used for the development,
not counting the critical areas, is only slightly over the density that would be allowed in the RS- 7
.
.
.
Plannzng CommiSSIOn Mznutes
July 13, 2005
Page 9
zone for a standard subdivision development. The property was recently annexed to the City as
RS-7. The development potential in the County (density) under the proposed PRD is quite a bit
less than what could have been reached under the County's zoning designation. With that in
mind, Commissioner Wharton clarified that if the development proposal was strictly for RS- 7
development, building would not be permitted in the critical area and therefore there would be
fewer building sites (density) overall.
In response to a question from Commissioner Matthews, Planner Johns responded that
capital improvement projects have been identified for improvement to Ahlvers and Laurel Streets
in 2006 - 2007, meaning that the streets are scheduled for improvement regardless whether this
development occurs or not. The current developer will be expected to contribute a fair share to
the improvements.
Commissioner Kidd was concerned with public safety issues: traffic and sidewalk
concerns.
Planner Johns acknowledged that staff and the general public are aware that streets in the
area are inadequate to handle a large development and need to be improved. Analysis of the
traffic on Lauridsen Boulevard both during the construction of the Albertson's and Independent
Bible Church projects identified the need to concentrate improvements in the area. The School
District is revising its sidewalk routes and has been a party to improvements in neighborhood
areas in the past. The City expects to see pedestrian and road improvements with or without the
proposed project. With the project, there will be a fair share contribution by the developer as
agreed upon by the developer and the City. That fair share will be determined once a more
comprehensive traffic study is complete in the fall when school traffic counts can be completed.
The current analysis provided by the developer did not include school traffic counts.
Commissioner Kalish was concerned that the developer's contribution is not defined at
this point. There is no commitment only an expression of good will and willingness to cooperate
which does not amount to agreement. She believed that if the Commission proceeds with
recommending approval of the development, the Planning Commission will then give up any
further role in shaping the future of the development with no assurances that any mitigation
conditions will be paid for by the developer. She continued to express concern about a certain
level of vagueness regarding the process.
Planner Johns noted that at this time, the procedure is to review the proposal and forward
either recommendation of approval as written, approval with additional or revised conditions, or
denial to the City Council. If approved, the developer must meet the conditions or final approval
will not be given. It is not likely that a developer would pursue a development such as this
without not expecting to fully meet the conditions of approval.
Chair Rasmussen questioned whether the infrastructure in the area is adequate to support
the proposed development. Planner Johns noted that, in their review, the Public Works and
Utilities Department did not indicate that the infrastructure is inadequate for the proposal. Mr.
Johns then reviewed how stormwater in the area is to be handled. Drainage ponds will capture
water from surrounding areas which will meter into the existing drainage going into Valley
Creek. An additional outfall will meter water to Valley Creek and an underground gallery will be
augmented to support additional runoff. The developer will be required, as is conditioned, to
have a stormwater plan that meets National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and the
City's guidelines. Because this is still in the conceptual stage, the developer does not need to
agree to the specifics of every pipe size but will be required to develop to the accepted standards.
.
.
.
Planning CommissIOn Mmutes
July 13, 2005
Page 10
Commissioner Kalish was concerned that development ofthe subject site would cause an
increase in vagrancy, litter, and non desirable activities in the Creek area. Mr. Johns noted that a
site visit indicated that many nondesirable activities have been occurring in the wooded,
undeveloped area at the present time and development of the area will bring many more eyes on
the area than are there now which may deter undesirable activities.
Commissioner Kidd noted that the City's Police Department commented that the current
number of Police officers does not allow the Department to control traffic in the manner that they
would like. She again noted that public safety issues are of a main concern.
Commissioner Wharton was concerned about traffic mitigation and also questioned how
the existing wetland and environmentally sensitive area would be adequately protected.
Condition Number 5 is designed to require the protection of the environmental functions and
values of the sensitive areas buffer but she wasn't sure what the impact of 147 houses would be
or how the condition could be adequately enforced. She questioned how accessible the ravine
would be for recreational use.
