Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/12/1992 ~. . . . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 AUGUST 12, 1992 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of July 22, 1992 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. ENNIS CREEK ESTATES PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT. Del Guzzi Drive south of Highway 101: Request for approval of a final planned residential development. 2. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMlT - SMA 92(08)129 - PORT OF PORT ANGELES. in the Harbor area adjacent to (west) the Landing Mall: Request to allow a shoreline management permit to permit installation of a new float section, new piling and replacement of existing timber piling, and a ramp, in the CBD, Central Business District. 3. REZONE REOUEST - REZ 92(08)03 - GROOMS. 4100 Block Newell Road: Request for rezone of property (approximately 2.58 acres) from LI, Light Industrial, to RS-9, Residential Single-Family. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 92(08)08 - EVERGREEN MEATS. 306 South Valley Street: Request for a conditional use permit to allow a meat processing activity in the LI, Light Industrial District. (To be continued to the September 9, 1992.) 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 Conunission members before the hearing. Planning Commission: Cindy Souders, Chair; William Anabel, Vice-Chair; Ray Gruver; Roger Catts; Larry Leonard; Bob Philpott; Bob Winters. Planning Slaff: Bmd Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist; John Jimerwn, Associate Planner; David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 5. STREET VACATION REQUEST - STV (09)03 - PAYNE. 3006 South Peabody Street: Request for vacation of a portion of Peabody Street, north of Viewcrest. V. OTHER BUSINF.SS VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIC VD. STAFF REPORTS Vill. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS IX. ADJOURNMENT 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 Planning Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington August 12, 1992 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Souders called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Philpott, Bill Anabel, Roger Catts, Larry Leonard and Cindy Souders Members Absent: Ray Gruver, Bob Winters Staff Present: Brad Collins, John Jimerson, Gary Kenworthy, Bruce Becker A PPRO V AL OF MINUTES Commissioner Leonard moved to approve the minutes of the July 22, 1992, meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Catts and passed 4-0, with Commissioner Anabel abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairwoman Souders announced public hearing number four would be the first item heard on the agenda. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 92(08)08 - EVERGREEN MEATS, 306 South Valley Street: Request for a conditional use permit to allow a meat processing activity in the LI, Light Industrial District. Chairwoman Souders opened the public hearing. There being no public testimony, she continued the public hearing to September 9, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. ENNIS CREEK ESTATES PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, Del Guzzi Drive south of Highway 101: Request for approval of final planned residential development .arl.(( plat. - , -. , John Jimerson reviewed the list of plans and documents that have been submitted by the applicant. He also reviewed the Department Report, noting several changes to the recommended conditions of approval nos. 1-5, 11, 15, 19 and 21, and to add one condition. Brad Collins reviewed the applicant's written response to the staff report as contained in a letter . . . PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1992 Page 2 dated August 12, 1992. He noted the Planning Department could agree to several of the proposals in the letter including revision of building locations on a resubmitted final plat, addition of paragraph 4.27 that the CC&R's are not intended to supersede city regulations, timing of fencing improvements, leaving the access easements to the Morse and Brooks properties to negotiation between property owners, to make only some changes to the CC&R's subject to the City's approval, and modification to several findings and conclusions to better reflect the final approval, as opposed to preliminary approval. Commissioner Leonard stated he has listened to the tapes from the July 8 Public Hearing so that he may vote when it comes time to take an action. Alan Middleton, 1501 Fourth A venue, Seattle, representing the applicant, explained the purpose of his August 10, 1992 letter was to provide to the newer Planning Commissioners a brief history of the project which dates as far back as 1984 when the property was originally annexed. He believes the applicant and staff are close to agreement as to appropriate conditions, findings and conclusions. However, he believes the 25' setback from external property lines is intended to be for multi-family buildings only. He noted the Washington State Constitution provides for private condemnation which may be used to provide access to adjacent properties (Morse/Brooks). The buffer has been adequately protected with the inclusion of Native Growth Protection Areas in the CC&R's. No additional protection is necessary. Regarding trail improvements, lighting