Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/23/1991 ',., .~ . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 October 23 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL m. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES: Meeting of October 9, 1991 IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. 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. (Continued from meeting of September 25, 1991.) V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS 1. Budget Report VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS 1. PRD Zoning Code Amendment Vill. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence pertaining 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: Ray Gruver, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice-Chairj 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 Port Angeles, Washington October 23, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gruver called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Ray Gruver, Bob Philpott, Bill Anabel, Larry Leonard, Cindy Souders, Jim Hulett. Members Excused: Roger Catts. Staff Present: Brad Collins, David Sawyer. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Philpott noted that on page 6, Fran Burch's address should read 1036 East First street. Mr. Leonard moved to accept the corrected minutes of October 9/ 1991. The motion was seconded by Mr. Philpott, and passed 6 - O. IV PUBLIC HEARING 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. (Continued from meetings of Julv 31. 1991. and September 25. 1991.) Mr. Sawyer reviewed the Department Report and the related errata sheet, noting additional corrections and recommended inclusions. Mr. Collins briefed the Commission on staff's recommendation to include King county's Environmentally Sensitive Ordinance section on reasonable use in both of the proposed ordinances. Mr. Anabel and Chairman Gruver noted they had listened to~the~tap,es "o,L,:the.~pr.av.i.ous_public hearings at which they had been absent. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. Norman Brooks, 723 Elizabeth Place, expressed continued con- cern about a wetland off Melody Lane, and he wanted his testimony on October 9, 1991, to be included as part of the public record for the hearing on the critical areas ordi- nances. Mr. Brooks pointed out that this wetland is being drained by a new north/south ditch as part of the work that is going on at that location. He has contacted the State . PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 2 Department of Wildlife regarding this and suggested the city consider a moratorium on this type of work until these ordinances are adopted. He urged the Commissioners to read an article in the October 23, 1991, Seattle Post-Intelliqencer. Bill Dawson, 1224 West Fourth street, expressed his support of these ordinances, in some form at least, until some State or Federal guidelines are adopted. He stated he does take exception to section 7.4 of the wetlands ordinance regarding limited density transfer, which allows for increased density of dwelling units if wetlands and bluffs remain intact. He indicated he would support this only if these areas are otherwise protected by city zoning, state and Federal regula- tions. Otherwise, this section degrades the purpose of the ordinance. Art Dunker, 2114 West Sixth Street, expressed his concern about restrictions regarding stormwater runoff and the costs associated with mitigating such runoff. He requested that stormwater runoff from residences be excluded from control, due to the added cost to prospective homeowners. Mr. Dunker also asked if the maps referenced in the ordinances have been completed. . staff responded by stating there are various maps on file in the Planning Department which have been received from state and Federal agencies, and the information on these maps will be placed on a composite critical area map. This map is a general map and is not to be used for regulatory purposes. The only City map available currently is one showing environ- mentally sensitive areas as identified by the SEPA Ordinance. A series of maps will be produced for the final adoption of the ordinances. staff also pointed out that the issue of stormwater runoff is addressed in the proposed clearing and grading ordinance. Mr. Leonard questioned staff about the authority for minimum guidelines, as required by the state of Washington. Mr. Collins responded that the City had been working earlier with an interpretation that "the minimum guidelines shall be considered" meant we had less discretion to vary from those minimum guidelines without developing our own expert rationale for wetlands regulations. However, in a conversation today with steve Wells, who is the state's critical areas expert, he indicated ,that ~he min:hmumrguidelines.. are not minimums but --"'just- guidelines that- shall be considered. It was noted that the City could request up to three months' additional review time, but our agendas have also been scheduled for a great number of other deadlines. . Nita Frantz, P. O. Box 748, provided the Planning commission with a copy of an October 9, 