Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/12/2005 ~ORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street October 12, 2005 6 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of September 28, 2005 IV. OLD BUSINESS: Discussion ofP A Farmers' Market Conditional Use Permit Action . V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. . PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT and PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL. GREEN CROW. Campbell Avenue: A preliminary subdivision on property zoned Residential High Density and Residential Single Family that includes a planned residential development. 2. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SMA 05-07 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES: A proposal to construct shoreline armoring, a retaining wall, and slope stabilization system to protect a closed landfill cell from further erosion on the shoreline. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC STAFF REPORTS REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Len Rasmussen (Chalr),Chene Kldd (VIce Chalf),DaveJohnson, Kevm Snyder,Betsy Wharton, Candace KalIsh, John Matthews PLANNING STAFF Mark Madsen, DIrector, Scott Johns, ASSOCIate Planner, Sue Roberds, ASSOCIate Planner/Commumty Development Coordmator . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 October 12, 2005 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Leonard Rasmussen, Dave Johnson, Cherie Kidd, Kevin Snyder, Candace Kalish, John Matthews Members Excused: Betsy Wharton Staff Present: Mark Madsen, Nathan West, Sue Roberds, Gary Kenworthy, Ken Dubuc Public Present: Roy and Mary Gotham, Tyler Ahlgren, David Lee, A. Binion, G. Lamont, Stephen Doran, John Webb, Jill Johnson, Edna Petersen, Peter Vanderhoof, Julie Gardiner, Craig Miller, Rick Melvin, Harley Oien, Maegan Jones, Ian Miller, Ed Chadd, Mike McClean, Mike Langley, Tim W oolett, David Lee, Grant LaMont, Bill Webb APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the September 28, 2005, regular minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Matthews and passed 4 - 2 with Commissioners Kidd and Snyder abstaining due to absence at the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: Discussion regarding previous PA Farmers' Market action Chair Rasmussen opened discussion regarding whether a procedural error had occurred during the August 10, 2005, public hearing in consideration of extension of the Saturday P A Farmer's Market Conditional Use Permit CUP 03-06 (CUP). As Commissioner Kidd did not reveal her association with the Port Angeles Business Association (PABA) nor her actions with regard to attendance at a meeting where the Market had been discussed during the public hearing, an issue of appearance of fairness had been raised at a City Council meeting. Chair Rasmussen asked if representatives ofthose who appealed the Planning Commission's decision regarding extension of the Market were present in the audience. Appellants Peter Vanderhoof(PA Farmers' Market), Julie Gardner (McClean's Shoes), and Craig Miller (representing ten business and property owners) were present. In response to the Chair, all appellants responded that they are concerned that there may have been an appearance of fairness in the proceeding regarding the Market extension and waived their right to a 10 day public notice in order to deal with the subject immediately. City Manager Mark Madsen clarified that the purpose of the inquiry was to determine whether a violation ofthe Appearance of Fairness Doctrine as outlined in state statutes had occurred during consideration ofthe CUP extension proceeding. Manager Madsen asked Commissioner Kidd if she wished to make a statement regarding the issue. . . . Planmng CommISSIOn Mmutes October 12, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Kidd said that the Port Angeles Business Association (PABA) has never placed the subject of the Port Angeles Farmers' Market on an agenda. Discussion did take place during a PABA meeting regarding the Market extension brought about by a PABA member but no she did not have prior knowledge that such an issue would be raised t the meeting. When the issue was brought up, Ms. Kidd left the room due to her membership on the Planning Commission and did not participate in the discussion but returned to the meeting for the vote from which she abstained. She submitted a copy ofthe PABA minutes identifying her abstention from the vote. She tried to act responsibly by leaving the meeting so that the public record would not be tainted but returned for the vote because of her duty to the PABA. She wanted it noted for the record that she is also a member of the Chamber of Commerce, shops at McClean's Shoes and Necessities and Temptations, buys clothes from The Toggery, and purchases items from the P A Farmers' Market. Dr. Jerry Hauxwell, Past President of the PABA submitted and read a letter from the Association clarifying Commissioner Kidd' s involvement in the PABA as being a membership chair and that during the Farmers' Market discussion she left the room and returned for only for the vote, from which she abstained. Manager Madsen questioned Commissioner Kidd as to whether she believes that she can hear and consider the issue in a fair and objective manner, to which she responded in the affirmative. She then responded to questions as to whether she had engaged in communications outside ofthe hearing with opponents or proponents ofthe issue to be heard to which she responded in the negative. She does not believe that her actions constitute a conflict of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. She believes that the individual who brought forth the potential conflict issue did not check the facts which clearly indicated that she acted responsibly and impartially on this issue. Manager