Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/30/1990 . . . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 August 30, 1990 5:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER n. ROLL CALL ill. INSPECTION OF ENNIS CREEK ESTATES PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT SITE (location). IV. CONTINUATION OF MEETING TO CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS v. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of August 22, 1990 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PERMIT REOUEST - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - Del Hur. Ine.. Del Guzzi Drive. (Continued from August 22, 1990). VIT. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Vill. STAFF REPORTS IX. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS X. ADJOURNMENT NOTES: Project files and applicable City land use regulations may be reviewed prior to the public hearing in the Planning Depanment. Copies of all material in the files are available at a cost of $. 25 per page. All correspondence penaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Planning Commission: Larry Leonard. Chair; Ray GlUver. Vi~e-chllir; Bill Anabel; Roger Calls; Donna. DavillOn; Jim Huleu; Bob PhilpoU. Planning SllIff: Bflld Collins. Planning Director; Grant Beck, Associate Planner; Sue Roberda, Planning Office Specialist. . . . ~ PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington August 30, 1990 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Leonard called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. at the site of the Ennis Creek Estates Planned Residential Development on DelGuzzi Drive. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Larry Leonard, Jim Hulett, Bill Anabel, Roger Catts, Ray Gruver. Members Excused: Donna Davison, Bob Philpott. III INSPECTION DEVELOPMENT Brad Collins, Grant Beck, Gary Kenworthy, Bruce Becker and Craig Knutson. OF ENNIS CREEK ESTATES PLANNED RESIDENTIAL SITE Staff Present: The Planning Commission walked the entire length of DelGuzzi Drive and inspected the site of the proposed Ennis Creek Estates Planned Residential Development. At approximately 6:35 P.M., Chairman Leonard continued the meeting to 7:00 P.M. in the city council Chambers. IV CONTINUATION OF MEETING TO CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Chairman Leonard reopened the public meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. V APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hulett moved to approve the minutes of the August 22, 1990, regular meeting, as submitted. Mr. Anabel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. VI PUBLIC HEARINGS PERMIT REQUEST PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DelHur, Inc., DelGuzzi Drive (continued from August 22, _ 1990) Chairman Leonard indicated that the Planning commission would allow persons who had not previously spoken to address the commission, after which rebuttal testimony would be taken. Carole Boardman stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was developed, there were sub-area groups representing the neigh- borhoods. People wanted family areas with a rural flavor. The Ennis Creek Estates Planned Residential Development is located within a pristine area and although Ms. Boardman encourages a Planned Residential Development in the City of PLANNING COMMISSION August 30, 1990 Page 2 . Port Angeles, this area and development is not suitable for such. A PRO should be more than simply multi-family develop- ment and should allow an increase in density. The Planning Commission questioned Ms. Boardman regarding what she would envision a PRD being. Ms. Boardman responded that the intent of a PRO gives the developer the flexibility to be innovative. The area which is unbuildable should not be called open space. The PRD should be a mix of single-family dwellings and multiple-family units, not just mUlti-family at the density proposed. There being no further testimony, Chairman Leonard indicated that rebuttal testimony would be taken. . Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road stated that closing the public hearing should not be an option, as more informa- tion is needed by the PRO Ordinance which the developer has not provided. This information includes a complete drainage plan; details of the elderly housing project: complete soil studies: fence design: a description of the barbed wire fence and vegetative buffer: and details of the trail system, including erosion control systems built into the trail. Ms. Mantooth indicated the Planning Commission's role is meaning- less if control is not exercised over development. Linda May, 29 Golf Course Road, stated that the opposition is focused on protection of the Ravine. It appears that the Planning commission is dismissing the problems without discus- sion, particularly regarding the site inspection conducted earlier. Jim Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, stated that DelHur indicates they will use the most modern technology for the surface water runoff control. In the 1980' s, OelHur developed the road with a drainage ditch to protect the facility. This caused a swamp on the Mantooths' property. The Mantooths have asked DelHur and the City to remove the water and the wetland; however, the City indicates it is not being caused by the road and the developer is unwilling to do so. Dr. Mantooth indi- cated he had talked to the Washington state Department of Ecology which indicated that the wetlands may be removed from the site. The Department of Ecology standards regarding wet- _lands are...adv.isory and the ditch may.be closed by the property owner. Mr. Gruver asked if the site plan the Mantooths had submitted as an alternate took these facts into account. Dr. Mantooth indicated that it did. . Mr. Catts asked when the DOE statement was forwarded to Mr. wilbert. Dr. Mantooth indicated it had gone this week. Chairman Leonard asked about the creation of the wetland. Dr. Mantooth stated in 1983-84 when the road was built and the PLANNING COMMISSION August 30, 1990 