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:
.