Madsen opened discussion to Commission members. Commissioner Kalish asked Commissioner Kidd to further explain why she did not reveal her association with the PABA prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Kidd said it was an oversight. She is very involved in the Port Angeles community and will make every effort in the future to be very careful in revealing her affiliations. She believed that her actions were appropriate and did not understand that she needed to publicly state the process that she had operated under to ensure neutrality in the issue. Manager Madsen asked if anyone who was present or party to the original proceeding believes there is an appearance of fairness. Commissioner Kalish stated that she believes there is an appearance of fairness at question even though she does not believe it was intentional. She did not know that Commissioner Kidd was a member ofthe PABA and would have objected to Commissioner Kidd's participation in the first public hearing had she been aware. Appellant Julie Gardiner believes that an appearance of fairness exists. She specifically objected because Commissioner Kidd is part of an organization (PABA) that took a specific stand and wrote a letter regarding an issue under consideration. In response to Manager Madsen, Ms. Gardiner indicated that she was aware that Commissioner Kidd is a member ofthe PABA and knew that Commissioner Kidd may have been at a PABA meeting where the Market issue was under discussion prior to the extension public hearing. In response to Commissioner Kalish, Ms. Gardiner responded that she did not mention her knowledge of Commissioner Kidd's involvement in the P ABA during the public hearing because she does not represent either Ms. Kidd or the Market. It is up to decision makers to know this information. Attorney Craig Miller, 711 E. Front Street, representing a group of appellants, stated that he also believes that an appearance of fairness exists because a decision maker is required to obtain . . . Plannmg CommISSIOn Mmutes October 12,2005 Page 3 an open mind throughout a public process and not give any indication that a decision has been made prior to the public hearing and commencement of discussion. From a disinterested person's point of view, an appearance of fairness exists. He responded to Manager Madsen that while some of his clients may have known of Commissioner Kidd' s membership in the PABA, some certainly did not. Maegan Jones, 525 E. 10th Street, was present at the August, 2005, public hearing and represented the Market. She identified a second PABA meeting earlier in the summer that Commissioner Kidd attended. The Farmers' Market issue was on the agenda. Commissioner Kidd did not leave the room nor did she speak at that meeting. Upon questioning, Commissioner Kidd responded that she had forgotten about that meeting. Chair Rasmussen closed the public portion ofthe meeting and asked for the Commission to determine whether an appearance of fairness exists. Commissioner Kalish said that she has heard a great deal oftalk since the public hearing regarding the activity that will be very hard to discount if a second hearing is required. Commissioner Snyder was disturbed that parties to the public hearing knew of a potential appearance of fairness during the public hearing and did not bring that information forward during the hearing. A roomful of people attended the original hearing, some who knew there could be an appearance of fairness and said nothing. He doubted that active members of any community can actively serve the community on boards, commissions, and such, and not be identified at some point as appearing to have an appearance of fairness because of that service. Commissioner Kalish reiterated her belief that any disinterested person would have to say that the appearance of fairness has been violated. Following continued discussion, Commissioners Kalish, Johnson, and Rasmussen agreed that an appearance of fairness exists. Commissioners Matthews and Snyder did not believe that an appearance of fairness exists. Commissioner Kidd abstained from comment. Manager Madsen noted that the 3 - 2 vote effectively invalidates the earlier public hearing and its accompanying record. The Planning Division will set a new public hearing date and notify all parties involved. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT and PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL. GREEN CROW. Campbell Avenue: A preliminary subdivision on property zoned Residential High Density and Residential Single Family that includes a planned residential development. Manager Madsen briefly summarized the staff report. As Commissioners indicated they reviewed the entire report, Mr. Madsen asked for any questions. Tim W oolett, 805 E. 8th Street, responded to a question from Commissioner Rasmussen that there are approximately 91 lots proposed for the 18.93 acre site. Just under 2 acres of the site is zoned Residential High Density with the remaining property zoned RS-9 Residential Single Family. Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing. Mr. Woolett stated that the planned residential development will allow innovation as far as lot arrangement and will utilize a cottage cluster concept. Nineteen (19) cottage lots are planned in three separate cottage clusters. Thirty-two percent (32%) ofthe site is in open space including that includes wetlands. The site contains a 1/10 acre regulated wetland. As a result of development activities, an increase in wetland area has been created for a total of2.47 acres of wetland acres. An . . . Plannmg CommISSIOn Mmutes October 12,2005 Page 4 engineer and a wetlands consultant have been hired to do an enhancement plan for the wetland and play area. The play area will be dedicated to the City for the public use. Cottage units will contain approximately 800 - 1,000 square feet in area and will be situated such that lot lines are staggered to allow for open areas. Chair Rasmussen asked who will own the land? Mr. W oolett responded that a condominium concept is planned. In response to Commissioner Kidd, Mr. W oolett stated that on-street parking will be restricted due to development at the low impact standard. Ms. Kidd could not support a project that does not allow for adequate off-street parking. Mr. W oolett stated that he really appreciates staff s efforts in working with the applicants and would like to continue discussion for one month to allow for various uncompleted issues to be brought forward in a comprehensive manner. Ed Chaad, 307 West (/h Street, asked if property values in the PRD area will be increased over standard lot by lot development and how wetlands will be affected. Mr. Woolett said that he is hoping the value of properties is increased and believes it will definitely enhance the area to have an innovative project in the neighborhood. Although the natural hydrology has been disrupted, the wetland area has been enhanced by directing runoff and harnessing some of the water from previous logging activities on the property. Mike Langley, Wabash Avenue, thanked the City for its efforts in working to develop its Nice Neighborhood Program and asked that Campbell not be developed to Wabash Street. Mr. Langley asked ifthe City would be interested in working with him in a similar manner to the Green Crow Developer's Agreement on another property in the area. Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, stated that Green Crow will be improving the Campbell Avenue frontage along their property boundary to Mt. Angeles Road. Per a traffic study performed as a result of the proposal, improvements are not expected to extend east beyond the applicant's property nor are improvements planned to W abash Avenue. Manager Madsen clarified that bottlenecks in the area sewer system were long standing and prevented development of properties in the area as well as were a continual inconvenience to residents which is the reason the City provided upgrades to utilities in the area. RickMelvin, 1697 Wabash Avenue, encouraged the City to require or provide improvements to Campbell Avenue to W abash Avenue due to the narrowness of the access and the unlit, dangerous walking area. He stated that the area is arguably one of the worst traffic hazard areas in the City. He has personally had several close calls with pedestrians. In response to a question from Commissioner Kalish as to whether the development will cause a need for further extension of Campbell Avenue or whether it is in need at the present time, Mr. W oolett responded that he does not believe people moving to the area or visiting the area as a result of the new development will use a Wabash to Campbell route. He doubted that people would drive east toward Wabash to access Campbell when improved access will be provided in a more direct route to Campbell through the subdivision. Access to Wabash is a intended to be emergency back door only. The developer does not intend to provide improvement to Campbell A venue to connect to W abash Avenue. Following continued extended discussion, Commissioner Kalish moved to continue the public hearing to November 9, 2005, 6 p.m., as requested by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kidd and passed 7 - O. . . . Plannmg CommiSSIOn Mmutes October 12, 2005 Page 5 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SMA 05-07 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES: A proposal to construct shoreline armoring, a retaining wall, and slope stabilization system to protect a closed landfill cell from further erosion on the shoreline. Principle Planner Nathan West presented the Department Report recommending approval of the shoreline substantial development conditional use permit with conditions. Manager Madsen noted that Commission members do not have investigatory powers and are not encouraged to specifically visit potential development sites. It is acceptable if, in the course of daily travel, sites are viewed, however, specific travel to view sites is not recommended. Any specific site visits must be declared. Manager Madsen responded to a question from Commissioner Rasmussen that the monitoring plan is two fold: a five year monitoring plan for beach nourishment with an added condition to monitor leachate material behind the revetment wall. Chair Rasmussen indicated that those who testify must sign the "Sign In" log and affirm that their testimony will be truthful to the best of their knowledge. Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing. Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, explained that the original landfill site was covered in the 1990's. Approximately a million yards of material is contained within the closed site. The site was not lined when it was constructed and so a cap was required. As bluffs do, erosion has occurred and the canyon mouth is being eaten away by wave erosion. Over the past years, the City has met with many groups including Department of Ecology, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Health, Army Corps of Engineers, and Tribes to come up with an affordable solution to the erosion problem. It was determined to be too expensive to remove the materials and haul elsewhere. Ongoing maintenance is required of both the revetment wall and the beach area. The initial investment is $3 )Iz to $4 million under the current plan. The work must be done prior to the December, 2006 landfill closure. A do nothing approach is not acceptable. In response to Commissioner Kalish, Engineer Kenworthy stated that an area is being reserved to allow for 50,000 yards of excavated materials from the revetment wall area to be placed in the landfill site. To his knowledge