Page 3 . ditch installed, the wetland was formed by the ditch run-off. Swampy grass, devils club, and other wetland plants are located there at this time. The wetland is approximately one acre in area. Ken Schwartz, 2033 West 15th Street, asked if new information can be given at this time. The Planning Commission stated that public testimony had been closed and only rebuttal testi- mony would be taken. Mr. Schwartz stated that Mr. Wilbert has told the Planning commission to go along with professional opinions, while people are all professionals in the things that concern them and should be listened to equally. Richard Terrell, 3213 Old Olympic Highway, was horrified to hear during the site inspection that vegetation would be removed from the building sites. Clusters of cedar and fir would therefore be removed in certain locations on the site. six hundred cars would mean a large number of trips per day, whose only access to Highway 101 would be Golf Course Road and DelGuzzi Drive. . Bill wilbert stated that 60% of the site is maintained as open space and that preliminary approval allows the Planning Com- mission to give the developer an indication of what the final project will look at so engineered plans, such as drainage and erosion control, can be prepared, based on that information. He presented information regarding wetlands protection to the Planning commission. Mr. wilbert indicated it is ironic that environmentalists would want a wetland destroyed. The Planning commission questioned Mr. Wilbert regarding the fence design. Mr. wilbert said that a 8-foot cyclone fence running along the lSD-foot setback from north to south would be provided on the west side of the Creek. The trail would be a-feet wide on the east side of the Creek and built of wood chips. On the west side of the Creek it would be 6-feet wide and have an asphalt surface. Mr. Catts asked if the vegetation in the building areas would be removed. Mr. wilbert stated that anything that could not be economically maintained would be removed. Kent Brauninger, 903 East Park Avenue, stated that the Plan- ning Commission has been talking about mitigating an unmiti- gatable~project. If approved, .the development .would establish a terrible precedent by destroying the last stream within the City. . Jan Hare, 2136 East Lindberg Road, stated that surface water runoff will occur because of the asphalt trail. Unless the fence is extended into the Mantooth property, it can be breached by people getting into the Ravine. The ramps to the underground parking are too close to the road and too steep. Detention ponds will attract children. The condominium units are built over an existing storm water line, and the parking for the elderly housing has not been calculated correctly. PLANNING COMMISSION August 30, 1990 Page 4 . Joseph Goltz, 220 West Ninth Street, stated that the trail will cause runoff and that the pavement on the trail will become the drainage path for the development. Where the trail bends, the runoff will continue and erode the Ravine. Mr. Goltz stated he has worked for the U. S. Forest Service in Northern Idaho fixing and building trails. Nancy vivelo, 515 Black Diamond Road, stated that children should not walk through the woods to school and requested the Planning Commission give thought to turn-piking the trail and maintaining a gravel surface, not wood chips or asphalt. Ed Lenardic, 1836 Westlake Avenue North, Seattle, stated that the trail can be groomed with grassy areas on either side to provide energy dissipation and biofiltration. The trail system is a nice amenity of the site and steps and landings can be included to minimize storm water runoff problems. . Mr. Gruver asked whether additional public testimony could be taken if the public hearing is closed and the Planning Commis- sion determines that changes to the site plan are needed. Mr. Collins and city Attorney Knutson stated that provided proper notice is given, the Planning commission can take additional public testimony. Chairman Leonard closed the public hearing. Chairman Leonard called for a 10-minute break at 8:30 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 P.M. Chairman Leonard asked Randy Johnson, representing the Wash- ington Department of Fisheries, at what point in the process will Fisheries look at storm water drainage. Randy Johnson, 505 East Eighth Street, stated that an engin- eered storm water plan has not been provided at this point, although preliminary plans have been reviewed. An initial evaluation of an engineered storm water plan would take approximately ten to fifteen days. Mr. Johnson also stated that the preliminary Planned Residential Development process would allow the Department of Fisheries to approve a concep- tual plan prior to development of the buildings. The Planning commission discussed the PRD process, the timing of improvements required by the PRD and the subdivision, and public testimony. . Mr. Gruver stated the issues he had determined to be important through public testimony and review of the application were all related to density and include the trail, setbacks, space between buildings, building height, view access, recreation space, retention of vegetation, and underground parking. PLANNING COMMISSION August 30, 1990 Page 5 . The Planning Commission concurred to review these issues individually in order to give direction to the applicant to revise the site plan for further review by the Planning Commission. Trail System: The Planning commission discussed the trail versus open space requirements of the PRD Chapter of the Zoning Code. Public safety, wildlife habitat, and surface water runoff were dis- cussed. The Planning Commission came to a consensus that there should be no trail in the Ennis Creek Ravine and that everything from 150 feet west of the Creek east should not be counted as usable common open space. Setbacks: The Planning commission discussed various setback requirements in the RMF Zone and other zoning districts as they relate to building height. The Planning Commission came to a consensus