Planner Johns noted that the City's environmentally sensitive areas ordinance requires
that signage be placed educating the public on use of these areas. It would be a minor issue to
include more fencing than what is required in the City's ordinances ifit is determined that such is
needed. The applicants will be required to obtain a Wetland Permit and Environmentally
Sensitive Areas Permit as part of the development and these permit procedures would typically
include conditions that will ensure protection and access determinations.
In response to Commissioner Kalish, Mr. Johns responded that he does not know if
woodstoves or fireplaces are intended. This is not an issue that the City has control over in a
land development review. He did not believe that the developer intends to provide wood heat for
the structures. Commissioner Kalish asked if air quality had been considered. Director Madsen
pointed out that this is something we don't have jurisdiction over.
Chair Rasmussen noted that the Parks and Recreation Division did not participate in this
large of a development. The Division has stated that they would like to see a 2 acre area for each
major neighborhood for parks but they made no statement in this review. Planner Johns noted
that there is a 6-year time line for concurrency with parks developments. Chair Rasmussen then
opened the public hearing.
Tom Armstrong, Development and Construction Group, 12501 Bel-Red Rd., Bellevue,
W A thanked everyone present for their comments and consideration of this proposal. In meeting
with neighbors several months ago, the proposal was much more basic and in the meantime he
has tried to address the concerns expressed. The three primary concerns were: density of the site,
wetlands, and traffic. The current proposal addresses these concerns which continue to be
refined and will be revised further if necessary upon completion of a final traffic study in the fall.
He noted that he wouldn't be proposing the product if it hadn't been decided that this product is
needed and will succeed in the area. The development will provide a middle priced, well
planned out and executed development. What is currently being offered is higher end
development. He proposed that a $175,000 to $225,000 price range is currently unavailable in
the current market and is what is being designed for with this project. He addressed the issues as
stated in the letters from the public that had been received. The proposed development will
significantly contribute to the entire community. The basic concept behind the higher density is
to allow for residential options. As many trees as are possible to replace will be replanted
following the construction process along with landscaped recreational areas that do not now
exist. Special emphasis will be placed on pedestrian and traffic safety. He then displayed the
.
.
.
Planmng CommiSSIOn Mznutes
July 13, 2005
Page 11
various housing types proposed within the PRD. His intent is to construct the four plex units as
he has significant experience in such construction and it is important that the units retain a certain
standard.
Mr. Armstrong responded to questions regarding the number of traffic trips and
maintenance of common areas. He is not planning a homeowner's association.
At this point Commissioner Snyder re-entered the room to collect his papers in order to
leave the building. Director Madsen asked him ifhe had ever met or had dealings with Mr.
Armstrong or his associates. Commissioner Snyder responded in the negative. Director Madsen
noted for the record and the audience that Commissioner Snyder was graciously leaving the
proceedings without identifying any true appearance of fairness or conflict of interest issues but
because he had been asked to do so by a member of the audience.
Mr. Armstrong continued by stating that hard data will be acquired as to the traffic
impacts and stormwater issues that have been brought up and which have been preliminarily
addressed by his engineer. All facilities will meet all required and acceptable standards but an
additional traffic study which provides quantifiable data cannot be completed until school
resumes in the fall
Commissioner Wharton suggested that more care be given to the range of ages in the
proposed recreational amenities. The proposal at present only addresses small children. Traffic
calming measures were discussed. She appreciated the care given to the planning process and
realized that, because the project is within the City limits, urban rather than rural densities must
be planned for. Mr. Armstrong responded that it makes sense to use local contractors and
suppliers and that he will reevaluate recreational areas to serve a more diverse age group.
Commissioner Kalish remained skeptical regarding the targeted demographics and home
cost figures.
Mr. Armstrong responded to Commissioner Matthews that he did not believe residences
would be purchased for the rental market based on their value.