1991, opinion from the Attorney General's Office stating that the Department of Ecology did not have authority to require the model wetlands ordinance. Ms. Frantz indicated she was representing the North Olympic Home Builders Association and had received the information PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 3 . from Jan Teague of the Building Industry Association of Washington. Mr. Hulett noted from the AGO, that while DOE did not have authority, the City can under the Growth Management Act. Art Dunker, 2114 West Sixth Street, agreed that the AGO said no state authority, although local ordinances can embody no net loss of wetlands. Linda Nutter, 1701 East Third Street, said she was totally confused and that we may need some delay before approving the wetlands ordinance, but not forever, because the public needs these critical areas protected. Ken Schermer, 738 West sixth street, indicated that he was a member of the Growth Management Advisory Committee and suggested that the user guide in the GMAC draft cover memo be used to explain the interim nature of these guidelines. He urged their adoption for the public to see how the guidelines work and for the public to evaluate their implementation. Chairman Gruver noted that staff had presented them that way to the Planning commission. . Mr. Leonard asked how the interim ordinances would affect affordable housing. Mr. Schermer responded not much with wetlands, because there are few wetlands in Port Angeles, but more affected by environmentally sensitive area regulations (for example, viewsheds in reference to a correction on page 30 found in the errata sheet). He went on to say that yes, there is going to be an impact. Mr. Leonard asked if the cure was going to be worse than the illness. Mr. Schermer answered no, as the City needs to preserve stream corridors. He was also concerned the City may have to buy private property, which is a real problem. There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. Mr. Leonard asked staff about the questions raised about DOE's authority. Mr. Collins responded that DOE has the expertise to write model ordinances and that the city relied on that expertise. ..However I .. w~"^ have"""more_disc.r.etion...to.change the wetlands model ordinance, if we choose. . Mr. Leonard asked if DOE was writing a State-wide law for the State to adopt. Mr. Collins said no; that their intention was to write a uniform ordinance for all jurisdictions. Mr. Collins went on to explain staff's and GMAC I S approach to model wetlands and the other ordinances I approach for environ- mentally sensitive areas. He explained that the GMAC accepted less restrictive setbacks for environmentally sensitive areas but not for wetlands. PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 4 . Ms. Souders explained that the review started back in June and that the GMAC did not just accept any of the proposed language but went through page by page, and in some cases spent whole days on just one paragraph, before unanimously recommending the interim ordinances after all the review was completed. Mr. Collins noted the editorial corrections suggested by the Public Works Department. Chairman Gruver asked whether the GMAC would change their recommendations, such as on wetlands setbacks, as they had done for environmentally sensitive areas, if they knew they had more discretion. Ms. Souders responded that she would not; that she thought it should be made stronger and referred to eight loopholes which she had found in the language. Mr. Collins suggested several options for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. Review the recommended ordinances, make changes, and recommend critical area ordinances to the City Council for November 19th action, before the December 1st deadline. (Reviews could take place on October 23rd, October 30th, or November 6th.) 2. Request December 1st extension up to three months and ask for GMACjstaff review of certain issues. . 3. Do both, since GMAC normally meets Wednesday mornings and therefore could meet again prior to October 30th or November 6th. Mr. Hulett asked if interim ordinance approval then goes to the state for approval. Mr. Collins indicated once the City approved interim ordinances, they would be sent to the State. The State would review and may not accept the City's interim ordinances if they are not as restrictive as the minimum guidelines; but nothing is spelled out in GMA if the state rejects the City's interim ordinances. Mr. Leonard asked about taxes being withheld. Mr. Collins indicated that sanction was in 1025 for County-wide planning policy inaction. Sanctions for failure to meet the September I, 1991, critical areas deadline are not known, except for difficulty in receiving future GMA assistance grants. . . . ..-.---_....... ~--- Mr. Hulett asked. if the County need approve the interim ordinances. Mr. Collins said no, it was a City decision, and noted that the AGO says there is local authority and that some jurisdictions adopted such ordinances before the Growth Management Act was passed. . Mr. Anabel noted that the ordinances were interim only. Mr. Collins stated the ordinances would go into effect and give us real-life examples of where they might fail to protect wet- lands or might stop a housing development on Melody Lane, for example. Mr. A1?