Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/09/1991 -. I. n. ill. IV. . 1. AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 October 9, 1991 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of September 11, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS: PROPOSED CLEARING/GRADING ORDINANCE. City-wide: Proposed ordinance which would establish standards and regulations for grading and filling activities within the City of Port Angeles. 2.. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRO 91(07)02 - OLYMPIC EST A TES. EckardlWabash Streets: Proposal to develop a Planned Residential Development of four single-family residences on 1.5 acres. 3. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA 91(10)123 - BRITISH PETROLEUM. Ediz Hook: Request for a permit to allow the placement of up to 15 piling, 4 - 5 brace piling and 4 timber whalers to an existing concrete/steel mooring dolphin. . All correspondence penaining to a hearing item received I7y the Planning Depanmenr at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Planning Commission: Ray Grover, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice-Chair; Jim Hulett; Roger Catts; Larry Leonard; Bob Philpott; Bill Anabel. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist; John Jimerson, Associate Planner; David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . .. . Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 v. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII. 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. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington October 9, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gruver called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Larry Leonard, Roger Catts, Jim Hulett, Ray Gruver, Bob Philpott, Cindy Souders. Members Excused: Bill Anabel staff Present: Brad Collins, Kenworthy. Jimerson, Gary John III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Philpott moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 25, 1991, as presented. Mr. Hulett seconded the motion, which passed 4 - 0, with Messrs. Catts and Leonard abstaining. Mr. Leonard moved to change the order of the public hearings to conduct scheduled hearing No. 2 first, followed by hearing No.3, followed by No.1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Catts and passed unanimously. IV PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRD-91 (07) 02 - OLYMPIC ESTATES, . Eckard/Wabash Streets: Proposal to develop a Planned Residential Development of four single-family residences on 1.15 acres. Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Chairman Gruver opened the pUblic hearing at 7:10 P.M.. George Casady, Seattle, Washington, explained he had hired an engineering firm to develop the drainage plan. The stormwater catch basin would contain.surface.water during periods of peak rain and would allow the water to escape at a natural rate. The catch basin would not act as a pond year-round. There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. Mr. Leonard asked the applicant how much it cost him to prepare plans and meet the requirements of the Department of Fisheries hydraulic permit. Mr. Casady responded that it cost him $2,500. . PLANNING COMMISSION october 9, 1991 Page 2 Mr. catts moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the city council, citing the following conditions,. findings, and conclusions: CONDITIONS: 1. The 20-foot wide, one-way circular drive and the entrance roadway between the improved Eckard Avenue and the prop- erty line shall be paved with an all-weather surface. At least 16 feet of the drive and the entrance drive shall be paved with 2" of asphalt on top of an 8" base and 2" top rock, with two-foot shoulders on both.sides. 2. Provide a fire hydrant capable of delivering 1,000 gallons per minute within 250 feet of all homes prior to occupancy of any home. An alternative is to sprinkler the homes and have a fire hydrant within 500 feet. 3. Submit to the Fire and Planning Departments for approval plans of the sign to be located on Eckard Avenue which identifies the addresses of the four buildings. The sign shall be installed prior to occupancy of the buildings. 4. Electrical utilities serving the houses shall be placed underground. Provide ci ty Light wi th any easements necessary for these utilities. . s. The storm drainage shall comply with the following: (a) roof leaders/footings shall drain to the pond: (b) in- stall culverts underneath the driveways: (c) construct a drainage ditch from the property along the south side of Eckard Avenue to Wabash. FINDINGS: A. The city council approved the preliminary PRO and plat titled "Olympic Estates", creating four single-family lots and one common open space lot, on August 6, 1991. B. The Planning Commission and City Council concluded the preliminary PRO and plat was consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regula- tions. C. The applicant submitted for final PRO and plat approval on September 12, 1991. O. The applicant has met the following conditions of the preliminary approval: Entering into a non-protest agreement for the formation of an L.I.D.; submitted a drainage plan to Public Works for approval; revised the circular drive to 20 feet wide; and has submitted a landscape plan for approval. . . E. PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1991 Page 3 A hydraulics permit has been issued by the Department of Fisheries, which addresses conditions relating to drain- age. CONCLUSIONS: 1. As conditioned, the final PRO and plat is in conformance with the preliminary approval. 