is no longer necessary because the trail connection to Roosevelt Middle School has been eliminated. Requiring detailed information on trail plan is also unnecessary. The information provided should be adequate. Not all drainage improvements need to be installed prior to construction as not all are designed to mitigate construction related impacts. Since financing is not available until building permits are issued, requiring excessive improvements prior to building permits increases the developer's level of risk. Scott Sherrow, 10900 N.E. 8th Street, Bellevue, representing Entranco, the firm which prepared the preliminary storm drainage plan, explained the two elements of a drainage system. First, improvements are installed to mitigate erosion impacts during construction. Second, permanent improvements are installed to carry the post development flow. Some of the permanent improvements may be installed to mitigate the construction impacts. Temporary facilities would be installed prior to construction. Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, responded to a question from the Commission that he is in agreement with what Mr. Sherrow has stated. Only improvements needed for mitigating construction impacts need to be installed prior to any site work and issuance of building permits. He requires a plan which details when improvements will be installed. Bill Wilbert, 13850 Bel Red Road, stated a determination by the Department of Fisheries was made that 150 feet is an appropriate buffer on the basis that if an old tree were to blow down, it would fall int%ver the stream providing nutrients and improving habitats. Thus, it makes little difference if the buffer is measured from the ordinary high water mark or the centerline of the stream. During the rezone process a wetland study was prepared which determined it to be a Class "D" wetland according to King County standards, which would require a 25 foot setback. A 25 foot setback has been proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1992 Page 3 . Brad Collins responded to a Commissioner's question that the problem is that the information on the wetland is "buried" deep in city files, but needs to be shown on the site plan in relationship to the development. Robbie Mantooth, 2238 E. Lindberg Road, expressed concern about the developers inaction with respect to the erosion damage and repairing of the pipe. She was also concerned with the , potential for the storm drainage system carrying fertilizers from the golf course into the stream. In response to a Commissioner's question, Gary Kenworthy noted that he had inspected the site and there is no erosion occurring and the pipe is stable. He has written a letter to the Planning Commission to that effect. . Robbie Mantooth stated that erosion control bonds are designed to address the site after the damage has already occurred. The idea should be to prevent damage. The City and Department of Fisheries do not have adequate staff to monitor the condition of the ravine and stream. The stream is too valuable of a habitat to not protect. Fisheries experts have testified that the density of the project is too high, it is detrimental to the stream. There are no public notification requirements for building permits, therefore issues should be resolved prior to then. She stated Finding #20 is incorrect and pointed out that Conclusion ilL" is incorrect in that the four story building over one level of parking is still overbearing in character. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The installation of the road has been used by the City to justify approval of the project - which results in a conflict of interest. Commissioner Leonard asked Mrs. Mantooth if she thought every building permit should require public comment. Mrs. Mantooth responded that she doesn't, there are just too many issues with this project which should be addressed before building permits are issued. James Mantooth, 2238 E. Lindberg Road, requested that the fence be installed prior to construction, it would protect the neighborhood from noise and trespassing and would protect the ravine and creek as well. The applicant's site plan shows wetlands on the project site. He asked if road drainage will go into the wetlands and was concerned with how the fence would cross the wetlands. He would like a traffic count conducted on Lindberg Road; there are already as many as 25 cars per hour. Lindberg Road should not provide access to Del Guzzi Drive. It should be closed to all but emergency vehicles. He disagrees with the City Engineer's determination that there is no soil erosion occurring. As the project will be constructed over a period of several years, protection against erosion should be installed at the beginning. Jan Hare, 2136 E. Lindberg Road, is in favor of closing access to Lindberg Road. Her primary concem~is with'drainage. Who willbe'responsible if damage occurs? At the previous meeting, Gary Kenworthy stated that the City would be responsible. She believes private property owners should be responsible. . Gary Kenworthy clarified that the City would be responsible for public facilities, private facilities (i.e., oil separators, grassy swales etc.) would be the responsibility of the of the property owners. Brad Collins added that the major facilities are located on commonly owned lands, and the homeowners