-abel stated we need to test the interim PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 5 . ordinances. Chairman Gruver went over the options again. Mr. Leonard asked why we should adopt such regulations when Federal and state agencies cannot figure out what should be done. Mr. Collins explained that our ordinances are based on the latest version of Federal and state definitions, maps, and methodologies. The Planning Commission decided they wanted to have language which specifically makes our requirements change if the Federal and state requirements change. Mr. Collins pointed out language on page 8, section 2(C) (c), page 11, Section 4.2, and pages 12 and 13, section 4.4, where these changes had already been made. Ms. Souders asked that we add the language to keep the maps current. . The Planning Commission decided to incorporate the reasonable use exception on pages 25 through 27 of wetlands and pages 37 through 38 in environmentally sensitive areas. Mr. Collins requested that we not replace those sections, but combine and incorporate the King County language. Ms. Souders questioned why we have reasonable use exceptions. Mr. Collins indicated it makes the administration easier by showing the process and it keeps our ordinances in line with the State Supreme Court decision on takings by this type of regulation. The Planning Commission agreed to leave references to reason- able use exceptions on page 25 of Wetlands and page 20 of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and to place the reasonable use exception in a separate section in each ordinance. A lengthy discussion followed, explaining the reasonable use exception, using the PresbyterY v. King County Supreme Court case. Mr. Leonard asked if the Ordinances called for automatic just compensation. Mr. Collins indicated no, but Constitutional rights against taking without just compensation cannot be ignored. Mr. Philpott noted a correction on page 25, section 7.2(C), referncing Categories 2 and 3. Mr. Philpott moved and Mr. Anabel seconded the inclusion of a new section .for: reasonable use ~,exception, ,with language ~'providing for'just compensation when a taking occurs. The motion passed 6 - O. The Planning Commission took a break at 9:40 P.M. and returned to session at 9:55 P.M. . Chairman Gruver moved audience comment onto the agenda, due to the lateness of the hour. Art Dunker, 2114 West Sixth Street, questioned whether the revised clearing and grading ordinance was premature, since . PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 6 the builders had scheduled a meeting with staff to review the ordinance. Mr. Collins said that the October 21st clearing and grading revisions responded to concerns given previously and made the ordinance more simple. He indicated a November 4th meeting had been scheduled with Jan Teague and that the city Council had signaled that it would not be addressing the issue on November 5th or 19th. There being no further audience comments, Chairman Gruver returned the discussion back to the critical areas ordinances. The Planning Commission went through a long series of specific changes, with the following results, either approved by consensus, or passed unanimously: Wetlands, page 16, section 5.2(b), added the words IIbut not limited to". " Environmentally Sensitive Areas, page 19, deleted the words "by the applicant" after "proposed boundary", and added that the applicant shall pay for study costs. . Environmentally sensitive Areas, page 32, deleted Section D, Steep Slopes. Environmentally Sensitive Areas, page 8, deleted the words "5. Steep slopes" from the definition of critical areas. Environmentally Sensitive Areas, page 31, section 2, added a new small letter b. that would preserve and/or replace vegetation on steep slopes. " Environmentally Sensitive Areas, page 24, g, deleted the words IIslopes 15 - 25%, 25 - 4~%, andll if they are no longer needed. " Environmentally Sensitive Areas, page 3D, deleted the word "public" before IIviewshed enhancement". " Environmentally Sensitive Areas, page 41, section d.3, added "appropriate standards for urban trails from staff". Environmentally Sensitive Areas, page 42, section f.1, added ..the. words, }I.unl~ss._other.w:ise_al.lowed,..by Department of Fisheries". Mr. Philpott moved and Ms. Souders seconded approval of the interim wetlands protection ordinance, which passed unanimously. . Mr. Hulett moved and Mr. Anabel seconded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Interim Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Ordinance, as amended, and with staff corrections, which motion passed unanimously. . . D. . PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 7 Mr. Hulett moved and Mr. Anabel seconded to recommend adoption of the staff's October 23rd memo, citing the following findings and conclusions: Interim Wetland Protection Ordinance: FINDINGS: 1. Wetlands and their buffer areas are valuable and fragile natural resources with significant development constraints due to flooding, erosion, soil liquefaction potential, and septic disposal limitations. 