Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/25/1991 . I. II. ID. IV. . 1. AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 September 25, 1991 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of September 11, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS: PROPOSED INTERIl\1 WETLA1SJ>S. AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS PROTECTION ORDINANCY-S: City-wide: Proposed ordinances (2) which would establish regulations for the identification and protection of critical areas, such as wetlands, wildlife habitats, geologically hazardous and frequently flooded areas. 2. PROPOSED Fll..LING/GRADING ORDINANCE, City-wide: Proposed ordinance which would establish standards and regulations for grading and filling activities within the City of Port Angeles. V. COMMUNlCA nONS FROM TIlE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS vn. REPORTS OF CO:MMISSION MEMBERS vm. ADJOURNMENT . All correspondence penaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at [east one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before lhe hearing. Planning Commi8llion: Ray ONver, Chair, Cindy Souders, Vice-Chair; Jim Hulett; Roger Catta; Larry Leonard; Bob Philpott; Bill Anabel. P1aMing Staff; Brad Collins. Planning Director; Sue Roberda, Planning Office Spccialilt; John Jimel'lOn, A.&socialc Planner; David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington September 25, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gruver called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Larry Leonard, Jim Hulett, Ray Gruver, cindy Souders, Bob Philpott. Members Absent: Roger Catts, Bill Anabel. staff Present: Brad Collins, David Sawyer, Sue Roberds, Jack Pittis. Others Present: John Mauk, Consultant. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Philpott moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 11, 1991, as presented. Mr. Leonard seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. IV PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSED INTERIM WETLANDS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS PROTECTION ORDINANCES City-Wide: Proposed ordinances (2) which would establish regulations for the identification and protection of critical areas, such as wetlands, wildlife habitats, geologically hazardous, and frequentlY flooded areas. Mr. sawyer explained the background of the development of Interim Wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protec- tion ordinances State-wide. The State I s Growth Management Act requires cities and counties to adopt regulations that iden- tify and protect critical areas, such as wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat areas, geological and frequently flooded areas. The City of Port Angeles has until December I, 1991, to adopt such ordinances. This public hearing is a result of Planning Commission review of the Interim Wetlands Protection Area draft ordinance which was presented to the Commission July 31, 1991. Since that meeting, the Growth Management Advisory Committee has reviewed the Wetlands' sister ordinance, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Ordinance, completing its review and forwarding the draft Ordinance to the Planning Commission for the hearing. The Wetlands Protection Ordinance is based on a model ordinance provided by the state and is considered by the State to be the minimum regulations necessary to adequately protect wetlands. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Ordinance was i { PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 1991 Page 2 . developed by an environmental planning consultant, John Mauk. The proposed Ordinance is based on similar ordinances from various other communities across the State. The State has not provided a model ordinance for sensitive areas; therefore, the City has more flexibility in developing the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance than the Wetlands Protection Ordinance. The major difference between the two proposed ordinances is that the Wetlands Ordinance requires a permit, issued by the City Council, following a public hearing; but the Environ- mentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance does not create a new permit. Instead, the Ordinance adds development standards, such as buffers around sensitive areas, implemented in the same manner as other development requirements: i.e., rear or side yard setbacks. Mr. Sawyer noted a correction to the draft Wetlands Ordinance (page 12). The rating system which is used should be corrected to be only the Washington state system. . Mr. Collins answered questions from the Commission as to how the Wetlands Ordinance was created. The proposed Ordinance was drafted by the Department of Ecology through a series of public meetings with input from a citizen committee and other interested parties. In response to Commissioner Souders' question as to who will rate the wetlands, Mr. Collins answered that at this point we do not know who will do the rating: however, ultimately the Planning Director will be responsible for the work. The map is intended to be generalized, not regulatory. More detailed case-by-case evaluation may be done by the applicant or at the request of the city. Generally speaking, detailed evaluation will not be done by city staff but could be contracted to consultants. Discretion of hiring a consultant would be with the city. The City would obtain a fee from the applicant to hire a consultant. Chairman Gruver opened the pUblic hearing. Kent Brauninger, 903 East Park, noted that the relatively unspoiled natural features of the Port Angeles area make this area very livable and a destination spot. He urged the Commission to recommend adoption of the Ordinance as proposed, and wished to thank those who developed the regulations and who have given so much of their time. . Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, also expressed appreciation for the work involved in preparing the draft document. As stewards of this fine area, she stated that such regulation is necessary in order to protect the natural resources which exist here in and around Port Angeles. Mrs. Mantooth's main areas of concern are the provisions which provide: (Page 12, paragraph 2): liThe Director shall consult with qualified professional scientists and technical expertstl PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 1991 Page 3 . perhaps should include the wording "conflict of interest shall be avoided and appearance of fairness upheld by consultation with persons not also employed by the applicant or in a position to benefit financially from the project". The word- ing would then ensure there would not be a confl ict of interest. (Page 16, Section 5.2 Allowed Activities): Wording to the effect that Ilrecreational activities must not be incon- sistent with wetlands" should be added. Terminology should be clarified in order to avoid loopholes. The provision for exemptions for projects of less than 5,000 square feet does not consider that the cumulative effect of several smaller projects could be more damaging than a larger development. Finally, it was suggested that perhaps some tax assessment relief could be provided for owners of properties designated as wetland areas. . There was considerable discussion on the availability of wet- land consultants in the area. It was explained that there are several environmental consultants in the area at the present time and most consultant firms have or will have professionals available to address wetland and critical area studies. The selection process for consultants was described. Applicants could hire delineations done privately, if acceptable to the city. The City can also work with the applicant to hire the consultant, which would be handled much like present environ- mental impact statement studies are done. Linda Nutter, 1701 East Third street, as a citizen of the community, expressed support and thanked those who have given time to develop these Ordinances. This is an important step in preserving the future of the City of Port Angeles and surrounding areas. She added that standards proposed are minimum standards and suggested that possibly they could be strengthened. (Mr. Leonard left the meeting, due to illness.) Ed Brown, 1724 West 13th street, requested the difference between a Ilregulated wetland" and a Ilwetland" be explained. John Mauk, consultant for the City of Port Angeles for the project, explained the difference between the two designa- tions. Procedures for dealing with wetlands will be consis- tent with the County's regulations in order that all agencies will be using the same regulations. Jerry Newlin, 716 Strait view Drive, stated he is happy to see the regulations will be uniform. He suggested that a synopsis of the Ordinances be provided to the newspaper for pUblica- tion, to allow those who are unable to come to meetings or who may be unaware of what is happening, to review the Ordinances. . In response to a question from Chairman Gruver concerning conflict of interest, Mr. Newlin stated he could appreciate the concerns expressed that conflict of interest be avoided. He felt that tax dollars would be better spent if the City were to hire professionals to do the environmental review. PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 1991 Page 4 . Jerry Moire, 207 Dolan, a licensed engineer, spoke on the concern over conflict of interest. Someone who is opposed to a project will always try to claim a conflict of interest. The significance is in the qualifications and expertise of the individuals performing the work. Professionals do not want court challenges and their reputations depend on their professionalism. Esther Veltkamp, 212 West Eighth street, expressed concern over the buffer widths proposed. Not every species needs the same type of buffer and intensity of buffer. That section of the proposed ordinance needs some flexibility. There being no further public comment, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing. Chairman Gruver then opened the public hearing on critical areas. Jerry Newlin, 716 Strait View Drive, stated the importance of defining environmentally sensitive areas. He encouraged field checking for accuracy in all situations. . John Mauk replied that for the most part, areas that have been identified are those which have been defined by the State. Locally unique features have a history of preservation, such as creek ravines, and most have been preserved upstream, with some development in the Downtown area. As far as identifying the remainder of the resources, the City will generally follow the procedure outlined by the State Department of Community Development. Those procedures acknowledge that during the interim regulation period (approximately three years) mapping will be generalized. The maps are intended to be used as guidelines. Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, noted that density credi ts should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. provision for density transfer does not address the impact of an increase in people on an area (page 35). (Page 37, A.l.e): The statement: "If the applicant demonstrates that there is no other reasonable alternative to developing the buffer." shoots the entire ordinance down. Further, there is no requirement for public notice of any impending actions. Mr. Collins added that the language contained in the ordi- nances is general language, intended to safeguard the City and its citizenry from "taking" issues. The wording is an attempt to try to maintain constitutionality in the regulations. . There being no further comment from the audience, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing. The Commission took a 10-minute break at 8: 30 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 1991 Page 5 . Ms. Souders noted that the wording contained on page 21 of the Wetlands ordinance concerning public hearing requirements should be put into the Critical Areas Ordinance. The wording, "No construction acti vi ty , including clearing or grading, shall be permitted until the information required by this Chapter is reviewed and approved by the City" (page 23) should also be containedlin the Wetlands Ordinance. The nonconform- ing activity section in the Wetlands Ordinance would also be appropriate in the Critical Areas Ordinance (page 39) as the wording in the critical Areas Ordinance is not as restrictive as it should be. Ms. Souders noted there are other changes which could be made in order to provide consistency in the two Ordinances, as well. Mr. Hulett moved to continue the meeting to October 23, 1991. Mr. Philpott seconded the motion. Following discussion, Mr. Hulett amended his motion to re-open the public hearing and continue the meeting to October 23, 1991. Mr. Philpott concurred. The motion was called and passed unanimously. Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission could set a workshop to meet and discuss with staff the complexities of the two ordinances. The Commission concurred that staff could arrange a meeting in order to educate the Planning commission, if it is desired. . PROPOSED FILLING/GRADING ORDINANCE, city-Wide: Proposed ordinance which would establish standards and regulations for grading and filling activities within the City of Port Angeles. . Mr. Collins briefly reviewed the history of the Clearing and Grading Ordinance and noted that Jack Pittis, Director of Public Works, was present to respond to the Commission IS questions. He also noted that it is a goal of the City Council to complete a clearing and grading ordinance within a reasonable time frame. The Ordinance establishes a new permi t. The intention of the Ordinance is to bring this phase of development into some type of regulation similar to a building permit process. Jack Pittis, Director of Public Works, explained that the process parallels other processes currently being undertaken at the State level, such as the Stormwater Management Plan. Additionally, review of the storrnwater Management Plan indicated that a clearing and grading ordinance could be a key ingredient in regulating stormwater runoff. A review of eighteen other clearing and grading ordinances resulted in the draft under discussion. The proposed Clearing and Grading Ordinance is intended to work in concert with Critical Areas and Wetlands Ordinances. The exemption for proj ects less than 5,000 square feet is replete throughout other documents reviewed in the development of this Ordinance. The criterion was incorporated for consistency. Exemptions provided are in order to minimize barriers to daily routines; i. e., excavation -, . PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 1991 Page 6 of slopes 5 feet or less, general landscaping, sprinkler systems, normal maintenance, etc. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing. Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, pointed out an inconsistency between requirement for the short form and the standard form on page 11 of the draft Ordinance; i.e., 100 feet from the stream and 50% slope versus 200 feet and 25% slope. Page 17, under Variances, there is no requirement for public notice; and Section 22.B.3.d should include wording that "granting the variance will not result in harm or damage . . . to the public welfare, fish and wildlife habitat". civil penalty provisions should be increased, as $500 a day penalties would not deter a determined developer. . Jerry Newlin, 716 Strait View Drive, stated his hope is that the Grading and Clearing Ordinance will result in good soils reports being done before a project becomes too involved. This is a good opportunity to prevent dump-sites being created and used indiscriminately. There is a need for consistency in guidelines in order that everyone operates under the same set of rules for responsible development. The new regulations may cause an increase in the need for increased staff to review new permits; this should be considered in the budget process. The Ordinance title should include the word "drainage". Fran Burch, 1036 East First Street, representing the Port Angeles Board of Real tors, had several concerns: (1) The wording (Page 1, Section 1.0): II . untimely and indis- criminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover; . II d (F)" t t' f .. "d . . an : ... pro ec ~on 0 scen1C V1ews . . . nee s to be better defined; (2) Section 4.L (top of page 7): "Clearing of only one parcel of land of less than 7,000 square feet. . ." needs