association would be the responsible entity. PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1992 Page 4 . Kent Brauninger, 903 E. Park, said that he had heard the Olympic Lodge Motel had installed state of the art erosion control measures; yet a111ast winter the roads were covered with mud. He is concerned with the protection of the stream and would like assurances that erosion control facilities will be installed as promised. Chairwoman Souders opened the podium for rebuttal. Scott Sherrow stated that they have been addressing the current erosion problems and the integrity of the pipe. It is a slow process to obtain Department of Fisheries approval to make improvements. The storm drain system is "tight-lined" and therefore passes through the drainage from the golf course. The system uses grass-lined swales to filter out pollutants. The Planning Commission took a break at 8:55 and reconvened at 9:05. Alan Middleton stated the compliance with preliminary approval is the primary issue with which the Planning Commission should be concerned. New requirements such as closing Lindberg Road cannot be imposed at this point in the process. There has been expert testimony (Dr. Walton) as early as 1984 that the trail would not result in adverse impacts on the buffer area. The Mantooths have not provided any evidence of a conflict of interest. The City is required to review the project for compliance with City regulations and do not have a vested interest in seeing the project be approved. . Robbie Mantooth stated she does not believe Dr. Walton approved of the plan as was represented by Mr. Middleton. Density is an appropriate issue to be addressed at this time as protection of the creek must be accomplished. Bill Wilbert is substantially in agreement with the recommended conditions of approval. The differences are largely a matter of semantics, the only substantive issue is the 150 foot setback interpretation. The buffer can be provided as measured from the ordinary high water mark, it's a matter of the engineer revising the final plat. Brad Collins responded to three issues raised during testimony. First, he noted the City is being careful with respect to the language of the CC&R's because it could be misconstrued that the CC&R's override the zoning regulations under the authority of the PRD ordinance. Second, the Planning Department agrees that temporary erosion control facilities may include some permanent improvements and that all system elements such as foot drains for buildings are not needed prior to commencement of work. Those improvements necessary to protect Ennis Creek should be installed prior to any construction activity. Finally, keeping the condition relating to external' setbacks'will'not have' a'significant impact on the site design, as only the cabana and some multi-family buildings would be affected. There being no further public testimony, Chairwoman Souders closed the public hearing at 9:20 P.M. . Commissioner Leonard moved to continue the item to August 26, 1992 at 7:00 P.M and directed staff to prepare a revised set of conditions, findings and conclusions which reflect the changes as discussed at the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Catts PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1992 Page 5 . and passed 5-0. . . SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - - SMA 92(08) 129 - PORT OF PORT ANGELES, in the harbor area adjacent to the Landing Mall: Request for a substantial development permit to all installation of a new float section, new piling and replacement of existing timber piling, and a ramp, in the CBD, Central Business District. John Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. In response to a question, he explained the use would have its own parking requirements exclusive of the mall, as does Victoria Rapid Transit. Parking requirements for charter boats or water taxi's are not specifically listed in the parking ordinance, so the Planning Director would be required to review a proposed use and determine which expressed use it most closely resembles. The signage problems referred to by the Public Works Department have been a result of Victoria Rapid Transit installing illegal signage. Chairwoman Souders opened the public hearing at 9:45 P.M. KeD Sweeney, P.O. Box 1350, Port of Port Angelest explained the emphasis of the project is to create a float system which is easily removable for winter storage. This will help reduce any storm damage. They will also replace deteriorated timber piling. At some point in the future they would like to lease the additional float but have no tenant in mind. Victoria Rapid Transit feels they are at a disadvantage to the Coho ferry with respect to visibility, hence the problem with signage. The Port and Mall have been working to better control the situation. Commissioner Philpott asked if the new float would allow boats on the south side. Mr. Sweeney responded that deep draft boats could not, rather they would moor on the seaward (north) side of the dock. There is about 80 feet from the float to the mean low water mark. Commissioner Catts expressed some concern for maintaining adequate space so as not to create safety hazards or hinder the operation of Victoria Rapid Transit due to overuse of the dock. Mr. Sweeney explained it would be their priority to protect the needs of VRT, the