Steve Zenovic, 519 South Peabody, Port Angeles, noted that in annexing the property the
City Council specifically designated the site for RS-7 rather than RS-9 development which
increased the potential density in the residential area. In doing so the Council appears to be
identifying that more dense development is needed in the City. He explained the state law
mandates regarding stormwater discharge and that site development will be in accord with all
required development standards. The wetland will be kept viable. He reiterated the stormwater
plan previously identified by Mr. Johns and explained that the stormwater has not been fine
tuned because approval has not been given and any developer is reluctant to incur large
engineering costs without at least preliminary approval of a plan. Traffic issues are close to
being finalized. In response to Commissioner Kalish as to the biggest engineering hurdle, Mr.
Zenovic stated that stormwater issues are the major concern. Traffic can be worked out as well.
It was noted that the dedication of a 30' strip of property along the most north side of the site will
be to the benefit of the abutting property owners (Rix) to allow continued access to their property
in the manner in which they have become accustomed.
Fred Rix, 139 W. Ahlvers Road, Port Angeles, submitted a lengthy letter from Chris
Melly, 3503 Galaxy Place, in opposition to the development. [Mr. Melly's letter stated that the
applicant should resubmit a traffic study and should further review air pollution].
Mr. Rix then submitted and read a letter of opposition into the record stating that the
proposed development is not in compliance with the general standards for planned residential
.
.
.
Planmng Commission Minutes
July 13, 2005
Page 12
developments as outlined in the City's Zoning Ordinance, nor is it in compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He believed that an environmental impact
statement would answer the many unanswered questions that the neighborhood has in regard to
the proposed development. The magnitude of the environmental impacts have not been fully
reviewed.
Susan Hayden, 3003 Oakcrest Loop, Port Angeles, was concerned with traffic and
flooding issues. She stated that she had personally been involved in a major traffic accident at
the intersection of Park and Laurel, which is a horrible intersection. It is imperative that this
intersection be a major focus of traffic improvement with or without the proposed development.
Additionally, the intersection of Laurel Street and Lauridsen Boulevard floods each year which
makes it difficult for vehicles to pass through the intersection, particularly those of a low design
such as hers, during flood events. She objected to the testimony that higher density development
is needed to provide more affordable housing and questioned whether low impact street design in
higher density areas will be capable of dealing with parking issues since low impact standards
restricts on-street parking. Ms. Hayden knows everyone in her neighborhood and was concerned
that the character of the surrounding neighborhoods will negatively change as, given the potential
density of a subdivision on the site, people will no longer know their neighbors. She respectively
requested that the PRD as proposed be denied until more information is provided.
Andy Meyer, 209 Forest Avenue, Port Angeles, spoke regarding traffic concerns and
believed that an additional environmental impact statement or a mitigated determination of non
significance would be more appropriate than the determination of non significance issued by the
City. A PRD is designed to provide flexibility in a development and is an opportunity to come
up with unique and innovative development techniques. Because the details are not buttoned
down, the proposal does not reach this goal. To the degree that a PRD requires residential
development of a high quality design related to the surrounding areas, the lack of control of
design issues at this point is missing. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look carefully
at this type of thing. The intersection of Park and Laurel Street is very dangerous at present. He
expressed concern that the traffic issues already present will be further exacerbated by a
development of this size in the area.
Bruce Moorhead, 4124 Old Mill Road, Port Angeles, spoke as a retired wildlife
biologist regarding the impact of such a development on wildlife and regarding the wildlife on
such a development. Such sites often turn into bait traps for wildlife that frequent the ravine
corridors. He would be happy to work with staff on better deterrent measures.
Elena Haggerty, 2905 South Laurel Street, Port Angeles, is not against development but
would like more information on traffic issues for Laurel, Peabody, and Ahlvers Streets. If open
areas are fenced off to recreational use, they then lose their value as open space areas. She
questioned stormwater containment. The project is too vague at this point.
Alan Whetstein, 337 Ahlvers, Port Angeles, was seriously concerned about the safety of
pedestrians on Ahlvers Road. There are no sidewalks and current conditions are very dangerous.