2. In their natural state, wetlands provide many valuable social and ecological services, such as controlling flood waters, preventing shoreline erosion, providing areas for groundwater recharge, providing wildlife habitat, and providing open space and recreation opportunities. 3. Development in wetlands results in increased soil erosion, degradation of water quality, wildlife habitat and groundwater recharge areas. 4. Buffer areas surrounding wetlands are essential to the maintenance and protection of wetland functions and values. CONCLUSIONS: A. The loss of the social and ecological services provided by wetlands results in a detriment to public safety and welfare; replacement of such services, if possible at all, can require considerable public expenditure. B. A considerable acreage of these important natural resources has been lost or degraded by draining, dredging, filling, excavating, building, polluting, and other acts inconsistent with the natural uses of such areas. Remaining wetlands are in jeopardy of being lost, despoiled, or impaired by such acts. C. It is therefore necessary for the City of Port Angeles to ensure maximum protection for wetland areas by discourag- ing.development~activities.in..wetlands_.and those activi- ties at adjacent sites that may adversely affect wetland functions and values; to encourage restoration and enhancement of already degraded wetland systems; and to encourage creation of new wetland areas. The adoption of this ordinance and the protection of the City'S wetlands is consistent with Sections 2(9,10), 5(1), 6(1) and 17(1,d) of the Growth Management Act (ESHB2929); Section 21(2) of the Act's 1991 Amendment (RESHB1025) ; and the following policies listed in Chapter 6 of the city Comprehensive Plan: . . . PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 8 Goal: "A community where development and use of the land are done in a manner that is compatible with the environment, the characteristics of the use and the users." Residential Policies Nos. 12 and 13: 12. Residential developments should preserve and capitalize on existing unusual, unique and interesting natural features, should utilize and preserve scenic views, should maximize southern exposures, should offer protection from the prevailing winds, and should be designed to minimize energy use. 13. Building density should decrease as constraints, such as slope, drainage conditions increase. natural and soil Open Space Policies Nos. 2, 3, and 4: 2. Areas with severe physical constraints should not be intensively developed. 3. Wherever possible, unique environmental and topo- graphic features should be preserved. I 4. Natural topographic conditions and soil conditions should be a major determinant of the intensity of development of all areas of the community. Land Use Objectives Nos. I, 3, 6, 7: 1. To encourage the most appropriate use of the land in Port Angeles. 3. To conserve and restore areas of natural beauty and other natural resources. 6. To promote a coordinated development of the unde- veloped areas of the city and of the surrounding suburban area. ,_ 7. ._}J?9'H~guide....,:the_ph1lSicaL....de.v.elopment _of _the area through planning and planning implementing methods. E. The adoption of this ordinance is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. Interim Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Ordinance: FINDINGS: 1. Development in stream corridors results in siltation of streams, loss of stream corridor vegetation, elimination . . PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 9 of wildlife and fish habitat, increased peak flow rates and decreased summer low flow rates, stream channeli- zation, piping of streamflow and crossing of streams by culverts. and construction near or within streams. 2. Development of geological (erosion, landslide, seismic) hazard areas results in potential threat to the health and safety of residents and employees of local businesses, potential damage or loss to public and private property, potential degradation of water quality and the physical characteristics of waterways due to increased sedimentation, potential losses to the public as a result of increased expenditures for replacing or repairing public facilities. 3. Development of fish and wildlife habitat areas results in losses in the numbers and varieties of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species: loss of streamside vege- tation: loss of opportunities for outdoor recreation such as hunting, fishing, bird-watching, sightseeing and similar activities: loss of economic opportunities in forestry, fisheries, shellfish and tourism industries: and loss of opportunities for scientific research and education. 