Port would not allow any uses which would hinder the ferry operation. There being no further testimony, Chairwoman Souders c1os~ the public hearing at 9:55 P.M. Commissioner Leonard moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the shoreline substantial development permit SMA 92(08)129 subject to two conditions' and "citing the "following' fmdings . and' conclusions: Conditions: 1. Parking shall be provided for any use of the float in a manner consistent with the City's parking regulations (Chapter 14.40 PAMC). The applicant shall not authorize any use of the floatt other than Victoria Rapid Transit, until they have coordinated with the City Planning Department to ensure the parking requirements have been met. Victoria Rapid Transit shall continue to provide off-street parking . . . PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1992 Page 6 as required by the parking ordinance. 2. The project shall comply with the Uniform Fire Code. Findings: 1. The approval is for expansion of an existing float and installation of new timber pilings. The float will increase from 170' to 270' feet long, eight new pilings and seven replacement pilings will be installed. 2. The site is located on the Port Angeles Downtown waterfront. The vicinity is developed with a number of commercial, recreational and tourist oriented facilities. Rock rip-rap and sheet piling bulkheads line the shorelines in the vicini ty. 3. The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with the Shoreline Master Program, Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Environmentally Sensitive Area Protection Ordinance. 4. A Determination of Non-Significance has been issued by the Port of Port Angeles, acting as the SEPA lead agency for the proposal. 5. The project facilitates a water-dependent, tourist oriented activity I which are uses supported by the Shoreline Master Program. The proposal is for redevelopment and improvement to existing facilities which are supported by the Shoreline Master Program. 6. The project increases the use capacity of the facility and increases the parking requirements. Conclusions: A. The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, specifically General Regulations C.l, and C.4; Land Use Element D.l a-b, D.2; Natural Systems E.7.b; Use Activities F.1.a, band e; F.17.a-c. B. The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goals Nos. 2 & 3, and Commercial Policies Nos. 6 and 10; Central Business ,. . District. Zone; 'and Environmentally Sensitive Areas' Protection Ordinance. C. As conditioned, the proposal will not be detrimental to the shoreline. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Anabel and passed 5-0. Commissioner Anabel moved to accept additional items after 10:00 P.M. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Leonard and passed 5-0. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION August 12/ 1992 Page 7 REZONE REQUEST - REZ 92(08)03 - GROOMS, 4100 Block Newell Road: Request for rezone of property of property (approximately 2.58 acres) from LI, Light Industrial, to RS-9, Residential Single-Family. John Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Chairwoman Souders opened the public hearing at 10:00 P.M. Michael Grooms, 4108 Newell Road, explained that when property east of Newell Road was annexed and rezoned to Light Industrial, that he thought it would be a good idea to include his own property in the rezone. He would like to rezone it back to RS-9 so that his son now may build a house there. There being no further public testimony, Chairwoman Souders closed the public hearing at 10: 10 P.M. Commissioner Anabel moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezone request REZ 92(08)03 citing the following findings and conclusions: Findings: 1. The proposal is to rezone 2.58 acres from Light Industrial (LI) to Single Family Residential (RS-9) on the west side of Newell Road. 2. The site is currently developed with a legal non-conforming single family home which is a permitted use in the RS-9 zone district. 3. Property surrounding the site on three sides is zoned residential. To the west and south is single family residential (RS-9) and to the north is multi-family residential. Property to the east, across Newell Road, is zoned Light Industrial. 4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as IIUrban Residential Environmentll. 5. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan has been considered with respect to the proposal. 6. The SEP A responsible official has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. Conclusions: A. The rezone is in the public use and interest and IS compatible with the surrounding zoning. B. The rezone is consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goals nos. 3, 5 & 6; Economic Objective No. 2; and Land Use Objectives nos 1-4. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1992 Page 8 c. Circumstances have changed since the property was zoned Light Industrial. A conditional use permit has been issued for a duplex to be constructed on property adjacent to the west, which further strengthens the residential character of the vicinity. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Catts and passed 5-0. STREET V ACA TION REQUEST - STY 92(09)03 - Payne, 3006 South Peabody Street: Request for vacation of a portion of Peabody Street, north of Viewcrest. John Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Brad Collins added that with this request there are two public use concerns that need to be addressed - maintenance of adequate right-of-way and provisions of sidewalks along the school walking route. Chairwoman Souders opened the public hearing at 10:20 P.M. Ron Payne, 3006 S. Peabody, stated he was unaware of where the property line was when he bought the house. He thought it was further east than it actually is. The neighbors fence was built on his lot. He wants to sell his property now but the closing is being held up by the problems relating to property lines. He has no money to install sidewalks. If the City wants sidewalks along Peabody Street, they should install them all at once. It doesn't make sense to install only 98 feet of sidewalk in an area where there is no sidewalk. Commissioner Leonard asked is he had received any bids for the sidewalk. Mr. Payne had not. Commissioner Leonard said he was given ball park estimate of $1,000 by the Public Works Director. Tom Leinart, 3002 Peabody, explained the houses were built around 1974 and the previous owner had built the fence in the wrong place. He has sought his attorney's advice and was told that since his fence has been on his neighbors property for more than 10 years, he would have a case for adverse possession. Rather than pursuing that option, he offered to buy the property from the applicant for the amount the applicant would be required to pay for the vacated portion of the street. The nearest sidewalks are at the comer of Viewcrest and Peabody and at the new tennis courts at the high school. Brad Collins suggested a no-protest agreement to the formation of an L.I.D. is an alternative to requiring sidewalks to be constructed immediately. There.being no further public testimony," Chairwoman Souders closed the public hearing at 10:35 P.M. Commissioner Catts moved to approve the street vacation STV 92(09)03 subject to one condition, citing the following findings and conclusions: Condition: A minimum 35 foot right-of-way from the center line of the improved street shall be PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1992 Page 9 . maintained . Findings: 1. The request is to vacate 1477 square feet of the Peabody Street right-of-way. 2. The Department of Public Works has noted that a 35 foot right-of-way must be maintained, thereby reducing the area to be vacated to 1330 s.f. of right-of-way. 3. The construction of Peabody Street is skewed with respect to the right-of-way, thereby creating 12 to 15 feet of unneeded right-of-way between the site and the street improvements. 4. The property is zoned RS-7. 5. The site is located along a designated school walking route. 6. There are several Comprehensive Plan Policies encouraging the provision of safe pedestrian facilities including Residential Policies 4 & 5 and Circulation Policies 7, 8 and 10. . 7. The easternmost house appears to be non-conforming with respect to the required front yard setback. Approval of the street vacation would reduce the degree of nonconformity, if not eliminate it. Conclusions: A. Vacation of this portion of the Peabody Street right-of-way is in the public use and interest and would be a public benefit. B. As conditioned, the street vacation is consistent with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically those listed in Finding No.6. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Anabel and passed 5-0. Commissioner Philpott clarified that he agreed to not require sidewalk improvements based on the fact that there are few sidewalks in the vicinity, not because the applicant testified that he did not 'have 'the 'resources.to-pay-for-the job. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. ." STAFF REPORTS Brad Collins pointed out the City Light Director has submitted an acknowledgement in the . PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 1992 Page 10 Commissioner's packets that they understand the intent of the condition for lighting the Francis Street stairway and parking lot. John Jimerson stated the City Attorney has reviewed Sequim's nuisance ordinance and found that it is very similar to that of Port Angeles. The ordinance is enforceable and the City is regularly involved in enforcement proceedings. Chairwoman Souders asked about the taxi service on Race Street, noting that they were doing maintenance work on the cars in the street, and empty oil cans were on the street. John Jimerson responded that it was his understanding the business license was approved based on the understanding the vehicles would be kept at the individual homes of the taxi drivers. REPORTS OF COMMlSSION MEMBERS Commissioner Leonard stated he observed 14 R. V.'s parked at Thunderbird Boathouse, which is in violation of their conditional use permit. Commissioner Catts urged City Light to save their trail lighting funds wisely if they have to wait a year to complete the project. ADJOURNMENT . There being no additional business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:55 P.M. . ~~ Brad Collins, Planning Director Cindy Souders, Chair Prepared by: John Jimerson r,,-- It PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of Meeting Planning Commission Date I1cJqv"J.f {2 ,( erqz I Location 321 E. 5th Street - City Hall Name Address ( ~~rr.~p~ . . /):n 9~eT. ~ r j\- , .