there is no present health hazard and nor groundwater source that is being contaminated. The existing amount of leachate is a trickle. Monitoring is required because construction ofthe wall will result in a more concentrated area ofleachate behind the wall that will need to be closely monitored. If monitoring results indicate that the leachate must be removed due to high levels oftoxin, the leachate will be pumped to the top ofthe hill to the landfill system. There have been no warnings that a critical problem exists. No one likes to harden a shoreline but the proposal is a reasonable and affordable solution given all the information available. Bill Webb, Project Manager, Parametric Engineers, explained that they have been working on this project with the City for the past eight to ten years. The site is unfortunate in many ways. Monitoring has indicated that following every storm season, massive failures of the bank occur. It is difficult to get funding for this type ofproject because ofthe low level ofleachate. When the site is regraded to be a stable slope and the wall constructed, the amount of water through the site will be decreased. The State is requiring monitoring to ascertain ifthe decrease in water through the site will result in an increase in the concentration of the leachate through the site. The staff s added condition addresses the State's concern. . . . Plannmg CommISSIOn Mmutes October 12,2005 Page 6 In response to Commissioner Kalish, Mr. Webb answered that the revetment area was moved 30' inland at a cost of an additional $1 Y2 million dollars was due to a request by the Department of Fish and Wildlife that hard armoring near the shore may cause increased erosion. A worst case scenario is being planned for that assumes about 2,000 yards of imported materials on an average year for beach nourishment. A trough may be used to feed the beach materials in order to limit the use of trucks on the beach. Removal of the Elwha dams may result in additional sediment deposits to benefit the beach but that cannot really be determined at this time. Mr. Webb continued to explain how modeling and historical evidence was used to analyze the situation. Ed Chadd, 307 West ~h Street, asked for additional information as to the mechanics ofthe revetment structure. Steve Duro, Structural Engineer Parametrix Engineers, detailed the structure of the proposed wall and how it works. Mr. Duro confirmed, in response to Commissioner Snyder, that construction will involve digging into the slope not the garbage. Harley Oien, 215 Rife Road, read a letter from the Dry Creek Coalition and submitted pictures of the site. He asked that seepage be taken and analyzed by a recognized environmental sampling agent. Without detailed scientific analysis, the Coalition recommends that the entire site be removed and disposed of as toxic waste. The wall proposed is an excellent attempt to solving one half of the problem but does not address the leachate issue. Engineer Kenworthy reiterated that very little groundwater passes through the site so very little leachate is passing through the site. The leachate is sampled on a regular basis and so far has not identified a health hazard. The cost of removal of the entire site is prohibitive. Ian Miller, 533 West 1 {fh Street has concerns regarding costs and downdrift issues. He has heard costs ranging from $15 to $120 million dollars for total removal and would like to see documentation to determine iftaxpayers are getting the best project for the expenditure. There will be long term maintenance issues for the project. Given the historic current along the shoreline, erosion will occur east of the site. He asked it Parametrix staff would address the issue. Tyler Ahlgren, 708 Bourchier Street, provided pictures ofthe site and submitted a letter that he wrote to the Peninsula Daily News dated August 24,2004. In the letter, he explained that he walked the site and viewed the situation described. He suggested that a partial removal be considered rather than a structural solution which is discouraged by federal policy. This is a bad project and he encouraged that decision makers investigate alternative approaches. Bill Webb noted that the hope is that additional sediment will be deposited onto the beach in the next few years when the Elwha Dams are removed. It is possible that the proposed construction is not a permanent solution. The design life should last for at least 35 to 50 years. Grant LaMont, Pacific International Engineering, Seattle, WA was hired by Parametrix to do wave runoff/wave force tests and analysis on the seawall design side ofthe project and beach nourishment aspects. He further explained the design structure ofthe wall and that what is intended is to closely mimic the natural beach. As bluffs erode, downdrift is created. In this situation, garbage is being eroded, which is not acceptable. He described in detail materials contained in the beach nourishment strategy program. An aggressive monitoring plan is intended with the initial plan being for at least 2 or 3 years. Extensive wave modeling has been done going back 20 years. Given erosion rates and the location ofthe wall 30' back from shoreline, in 30 - 50 years, the wall could be the shoreline. Ed Chaad, 307 E. ~h Street asked what the cost scenario is based on - barging or trucking? Engineer Kenworthy stated that all forms of removal have been reviewed extensively including . . . Planmng CommISSIOn Mmutes October 12,2005 Page 7 barging and trucking the materials. The cheapest method - armoring - was not chosen. A compromise solution was reached in working with many agencies and involves the removal of more fill material than some solutions and less than others. Bill Webb stated that a bathymetric survey was done. Given the tides in the area, it was determined that a barge could not