that no structure over two stories should be located closer than ten feet to a street; that no structure over three stories should be located closer than 25 feet from a street; and no structure should be located closer than 25 feet from an external property line. . Space Between Buildings: The Planning Commission came to a consensus that Uniform Building Code and open space requirements would adequately address this issue. Buildinq Heiqht: The Planning Commission determined that Building and Fire Code requirements would adequately address this issue. View: The Planning Commission determined that the developer would adequately address this issue. Recreational Open Space: The PI.anning .Commission discussed requ1r1ng a park and having recreation areas throughout the development, rather than in one location. The Planning Commission came to a consensus that walkways should be required throughout the development (a parcourse would be preferable) and play areas should be dispersed throughout the development. . Retention of vegetation: The Planning Commission came to a consensus that although a specific vegetation plan would not be practical for the Planning commission to review, the retention of vegetation . . . PLANNING COMMISSION August 30, 1990 Page 6 should be provided for in the site plan. Therefore, clusters of trees to be maintained should be shown on the site plan. Parkinq: The Planning commission came to a consensus that the developer would address these issues in the site plan. In addition to the above items, the Planning Commission reviewed the following issues: Access to Residential Properties: The Planning commission came to a consensus that there should be physical access from the single-family lots to the resident recreational areas of the PRD. Fencinq: The Planning Commission discussed the Environmental Impact statement regarding fencing along the bluff. The Planning commission came to a consensus that the fencing, as proposed, is adequate and that no fencing should be provided on the east side of the Creek. Erosion Control Plans: The Planning Commission came to a consensus that storm water and erosion control plans should be prepared and approved prior to final PRD approval. Phasing: The Planning Commission asked the developer what phasing would take place within the project. Mr. wilbert indicated that the first phase would include 24 apartments and 24 condominiums and that the market would dictate the remainder of the phasing. The Planning Commission took a 5-minute break at 11:10 P.M. and reconvened at 11:20 P.M. The DelGuzzi Drive Cul-De-Sac: The Planning Commission came to a consensus that DelGuzzi Drive should remain a through street to Lindberg Road and a cul-de-sac should not be a requirement of the PRD. The Planning Commission also determined that the developer should not be responsible for improving Lindberg Road between Golf Course Road and DelGuzzi Drive. Gradinq Within 150 Feet of Ennis Creek: The Planning commission came to a consensus that no grading should be allowed within this buffer zone. PLANNING COMMISSION August 30, 1990 Page 7 . Recreational Buildinq: The Planning commission came to a consensus that the developer is not required to provide a recreational building for the development. Recreational Vehicle Parkinq: The Planning Commission discussed the aesthetic value of rec- reational vehicle parking within parking lots and whether to allow this activity within the PRD. The Planning Commission came to a consensus that no parking of recreational vehicles shall be allowed in required lots, excluding the single-family dwellings. Duplex Units: The Planning commission discussed whether duplex units would be appropriate in the single-family areas. It was the Plan- ning Commission's consensus that they would not be appro- priate. Sidewalks: . The Planning Commission carne to a consensus that the City standards for sidewalks should be followed in the PRD and subdivision application. The Planning Commission asked if Mr. Wilbert would waive the GO-day approval timeline for subdivisions, as found in the Port Angeles Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Collins stated that once revised, the Planning staff would need three weeks to review the revised site plan and one week to get the material to the Planning commission for review. Mr. Gruver stated' that he would support meeting every third Wednesday of every month until the DelHur proposal is acted upon. Mr. Wilbert indicated he would waive his rights under Chapter 58.17 RCW and the Port Angeles Subdivision ordinance for a decision by the Planning Commission within 60 days and by the City. Council within 90 days: of qpplication on the subdivision. Chairman Leonard suggested a meeting for October 17, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. to review the revised site plan. . Mr. Gruver suggested that public testimony be taken at that time regarding the revised site plan. Mr. Gruver moved to call for a special meeting and call for a public hearing for October 17, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anabel and carried unanimously. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION August 30, 1990 Page 8 VII COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VIII STAFF REPORTS None. IX REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Chairman Leonard asked that the public hearing hand-out be revised to include a five-minute time limit for rebuttal testimony. X ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hulett moved to adjourn. Mr. Gruver seconded the motio which carried unanimously at 12:15 A.M. Bradley J. Collins, Secretary PLAN. 371 . ,ol.~ NM,,,G CITY of PORT ANGELES ATTENDANCE ROSTER NAME: 'IYPE OF NEEl'ING PLANNING COMMISSION D!\TE OF l1EETING Av{Y'~ "?-OJ /990 I.OC.ATICN CITY HALL ADDRESS: . I ;;;. ,;l, () W, 1'rfi d-;L tf ~ G{ f2p. , ( ~ IC 'A ;::"/L -3 /~:? bL d L Y/y/f)/C "-/UJ Yp/f . ~~( ~ II/~gq~ rlJ- ~VV\J.. ~. d-'\ (CJfrl! ~-'-- ~ ff\- "o~Al(7 ~ S(O j;?, l?:J"ALlc ~'~M<M(({ , tJ~~r Vivol" S/o-B. ,&{",-(*- D,'~",-,( R J rP/1 W,I: .