4. Development of locally unique land features (ravines, marine bluffs, beaches) results in disruption of the natural functioning of regional surface drainage systems and the aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, increased threats to life and property as a consequence of exposure to geologic hazards and flooding, disruption of natural longshore drift processes, destruction of natural green- belts, and lbss of opportunities for trail systems and other forms of passive recreation. CONCLUSIONS: A. It is therefore necessary for the City of Port Angeles to ensure maximum protection for environmentally sensitive areas by discouraging development acti vi ties in such areas and those activities at adjacent sites that may adversely affect the natural functions and values of such areas: and to.encourage restoration and enhancement of alreagy degraded environmental~~,sensitive .areas. B. . The adoption of this ordinance and the protection of the city's environmentally sensitive areas is consistent with Sections 2(9,10), 5(1), 6(1) and 17(l,d) of the Growth Management Act (ESHB2929): Section 21(2) of the Act's 1991 Amendme~t (RESHB1025): and the following policies listed in Ch~pter 6 of the City Comprehensive Plan: -~ ft I. PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 10 Goal: "A community/where development and use of the land are done in a manner that is compatible with the environment, the characteristics of the use and the users." Residential Policies Nos. 12 and 13: 12. Residential developments should preserve and capitalize on existing unusual, unique and interesting natural features, should utilize and preserve scenic views, should maximize southern exposures, should offer protection from the prevailing winds, and should be designed to minimize energy use. 13. Building density should decrease as natural constraints, such as slope, drainage and soil conditions increase. Open Space Policies Nos. 2, 3, and 4: 2. Areas with severe physical constraints should not be intensively developed. 3. Wherever possible, unique environmental and topo- graphic features should be preserved. 4. Natural topographic conditions and soil conditions should be a major determinant of the intensity of development of all areas of the community. Land Use Objectives Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7: 1. To encourage the most appropriate use of the land in Port, Angeles. 3. To conserve and restore areas of natural beauty and other natural resources. 6. To promote a coordinated development of the unde- veloped areas of the city and of the surrounding suburban area. ,7. To ~guide .the_.physical ,development of the area through planning and planning implementing methods. C. The adoption of this ordinance is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. On call for the question, the motion passed unanimously. V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 11 VI STAFF REPORTS Budqet Report Mr. Collins said we do not yet have the City Manager's recommendations on the 1992 Planning Department budget. Primary concern will be about the timing of the EIS on the Comprehensive Plan update for Growth Management. , Mr. Anabel indicated that he did not wish to renew his APA membership for 1992. Staff and the Planning Commission discussed copies of the simplified version of the clearing and grading ordinance, DBC Chapter 70, clearing and grading ordinance benefits memo, and Norman Brooks' letter responding to concerns about the Melody Lane wetlands, which were all delivered to the Planning Commissioners on October 21, 1991. The Planning Commissioners requested that the Public Works Director explain the differences between the old and the new UBC Chapter 70 and why a separate clearing and grading ordinance was better. VII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS PRD Zoning Code Amendment Mr. Collins discussed the Innovative Housing Committee's proposed PRD amendments and the need for the Planning Commission to report to the City Council before action should be taken. Discussion followed on the legal requirements and best policies for public hearings on zoning code amendments and on listening to tapes of public hearings according to the city Attorney's memorandum. The Commission decided that they would not report on the PRD amendments without holding a public hearing, which was then scheduled for November 13, 1991. Ms. Souders asked that enough money be budgeted for heat in the City Council Chambers on the second and fourth Wednesday evenings of each month. Mr. Leonard asked that the microphones be repaired to avoid the echoing which occurs, particularly on microphone No.2. Mr. Hulett indicated that the cars for sale in the Pay 'N Save parking lot were again a problem'. Ms. Souders moved and Mr. Anabel seconded that the Planning Commission ask ~e City council to explore funding for providing sidewalks around public schools, which passed unanimously. . . :. PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1991 Page 12 VIII ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:1 "~ o lins, Secretary PLAN. 525 . Name ~ /I-dv -fCd- tI~trd :R t>Ct KS ~ M ~ d-~y' )rJty I LllmA AllL -rr~t< . ~4,A r 7Jb'u/k-.L rc 131&'-' ~sc71\.l . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of Meeti Date Location Address p (). ~tJ-f 7 y?? ) /JA 7')-.3 i=LI Z1t /31:-117 -Pl.A-cC, .if;+- /J~ tV C r{ r/l /70 I EI1ST 7i!1/U) Pit- 21/C( /// ~ &. -57 M~ lac- N, 41:: I{\/ 16<- LU. rt "L ,