2. The final PRO and plat has not changed in any manner so as to result in inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning Ordinance. 3. As conditioned, the final plat is in conformance with the city's Subdivision Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leonard and passed unanimously. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA-91 (10) 123 - BRITISH PETROLEUM, Ediz Hook: Request for a permit to allow the placement of up to 15 pilings, 4 - 5 brace pilings, and 4 timber whalers to an existing concrete/steel mooring dolphin. . Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department report. Mr. Leonard asked staff why the Planning Department is recommending that British Petroleum contribute to the cost of materials for the Waterfront Trail. Staff responded that Daishowa America is already committed to paying for improvements of the Trail. since British Petroleum is improving their property, requiring them to contribute to the cost would provide for more equity in covering the costs of constructing the Trail and it would help assure the Trail improvements be completed through the industrial area to the end of the tank farms. The Shoreline Master Program contains policies which support requiring industrial development to facilitate the construction of the Trail. The Trail would benefit British Petroleum, as it would create a safe access route~along ~heir property for the public using the Trail. . Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M Bob White, 704 Ridgeview, the terminal manager for British Petroleum, stated he had.not had..an.opportunity to review the request for contributing to the Trail construction. He would need to discuss the matter with other individuals at British Petroleum before he could provide a response. British Petroleum has a 10-year sublease on the property from Daishowa America, which he believes leases the property from the State or the city. Mr. Jimerson noted that the cost of materials for the Trail is about $4.50 per lineal foot. If the British Petroleum site covers 400 feet, the total cost would be $1,800. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1991 Page 4 Mr. White noted that at that rate the Trail cost would be 5% of the total project cost. There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Leonard moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Ci ty council, ci ting the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS: 1. The Shoreline Master Program designates the site as Urban Environment. 2. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designate the site as Heavy Industrial. 3. The approval is to allow an upgrade to an existing moor- ing dolphin, which includes installation of up to 20 additional piles, 5 brace piles, and 4 whalers, as well as replacement of existing pil ings, if found to be broken. 4. The site is located in an existing industrial area. The site contains a mooring pier used for cargo shipments to and from the Daishowa warehouse, and for refueling of Ships. 5. The Shorel ine Master Program, Comprehens i ve Plan, and Zoning Ordinance have been reviewed with respect to this proposal. 6. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. CONCLUSIONS: A. The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Shore- line Master Program, specifically General Regulations C.l, C.3 and C. 4; Land Use Element 0.1. a; and Use Activity Policies F.2.d, F.8.a, F.8.d, and F.17.a. B. The industrial use is consistent with the policies and regulations of the Port Angeles...Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which designates the property for heavy industry. C. The proposal will not be detrimental to the shoreline. The Planning Commission discussed the staff recommendation that the applicant be required to pay for the materials for construction of that portion of the Trail located on the British Petroleum site. Messrs. Hulett and Gruver commented that British Petroleum should be treated in a manner which is consistent with the requirements placed on Daishowa America. PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1991 Page 5 . If Daishowa was required to provide the right-of-way and the Trail improvements, then, too, should British Petroleum. Similarly, if Daishowa was required to provide right-of-way only, the City should not expect more from British Petroleum. Mr. Leonard modified his motion to include a condition which requires British Petroleum to provide a Trail right-of-way, if needed . The motion was made, citing the following condition, in addi- tion to the above findings and conclusions: CONDITION: A. The applicant shall provide the necessary right-of-way for the Waterfront Trail through the site, if needed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Catts and carried unanimously. Chairman Gruver asked staff about reporting to the City council on the status of the Trail improvements through the BP Site. Mr. Collins said a report would be prepared. The Planning Commission took a break at 7:50 P.M. and recon- vened at 8:00 P.M. . PROPOSED CLEARING/GRADING ORDINANCE, City-wide: Proposed ordinance which would establish standards and regulations for grading and filling activities within the City of Port Anqeles (Continued from September 23. 