clarification; (3) Section 6, page 8 and L on page 9, indicate that the plans must be prepared and signed by an engineer, which adds cost to the already increasing costs of development borne by those seeking housing and developers. Esther veltkamp, 212 West Eighth street, suggested that the wording allowing an exemption for parcels of land 7,000 square feet or less may be too restrictive. It is not the city's place to regulate the removal or dictate the preservation of trees on private property. The wording concerning transfer of permits is confusing and should be clarified. . Director pittis responded that provision for the transfer of permits could be adjusted if bonding and insurance provisions are in place. The issue is that if a transfer of ownership occurs within the allowed time frame, who is responsible in the event damage is caused as a result of the clearing/ grading/drainage activity. Ed Brown, 1724 West 13th street, stated approval for the Ordinance as drafted. He noted the Ordinance covers . . . PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 1991 Page 7 situations such as indiscriminate or negligent tree removal, which could result in blowdown due to the weakened condition of trees which were not removed. Bill LaRue, 222 West Park, asked if anyone has considered the cost of adoption of this Ordinance. It is of paramount impor- tance to consider the costs prior to adoption of the Ordi- nance. Only the largest developers will be able to afford to undertake developments. The Ordinance will not help people who need housing. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed at 10:00 P.M. The Commission discussed the following changes to the draft Ordinance: A. section 22, public notice on variances shall be included in the Ordinance; B. section 22.3.d. shall be revised to read: ItGranting the variance will not result in harm or damage to other properties, waterways, or drainage facilities, and the variance will not be otherwise materially detrimental to the public welfare or fish and wildlife habitat.1t C. Section 3.L. shall be changed to read: "Clearing of only one parcel of land 9.000 7,000 square feet or less." D. Review and comparison of the requirements for short and standard forms. E. The word "drainage" be added to the Ordinance title. Following continued discussion, Mr. Hulett moved to re-open the public hearing and continue the same to October 9, at or about 7:00 P.M., City Hall. Ms. Souders seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Commission took a la-minute break at 10: 35 P. M. The meeting reconvened at 10:45 P.M. V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VI STAFF REPORTS Mr. Collins noted a letter from AWC/WSAC encouraging APA membership for Planning Commissioners and staff planners and a flyer from the American Planning Association offering a reduced membership fee to Planning Commissioners interested in membership. It was reported that Council, at its September 17, 1991, meeting, referred the rezone application for Olympic Memorial . . . PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 1991 Page 8 Hospital to the November 5th meeting of the Council after failing to approve the rezone on a 3 - 3 vote. The continua- tion is to enable a full complement of Councilmembers to vote on the proposal. In addition, the Council directed the Planning commission to further study current uses around the Hospital and future needs. Following discussion and review of the Commission1s long-range agenda items, it was determined that early next year (March, 1992) would be the earliest opportunity the Commission would have to review the issue. Mr. Collins noted that it is again budget time, and the Department is endeavoring to put together a revised 1992 budget. He requested input from the Commission on items that the Commission is interested in for 1992 which may require funds. There was discussion on the ability to encourage additional public involvement in decision-making processes and services which might be required toward that end, including funding possibilities. It was agreed that an increase in training and travel would be beneficial to Commissioners and staff: that funds for consultant services for the expected Comprehensive Plan EIS would be necessary: and that additional advertisements and public notices will require a budget increase. VII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None. VIII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. .~ ins, Secretary SR:LM PLAN. 513 Prepared by: S. Roberds . WNG RANGE PLANNING COMMISSION GOAlS September 25, 1991 1. Critical Areas Ordinances - Public Hearing 2. Clearing and Grading Ordinance - Public Hearing October 9, 1991 1. Continuation of Clearing and Grading Ordinance - Public Hearing October 23, 1991 1. Continuation of Critical Areas Ordinances - Public Hearing 2. Planned Residential Development (PRD) Amendments - Public Hearing 3. Budget . November 20, 1991 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: South of City Hall - Public Hearing 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Housekeeping Measures - Public Hearing 3. Enforcement follow-up December, 1991 No Meeting, Merry Christmas! January 22, 1992 1. Comprehensive Plan Review February 26, 1992 1. Traffic Patterns 2. Elections . March 25, 1992 1. Land Use Review in Hospital Area OS;2-C:\WP\l'C\LRS2-92.PC . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of M~~~~SSion Date .. ~ , 99 J Location 321 . 5th Street .!City Hall . . .J