be positioned close to the beach and truck traffic for the operation would be very detrimental to the beach. Ed Chaad asked if staff and the engineers could elaborate on several issues relating to catastrophic events, increased erosion at Ediz Hook, nearshore habitat, and, after the life of the project, then what? Are we forced to do a project or might we be better off where we go in every year and clean up the beach? Engineer Kenworthy responded that the wall has been designed to normal structural and best science standards. Reviewing agencies did not respond kindly to a suggestion that yearly debris removal be considered. If the site is well maintained, 50 years is a minimum life expectancy. He could not respond to what might happen in the event of a catastrophic event. Algae studies are being done and baseline studies will be done for 5 years to monitor the nearshore environment. No nearshore problems are anticipated and considerable funds have been set aside for the monitoring. The do nothing approach was proposed as well as rock revetment. Neither scenario was acceptable to state agencies. Grant LaMont reiterated that the beach nourishment was carefully chosen to match the natural beach materials. The beach changes shape from season to season. Natural movement is not a problem. The proposal is to mimic nature more closely than what is occurring. There is possible impact but every step has been taken in choosing nourishment to make front beach nourishment as natural as possible. Fisheries personnel will be involved in a baseline study prior to construction with follow up studies at appropriate intervals. If there are impacts, corrective measures will be implemented. In response to Mr. Miller's question as to the potential for the project to accelerate erosion east ofthe site, Grant LaMont responded that the historical erosion rate is about a foot a year. About 50% of the til material actually goes into the litoral system and becomes beach nourishment. Hardening the shoreline is never the first choice but is the best choice in this instance. The beach nourishment contributed by the existing cliff is as little as 750 cubic yards a year. There will be some areas east of the site that are soft but not due to the project. He does not believe the project will cause an increase in erosion during the life of the project. It is important to get adaptive management strategies in place. Engineer Kenworthy responded to Commissioner Kalish that funding will be from garbage rates. Ed Chadd thanked staff and the engineering representatives for their explanation. He did not have time to read the report and his questions had been answered thoroughly. Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing. Engineer Kenworthy noted, in closing, that the solution involved all permitting agencies in arriving at the proposed solution. No one is completely enamored of the solution but it is the best that can be done given limited funding. The State will be doing the final permitting not the City. Following further discussion, Commissioner Snyder moved to recommend approval of the shoreline substantial development conditional use permit with the following con ditions, fin dings, and conclusions: . . . Planmng CommiSSIOn Mmutes October 12,2005 Page 8 Conditions 1. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain all required local, State, and Federal permits, including Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife Hydraulic Permit Approval, Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification (Section 40 I) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Resources Use Authorization, and Clallam County Environmental Health Proj ect Approval. 2. The project shall be carried out in substantial conformance with submitted plans. All work shall be in conformance with conditions applied to all permits issued for the project. 3. If the subject site has not been previously inventoried, evaluated, and reviewed to the satisfaction of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the subject site shall be evaluated by a cultural review team which shall include a professional archaeologist, a representative ofthe Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the site owner, and the Port Angeles Department of Community and Economic Development. This team shall determine the extent of excavation monitoring for the project during the permit review process. As an alternative, the applicant may volunteer to have an approved archaeologist on site during any excavation in lieu of a review by the aforementioned cultural team. If during an excavation that by decision of the cultural review team occurs without an approved archaeologist on-site, any phenomena of possible archaeological interest are uncovered, the developer shall stop such work and provide for a site inspection and evaluation by a professional archaeologist to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data is properly salvaged. 4. The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation or other negative environmental impacts to the greatest degree possible during construction of the project. 5. The slope area above the beach shall be revegetated with native plant materials. Nonnative plants used for quick revegetation of the sloped area shall be limited to annual grasses that may be incidental to a seed mixture. The revegetation shall take place at the earliest point in time following completion of final slope grading. 6. The applicant shall work in coordination with the Clallam County Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that issues related to drainage discharge from the revetment wall are mitigated. 