Randy Steinman, 3405 South Laurel, Port Angeles, was concerned that 2/3 of the
potential property purchasers will be from out of town and many of the sites will be rentals. This
is not a good area for renters.
Dan Morrison, 408 E. Scribner Rd, Port Angeles, was not opposed to a subdivision but
is opposed to the proposed density of the PRD and was concerned that without a homeowner's
association, continuity of color and design will be an issue.
.
.
.
Planmng CommiSSIOn Mmutes
July 13, 2005
Page 13
Frank Ducceschi, 531 E. Ahlvers, Port Angeles, noted that although the proposed
development will certainly impact Laurel Street, Peabody Street will also be impacted. He asked
that the intersection of Park and Peabody also be studied as a result of the development.
John Kaufmann, 2251 Wellman, Port Angeles, W A lives in the County west of Valley
Creek. He asked that additional conditions be instituted to control activities in Valley Creek and
to protect the creek.
Mike Haggerty, 2905 South Laurel Street, Port Angeles, has heard benefits but no talk
of costs. He asked that a decision be postponed until information can be further evaluated.
There being no further testimony, Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing.
Director Madsen noted that this proposal is a work in progress and a lot of information
has been presented which needs to be evaluated prior to further discussion. The development as
proposed is being submitted at a lower density than if it had been developed in the County. With
that in mind, this is a preliminary approval and the Planning Commission can, in its review,
approve as is recommended, approve with additional conditions to further address specific issues,
or recommend denial. The report as presented has been a work in progress. Staff has been
working closely with the developer to address pertinent issues and will continue to do so. Enough
significant issues have been raised to warrant additional review of certain items. The developers'
approach is not dissimilar to that of others who have proposed such a development. Minimum
standards of the ordinance have been met. Staff would like time to consolidate testimony notes
and provide additional information for the Commissioners' review.
Chair Rasmussen suggested that a special meeting be set to further discuss the issue.
Commissioner Matthews moved to continue discussion to a special meeting on August 3, 6
p.m., City Hall, to allow staff time to address the issues discussed. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Kalish and passed 7 - o.
The time being after! 0:00 p.m., Commissioner Wharton moved to continue the
meeting. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which passed 7 - o.
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - MCA 05-01 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES:
Proposal to revise Section 16.08 (Subdivision) ofthe Port Angeles Municipal Code
streamlining the final subdivision review process.
Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing. There was no one present to discuss the
issue, and due to the lateness of the hour, Commissioner Matthews moved to continue the
public hearing to the July 27, 2005, regular meeting. Commissioner Johnson seconded the
motion which passed 7 - o.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ST AFF REPORTS
Director Madsen noted that he had distributed a paper "Toward a New Metropolis: The
Opportunity To Rebuild America." The paper examines a series of projected trends to determine
the estimated demand for new housing, commercial, and industrial space of the next 25 years.
.
.
.
Plannmg CommISSIOn Mmutes
July 13, 2005
Page 14
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
~~~~:~ ~
PREPARED BY: S. Roberds
~ORT.ANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, USA
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET
PLEASE SIGN IN
. Meeting Agenda of: :r.)L f I 3 ) ;;Xrx5-
To help us provide an accurate record of those in attendance, please sign in. Your
signature acknowledges your presence. If you plan to testify, by your signature below, you
certify that the testimony given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the
State of Washington. Signature below DOES NOT REQUIRE you to testify.
NAME:
ADDRESS:
Agenda Item No.
S
/i
/1
~
T-3
.3
V
"3
~,
~
~
.:::<..
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, USA
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET
PLEASE SIGN IN
Meeting Agenda of: 7//3 / e? S
, /
To help us provide an accurate record of those in attendance, please sign in. Your
signature acknowledges your presence. If you plan to testify, by your signature below, you
certify that the testimony given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the
State of Washington. Signature below DOES NOT REQUIRE you to testify.
ADDRESS:
V/wJ C/llfj-
c: \MyFlles\Forms\Mtgrostpc. wpd
Agenda Item No.
IV - ,
',V-3
1(/- .3
IV
{V'-