1991) Mr. Collins explained the changes to the draft clearing and grading ordinance which have been made since the previous public hearing, noting that the provisions for variance has been deleted, as this particular ordinance is more related to the building permit process than it would be to the zoning. The ordinance allows enough discretion on the part of the administrator that a variance procedure is not warranted. If there was a question on interpretation of the ordinance, it would go to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Collins noted that the preparation of this ordinance was the result of a City Council goal. The city has increasingly experienced problems with projects where the City has no control over the clearing and grading of property. .Mr. ..Collins cited.-several examples in the City, including filling of the Priest hole, grading at Francis street, clearing at vine and Peabody, and drainage near Ennis Creek. . Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, added that during the past winter the City experienced several problems with single- family homes which generated significant amounts of erosion into the stormwater system and onto City streets. He stated he had no authority to prevent this erosion without this ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1991 Page 6 . Mr. Collins explained the difference between the sensitive areas ordinance and the clearing and grading permit, noting that the sensitive areas ordinance identifies those areas in the city to be protected; whereas, the clearing and grading ordinance provides a permitting process in order to disturb sensitive areas. The sensitive areas ordinance does not allow slopes of 40% or greater to be disturbed but does allow various levels of work to occur on slopes between 15% and 40%. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing. Pat McDowell, 318 East Front street, expressed support for a clearing and grading ordinance in Port Angeles, noting that the area enjoys a unique environment. Development has been occurring in areas where it should not be. The ordinance is a reasonable means of governing and regulating speculative clearing and grading. Norman Brooks, 723 Elizabeth Place, expressed concern over work that was occurring north of Melody Lane 1 an existing wetland may be in the process of being drained. He has contacted the state Department of Wildlife. He thought the ci ty needs a moratorium on this type of work to prevent further damage, until an ordinance is adopted. . Mr. Collins pointed out that the City has no authority over the wetlands. He understood that the work which was occurring was just the cleaning out of an existing drainage ditch. He was asked by the Commission to investigate the Melody Lane situation. Fran Burch, 102 East First street, read into the record a letter from pili Meyer, the president of the Board of Realtors, expressing concern that the development community has not had adequate opportunity to provide input into the draft ordinance and is asking for a continuation of the public hearing to allow further input. . Linda deBord, 1309 East Seventh Street, noted that there are one-acre lots in the Highland View Subdivision and the west end of Port Angeles contains a significant amount of property without access to sewer, which means the minimum lot size for development with a septic tank would be 12,500 square feet; and therefore, there are still many single-family lots in the ci ty .._whi.ch ..would _not be ,exempt from the' 'c~learing and grading ordinance. How does the City expect to monitor the rainfall and how would they be able to conduct inspections when there is a half-inch of rain or more within a 24-hour period? The provisions contained in Section 17(B) could result in exces- sive response time, which would serve to delay projects. section 25 (24) (A), which states when there are conflicting regulations the most restrictive shall apply, doesn't reflect the notion that the most restrictive regulation is not neces- sarily the best regulation. The SEPA review process already tends to slow down development throughout the state, and she was concerned that this ordinance would create an additional PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1991 Page 7 . delay. She questioned the 200-foot setback, as the current State law is for 100 feet. Mr. Collins responded that the 200-foot setback does not restrict development: rather, it is the threshold where a permit is required. The 100-foot setback in state law is a restriction. New restrictions in the wetland and environ- mentally sensitive areas ordinances may be greater or less than 200 feet in certain instances. The 200 feet is con- sistent with the Shoreline Master Program and it is a threshold used in several grading ordinances throughout the State. Art Dunker, 2114 West sixth Street, had just received the revised ordinance. He questioned whether such an extensive ordinance as this is needed for this community. He expressed concerns over the 9,000 square-foot exemption as it may affect the ability to build a house on a timbered lot. He would like the Building Industry Asociation staff in Olympia to have the opportunity to review the ordinance before the Planning commission acts on it. Charles May, 506 Blue Water View, stated the ordinance is rather complex and that additional time is needed