7. Because of the heterogenous and degradable nature of the landfilled material behind the retaining wall, periodic monitoring of the discharged water quality should be continued after the construction is completed. Findings Based on the information provided in the October 12,2005, Staff Report for SMA 05-02 (including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that: 1. An application for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit was submitted by the City of Port Angeles Public Works and Utilities Department, on August 30,2005, for the construction of a shoreline armoring system to protect the upland landfill area from continued erosional forces of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The site is at the City owned landfill and will occur 30 . . . Planmng CommISSIOn Mmutes October 12,2005 Page 9 feet above the mean higher high tide line. Regrading and revegetation ofthe uplands behind the wall and beach nourishment waterward of the wall will occur. In accordance with the Shoreline Management Act and the local Shoreline Master Program, a conditional use may be granted if all five of the specified criteria for approval of a CUP can be met as follows: I) applicable policies are maintained; 2) public use ofthe shoreline is not impacted; 3) compatibility with adjacent uses can be made; 4) no adverse effects to the shoreline will result; and 5) that the public interest is maintained. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued by the City of Port Angeles SEP A Responsible Official for the proposal on September 26,2005. Mitigating conditions address permits required for the proposed work. The work proposed was planned to address requirements of the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and critical areas ordinances have been reviewed with respect to this application. The site meets the criteria of a previously altered environmentally sensitive area, having been altered by the placement of refuse materials at a time when such activity was allowed. The previous alteration did significantly disrupt the natural functions and values of the environmentally sensitive area and the proposed alteration will not further disrupt the natural functions and values of the environmentally sensitive area. The proposal will utilize to the maximum extent possible the best available construction, design, and development techniques which will result in the least adverse impact on the environmentally sensitive area. The proposal incorporates all other development standards of Section 15.20.070 P AMC and the proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 15.20 P AMC 6. The site is designated Open Space in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Public Buildings and Parks in the City's Zoning Ordinance, and Urban-Shoreline Protection in the City's Shoreline Master Program. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. Chapter 5 of the City's Shoreline Master Program indicates that beach restoration and enhancement are permitted uses in the U-SP designation, however, bulkheads are listed as conditional uses in the U-SP designation. Chapter 6, B, Regulation 1 indicates that all shoreline modification activities must be in support of a permitted shoreline use and Regulation 2 requires that structural shoreline modification measures shall be permitted only if nonstructural measures are unable to achieve the same purpose. 8. The City's Comprehensive Plan was reviewed in consideration of the proposal and the following adopted City policies are most relevant to the proposed project: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policies A-2, Conservation Element Policy A-I, and B 2, 9, and 11. 9. No formal public access to the beach exists at the project location, however, the beach can be accessed by foot from other access points or by boat. 10. Notice ofthe application was placed in the Peninsula Daily News on September 2,2005 and September 27,2005, as a result of that notice comments were received from the Olympic Peninsula Chapter of the Surf rider Foundation, Olympic Environmental Council and the Clallam County Environmental Health Services. Those comments were considered in the review and conditions of approval. . . . Planmng CommiSSIOn Minutes Page 10 Conclusions Based on the information provided in the October 12, 2005 Staff Report for SMA 05-02 including all of its attachments, comments and information presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes that: 1. As conditioned the proposed project is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Master Program, Critical Areas Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The project as designed will minimize detrimental impacts to the shoreline. 3. As conditioned, the proposed project will enhance the shoreline environment. 4. As proposed, the project meets the criteria for a conditional use permit identified in P AMC 17.96.050. 5. As conditioned, the proposed project will not interfere with public use oflands or waters and in the public interest as it prevents further degradation of the shoreline and beach area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Matthews and passed 6 - O. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None STAFF REPORTS None REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ~d:~:~ / PREPARED BY: S. Roberds ~ORTA.NGELES WAS H I N G TON, U S. A PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET PLEASE SIGN IN Meeting Agenda of: Pu ~ /,;( ;( () ()---S I To help us provide an accurate record of those in attendance, please sign in. Your signature acknowledges your presence. If you plan to testify, by your signature below, you certify that the testimony given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington. Signature below DOES NOT REQUIRE you to testify. Agenda Item No. 517 HI(yHC/2..0~T OVA""''''' o;v V,2 Sf-QO l<\~'"i tfZt:rl.. ~~;4!~/WJ(- \IlL V V,Z V' \/, -Z ~ W, VIe-lob JL\\ JohnslJY1 . 3~/7 s. f)1J. ~ a /31 C: \My Flles\FORMS\Mtgrostpc. wpd V,L 1/1 !V