to review it. . Joyce Rose, 416 Ridgeview, stated the ordinance depends heavily upon interpretations. There are no specific standards to be applied to every case. The time it takes to make inter- pretations would result in delays in development projects. Roger Wheeler, 13S5-C Erving Jacobs Road, stated that the ordinance is difficult to understand and would add time to the development approval process and may negatively affect the timing of construction projects. Larger developers have the expertise and time to comply with the ordinance, but the smaller companies and individuals do not have either the time or the expertise to comply. Ray Grice, 515 West Seventh street, expressed concern with the impact of the ordinance on the cost of development projects and the possibility that the additional costs and regulations would prevent new development from occurring within the City limits. .. . There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 9:15 P.M. The Planning Commission took a break and reconvened at 9:30 P.M. . After considerable discussion, Mr. Leonard moved to continue the item to the December 11, 1991, meeting, with directions to staff to (a) provide a discussion as to how the City would benefit from having the ordinance: (b) to revise the ordinance with consideration to the concerns raised in public testimony, . PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1991 Page 8 paying special attention to malting the ordinance simple and easy to understand: (c) to evaluate the possibility of using Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code as a means of achiev- ing control over clearing and grading activities; and (d) make the revised ordinance available to the public and to the development community no later than November 13, 1991, for review and comment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hulett and carried unanimously. Mr. Leonard moved to re-open the public bearing on the pro- posed clearing and grading ordinance and to continue the public hearing to December 11, 1991. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hulett and carried unanimously. V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VI STAFF REPORTS . Mr. Collins noted that he would send a letter to Mr. Brooks informing him that the city has no authority over wetlands, and would inform him of other agencies which he may try to contact. However, the City has no authority to act if a wetland is being drained until a clearing and grading ordinance is adopted. Ms. Souders volunteered to call Mr. Brooks and provide him with contacts to environmental groups which may. want to investigate. Mr. Collins noted that a Mr. Kapetan is requesting the Planning Commission review the Planning Department's inter- pretation on fence heights at the October 23rd meeting. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that it is more appropriate that the Board of Adjustment conduct such a review. Mr. Collins noted that the Innovative Housing Committee might not be coming to the Planning commission with recommended changes to the PRO ordinance, which has been scheduled on the agenda for October 23rd, but.-mightgo directly to the City Council for action. The Planning Commission review mayor may not be required, depending on 'whether or not the changes to the PRD.ordinance are viewed_as.a~odificatian_to the Merrill- Ring Zoning Code Amendment request, or if the ordinance is considered to be a separate amendment to the Code. . Mr. Collins noted the discussion earlier on the new regulation of land use and distributed to the Planning commission copies of a King County case which addressed the taking issue and reasonable use of land. PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1991 Page 9 4It VII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Mr. Catts reported that the Growth Management Advisory Com- mittee met for the last time until December 4th, and that they took action to recommend to the Planning Commission the adop- tion of the wetlands and critical areas ordinances. Ms. Souders noted that there is a letter to the editor in the Sequim paper from Bill White, Clallam County Planning Director, relating to the public hearing process for the Mitsubishi Resort. Mr. Philpott asked for clarification as to whether or not it would be appropriate for the Planning Commissioners to review their comments on the clearing and grading ordinance with the staff over the next week or two. Mr. Collins replied it would be appropriate, and that comments should go directly to Jack Pittis, Director of Public Works. VIII ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Catts moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconde r. Hulett. The Planning Commission adjourned . ~ ins, Secretary Prepared by: John Jimerson PLAN. 51? . . .6n~me ~~:~A/ I~ ~r-4114 ~d ~?-tl-u~ 4t AI tnZ..Mt+J ~O d KJ' 11~1'~. ~ fJ ~ Pe.'J2. 'IS Row · :T6~" (j,"~1 vp..) vJ'\~{;fl5 R~:5"... L-oVl.. "T"&FL LIt'JbA L. COV'-~1'2- PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster ~Y];: of Meett L~: ~~2on Location 321 E. 5th Street - City Hall ~~3r~;P. ~r. 'J :::::;J. c> 7l... t.j Fl/ "L.. t I (-fJ 7"1--3 e4ZA'j!.eT# Y;L. {J. If-:- ,~~; !1~~)~~'.~,rA ~01 itJ....+A /(, I.A. q Z S? vJ \ S "\ ~ (). A. /tj~z ;;C~ 4vf:~ . II - /:L;~ ~:~ p~ . r L .s::Y //J$.. L'Z- j -1\' 7'--TfA ~()..e.c/p ,thf1~F V"---" P~~4~7)P~d~ 1/6 3 f. tt . 3.1 '? E. P r-urer P;-+_ c:J/,;z.. LvI, ? ~