Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/14/1981 . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington January 14, 1981 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brewer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Patrick Downie, Charles Whidden, Colin Bennett, David Brewer, Richard Anderson Members Absent: Milton E. Ranta (One position vacant) Staff Present: PaulO. Carr, Dan VanHemert, Louise Frost III APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Mr. Anderson moved to approve the December 10, 1980, minutes as submitted; Mr. Downie seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. Chairman Brewer announced that Items 7, 8 and lIon this evening's Agenda were being tabled. Mr. Bennett formally moved to continue items 7, 8 and II to the February 11th meeting. Mr. Whidden seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. IV HEARINGS TEMPORARY USE HEARING - HIGH TIDE SEAFOODS, INC. Request for extension of a Temporary Use Permit for a fish processing operation in the CBO Zone. Location: The pier at the foot of Oak Street. (Continued from December 10, 1980.) Mr. VanHeffiert reviewed the request for an extension of the permit. Chairman Brewer opened the public hearing. I Ernie Vail said nothing has changed; they are still waiting for the Port to find them an appropriate site. Chairman Brewer closed the public hearing. e. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend approval of the Temporary Use Permit for an additional year; Mr. Downie seconded the motion. On call for the question, the motion passed unani- mously. . . . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - McNUTT. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a pre-school and day care center in an existing church build- ing. Location: 1016 West Sixteenth Street. (Cont.inued 'from December '1'0, 1980.) Mr. VanHemert reviewed the staff report; Chairman Brewer opened the public hearing. Iola McNutt said the State Fire Marshall has examined the building and is satisfied; she is awaiting final approval from DSHS. Chairman Brewer closed the putilic hearing. Mr. Downie moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, citing the following findings: 1. That a pre-school/day care center is an appropriate use of the Church during non-service hours; 2. That the use is compatible and desirable in a resi- dential area; 3. That the site 1S satisfactory for a pre-school/day care center. He further recommended that the permit be conditioned on the pre-school and day care center not starting business until all appropriate permits are granted. Mr. Anderson seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. ALLEY VACATION HEARING - ROBINSON, et al. Petition to vacate the eastern portion of the 7th/8th alley, east of Chambers Street. Location: 7th/8th alley, east of Chambers Street. (Continued from December 10,1980.) Mr. VanHemert reviewed the staff report; Chairman Brewer opened the public hearing. Gene Robinson said that his house is on the alley right- of-way, and this makes it difficult to do necessary main- tenance work on the house. If the requested portion of the alley were vacated, the City could maintain the exist- ing utilities through retention of an easement. At this time, unauthorized vehicles come up the alley and drive out to 7th Street by way of his drive. Chairman Brewer closed the public hearing. . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page 3 Mr. Bennett moved to recommend denial of the request to vacate, based on the fact that it will not be in the pub- lic interest; will reduce maintenance capabilities of the existing utilities; and will lower the potential for ex- pansion of future utilities. He further suggested that the applicant contact the City about obtaining an easement to clear the title problem. Mr. Downie seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. REZONE HEARING - AUSTIN. Request to rezone 7,000 square feet from PBP (Public Buildings and Parks) to CSD-CI (Community Shopping District). Location: North side of Ninth Street, west of Race Street. (Continued from De"c"ernberlO" / 1980.) Mr. VanHemert reviewed the staff report; Chairman Brewer opened the public hearing. . Gerry Austin started building his office complex in 1972, when it was permissible to have parking immediately adja- cent to the alley. Since then, the requirements have been changed. He will be putting in two more offices to complete the complex and the additional doctors there will require 6 additional parking spaces each. His present parking lot has 43 spaces. With two more doctors, he will be short 9 spaces. The proposed rezone site is pre-existing fill. He proposes to have employees parking on that lot and will allow the gar- bage truck to go through the lot, thereby eliminating the necessity of backing into the alley off Race Street. The Light Department does not intend to expand the substation at this time. The adjoining property owners do not object to the rezone. The area is not really residential, because of the amount of traffic. It would be better utilized for business purposes from Race Street to the Ravine. If this rezone is denied, he could purchase lots to the west of his medical complex. Chairman Brewer closed the public hearing. Mr. Downie asked Mr. Austin if the existing parking lot is ever filled; and was told not at this time, but with two ad- ditional doctors, it could be over-filled. Mr. Downie ob- served that the Commission has tried to protect the Ravines and the unique features of them. . In response to a question, Mr. Carr explained that the gar- bage truck backs into the alley to eliminate backing out into the Race Street traffic. Mr. Downie asked Mr. Austin if the parking lot would be so designed that the garbage truck could drive through it from the alley to Ninth. Mr. Austin said "yes"; and parking is a permitted use in the PBP Zone and the proposed use would be the highest and best . . . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page 4 use of the land for the public. Mr. VanHemert explained that the reference to parking lots was for accessory pur- poses. The required off-street parking should bear the same zoning as the primary use, the doctors' offices. Mr. Downie moved to recommend denial, citing the following reasons: 1. The use of the edge and walls of the Ravine for com- mercial purposes is not in compliance with Open Space policies Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The proposal does not represent a natural extension of commercial zoning. 3. The uses would be incompatible with both Peabody Creek Ravine and the nearby residential district. 4. The proposed rezone would not be in the best in- terests of the public, but rather in the private interests of the applicant. Mr. Whidden seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REZONE HEARING - ITT RAYONIER, INC. Request to re- zone approximately 7.72 acres from PBP, Public Build- ings and Parks, to M-2 Industrial. Location: North and east of Ennis Creek, south of ITT Rayonier Secon- dary Treatment facilities and west of City Sewage Treatment facilities. (Tabled May 23, 1979; continued from December 10," 1980.)" Mr. Carr explained that he has been in contact with the ap- plicant advising that an EIS has been requested. Mr. Anderson moved to table this request until the Draft EIS is complete. Mr. Bennett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REZONE HEARING - DUBIGK, et al. Request to rezone 63,000 square feet from CAD (Commercial Arterial District) to RMF (Residential Multi-Family). Loca- tion: South side of Front Street between Peabody and Vine "St"reets.(Continuedfrom December 10, 1980.) Mr. VanHemert reviewed the staff report; Chairman Brewer opened the public hearing. Gary Velie, representing the applicant, reviewed the prob- lem behind this request - single-family residences in a . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page 5 commercial zone. The land is being assessed at a very high value and the structure values are almost nothing. The only access to the lots is through a 20-foot alley. There is a beautiful view; the area is close to Downtown and the major arterials. The present residents have oc- cupied their houses for many years and will continue to do so. Recent development in the area has been residen- tial, not commercial. In addition to the Policies cited by Staff, Residential Policy No. 18 and Urban Design Policy No. 2 also apply. The Commercial policies do not take into consideration the specifics of the parcel in question. The exposure is poor for any commercial use. Modification of the site is almost impossible due to the heavy water flow along the entire bank all year long. Parking requirements for commercial development would be difficult to meet because of the lot area in steep bank. Multi-family zoning would correspond to all recent de- velopment in the area; while the commercial zoning ren- ders maintenance of the existing houses difficult. The subject property and the one-half block to the west have a similar street access problem. . Dr. Dubigk said there is no possible way to get access to Front Street from this block. Mr. Downie asked if the residents intended to raze their houses and construct multi-family dwellings. Dr. Dubigk said no, they intend to remain. Mr. Velie pointed out some day change may come to the area and the most logical change would be to higher density residential use to capitalize on the view. Mr. Downie asked if the existing homes in a commercial district have negatively impacted the Commercial "T"; and Mr. Carr responded Ilnol1, primarily due to the grade separation. He explained that multi-family can occur in a commercial zone, while single-family cannot. However, single-family can occur in a multi-family zone. A reason for including this half-block in the commercial district was to maintain a solid, continuous district. The site complies with both the Commercial and Residential Policies of the Plan. . Pat McDowell said the residents already have the option of constructing multi-family under the present zoning. The requested rezone is a compromise, allowing Single-family residences to remain and multi-family development now or in the future. Mr. Anderson mentioned that it was an old neighborhood. Ed Ranta, one of the residents, said he built his house there in 1946 to enjoy the view. He wants a place to stay for the rest of his life, close to Downtown. Chairman Brewer read a letter opposing the rezone from Dr. Bettger into the record. . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page 6 John Somers, another resident, agrees with the requested rezone. The existing real estate office in the area does not provide adequate parking. Chairman Brewer closed the public hearing. Mr. Downie moved to recommend approval of the rezone from CAD to RMF, because of compliance with the Residential Policies of the Comprehensive Plan; the present uses have not weakened the CAD zone; therefore the requested down- zone would not weaken it. Residential uses may strengthen the zone and there are site specific topography conditions which make the area less desirable for commercial use. Mr. Bennett seconded the motion. Mr. Anderson questioned the possibility of this being con- sidered a "spot zone". Mr. Bennett noted that there are five people jointly asking for rezoning of their property, not just one owner. Mr. Downie pointed out that residen- tial uses in the area of the bluff will strengthen the Down- town. On call for the question, the motion passed unani- mously. . PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING - KEY. Request to consider a proposed Planned Residen- tial Development on approximately 25 acres. Lo- cation: South of Campbell Avenue; east of Mount Angeles Road; bordering White Creek on the east. (Continued from November 12, 1980; December 10, 1980. ) Pursuant to motion previously made by Mr. Bennett, this mat- ter was continued to February ll, 1981. CONDITIONAL USE HEARING - LAMB. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a duplex in an RS-9 District. Location: Southwest corner of Flores Street and Milwaukee Drive. (Continued from November 12, 1980; December 10, 1980.) Pursuant to motion previously made by Mr. Bennett, this mat- ter was continued to February 11, 1981. . PARKING VARIANCE - TERRILL. Request for reduction in off-street parking spaces from 83 required for restaurant/barber shop to 7 spaces. Location: 408 South Lincoln Street. Mr. Bennett excused himself from consideration of this mat- ter and left the hearing room. . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page 7 Mr. Carr reviewed the staff report; Chairman Brewer opened the public hearing. . Marjorie Terrill said that the purpose of the variance is to permit expanding the restaurant. Customers come primarily from the Court House and surrounding businesses; and the proposed Convention Center and new office building to the north will generate new customers. 87% of the trade is foot traffic. The majority of the other 13% are before 8 AM or after 3 PM. She has approached the County about leasing part of their satellite lot. The County said that the City would have to relax its parking requirements before the County could lease any portion of that lot. Mr. Downie asked what the hours of operation are. Ms. Terrill told him she opens up at 4 AM, and closes at 7 PM in the winter and at 9 PM in the summer. After remodeling, the restau- rant may remain open later. Mr. Downie observed that adding a different type of service may attract an auto-dependent clientele. Ms. Terrill responded that professional people are moving closer to the Court House, and that most of the attorneys are there now. Most customers would still be foot traffic during the day-time hours; the increase would prob- ably be in dinner traffic when there are fewer people in the area and more parking available. Mr. Anderson asked what would become of the apartments on the second floor of the existing barbershop building; and Ms. Terrill replied that they would stay until the remodel- ing, when they would be removed. Mr. Anderson asked if the variance could be dependent on using the parking lot across the street. Mr. Carr explained that it was not part of this application. A substantial reduction was granted to the County; and to further reduce the County parking requirements would require action by the Commission and Council. Al- though the Court House may not presently need the existing parking, both the building and the parking lot were planned for growth. Chairman Brewer closed the public hearing. Mr. Downie moved to recommend denial of the parking variance request, citing the following reasons: 1. The magnitude of the reduction is such that any on- site parking would be utilized primarily by employees of the restaurant and barbershop. As the restaurant grows, the number of employees will also grow. . 2. The magnitude of the expansion of the building could result in increased patronage and have greater traf- fic impacts in the area. . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page 8 3. The interior changes in the building could attract a more auto-dependent clientele and therefore in- crease the demand for parking spaces. 4. The requested reduction is greater than any ever considered by the Commission in the past. Mr. Whidden seconded this motion, which passed unani- mously. Mr. Bennett returned to the hearing room. CONDITIONAL USE HEARING - CLALLAM COUNTY HOSTELRIES. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish and operate a group home for developmentally dis- abled adults. Location: Southeast corner of Hazel Street and Fairrnount Aven'ue. Mr. Carr reviewed the staff report; Chairman Brewer opened the public hearing. . Gary Gleason, Clallam County Hostelries, said they received a HUD grant to construct a new "Outlook Innu. The present building is old, two-story construction, and very difficult for people with multiple handicaps. It has been in opera- tion for ten years and has received few complaints. 24-hour wide-awake coverage is provided. There is no recreational space around the present building. Even the proposed site, although approved by HUD, is considered too remote; but con- sidering the rural character of Port Angeles, it might be acceptable. They expect 12 "residents"; with another double bedroom provided for live-in staff. There will be a drive-in with a covered entrance/exit to the single-story building. There will be .a van with IS-seat capacity and area f0T'~a lift. and wheelchair access; possibly a small staff car; and one or two other staff members' vehicles present at some time during the day. None of the residents drive. All of the residents will work or be in training programs. During the day the building will be empty, except for staff any any residents who are ill or presently not in any work-related program. During the late afternoon and on weekends, the staff would be two or three. . Bill Lindberg, the architect, stated that the HUD application requested 12 single-occupancy bedrooms and two staff bed- rooms. However, due to shortage of funds, the proposed building has been scaled down to six double-occupancy bed- rooms for residents and one double-occupancy bedroom for staff, which reduces it by about 1,000 square feet. The majority of the trees will be retained; and 25-foot setbacks will be maintained. The State requires that the building be . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page 9 residential in character and situated in a residential neighborhood. George Bower, 1115 Madrona, pointed out that the imrnedia~e area contains the greatest concentration of apartments in the City of Port Angeles; and the area residents object to more multiple uses. They have a water problem now and have had for many years. The City claims that the problem will be eliminated by the end of February. The objection is not to the proposed residents of the home, but to the multiple use dwelling units. Most homes in the area are 1800 square feet or less. The proposed use would be 3500 square feet. He then presented a petition opposing the use signed by some 100 people in the area. Jim Lunt, 4006 South Fairmount, a petitioner, said everyone likes the idea of having handicapped housing, so long as it is in someone else.s neighborhood. Now that he knows what the application is about, he regrets signing the petition. . Robert Kingery, 1017 Madrona, said that the area is zoned single-family, and the proposed use does not comply. Mr. Downie asked if the objectors would rather see five single- family residences with the same number of people and more vehicles? George Bower responded that the neighbors do not want additional multi-family use in the area, but do not object to single-family use. Chairman Brewer asked if he was objecting to the appearance of the building; and Mr. Bower replied that he was not objecting to the appearance or use of the building, but merely objecting to multi- family use. Mr. Kingery noted that most of the existing houses are on 1-1/2 lots. Audrey Bower said water pressure is worst late in the day, when she cannot run the dish- washer. . Doris Kingery stated that 14 bedrooms does not constitute a single-family dwelling. Margaret Schimschal, 1103 Madrona, noted that if this use goes in, it will be a precedent. . Victor Schimschal said the street lighting is bad and there are no sidewalks. He is concerned for the residents. safety. Mr. Anderson asked if there was any time limit for construc- tion of the group home; and Mr. Gleason responded that it must be under construction within 18 months of last Septem- ber. The residents will be young adults, ranging from 18 to 40 years of age~ There will be some foot traffic down to the store and restaurant on the highway, but that will only be one or two people at a time. Some of the residents cannot walk. . . . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page 10 Doris Kingery stated that rezoning for a multiple use like this would open the entire area. Mr. Carr explained the difference between a rezone and the permitted and condi- tional uses in the RS-7 District. James Nicholas, 1109 Madrona, was concerned that this particular use would re- sult in an L.I.D. for the area. George Bower asked how many conditional use permits for unpermitted uses could be granted in this area; to which Mr. Carr responded that there was no set formula, but the Commission and Council both try not to over-concentrate a particular conditional use in anyone area. Mr. Anderson explained that in order to have an L.I.D. area residents would have to sign a petition. Chairman Brewer closed the public hearing. Mr. Bennett moved to have the Commission go on record as interpreting that a group home facility could be compatible in a single-family residential district. Mr. Downie secon- ded this motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Bennett observed that the area is saturated with apart- ments, but he does not consider the proposal an apartment house. Mr. Downie explained that any decision rendered to- night does not open the door to apartments, duplexes, or any other multiple family use. Mr. Bennett observed that no matter what the Commission determines, the Council ren- ders the ultimate decision. Mr. Downie moved to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a group care home, subject to the following conditions: 1. That 25-foot setbacks be maintained adjacent to the Fairmount Avenue and Hazel Street rights-of-way, and at least 20 feet be maintained from the south prop- erty line. 2. That the natural trees be retained to the maximum extent possible, and additional landscaping be pro- vided on the east property line; and that the land- scaping plan be submitted to the Planning Department. 3. That the sewer be extended from the Spruce/Hazel alley at Euclid Street to serve this site by gravitYi or some other diversion, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Planning Commission January 14, 1981 . Page 11 4. That the Hazel Street, Fairmount Avenue and alley rights-of-way adjacent to the parcel be rededicated. 5. That the off-street parking area be improved as re- quired by Ordinance No. 1588, as amended, and pur- suant to the site plan as submitted. 6. That no occupancy be permitted until the water prob- lem has been solved. As reasons for his motion, he stated that neighborhoods have been strengthened by the type of people who will live in this structure, and it will not necessarily de- tract from the neighborhood. As further findings, he cited the following: A. That the use complies with the intent of the RS-7 District. B. The use complies with the Comprehensive Plan. . C. With the above conditions, the use can be com- patible with the immediate neighborhood. D. The impact upon public utilities and facilities is similar to that of a single-family residential development. Mr. Anderson seconded this motion. On call for the ques- tion, the motion passed 4 - 1, with Mr. Whidden voting "no" because there are too many apartments in the area; stress- ing that his negative vote did not reflect on the need for the use. ANNEXATION HEARING - KEY. Petition for annexation of approximately 8 acres of property contiguous to the City Limits of the City of Port Angeles. Loca- tion: South of Thistle Street, east of Albert Street, west of Eunice Street, north of Scribner Road. Pursuant to motion previously made by Mr. Bennett, this mat- ter was continued to February 11, 1981. V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 4It None. . ~. . Planning Commission January 14, 1981 Page l2 VI STAFF REPORTS Mr. Carr reminded the Commission of the subdivision field trip Saturday, January 17th at 8 AM; and the joint meeting with the Council Wednesday, January 21st, at 7 PM in the Council Chambers. He also reviewed the Albertson's parking lot site plan. VII REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS: Mr. Downie: Nothing. Mr. Whidden: Nothing. Mr. Bennett: Nothing. Mr. Anderson: Asked about Mr. Ranta's health. Chairman Brewer: Any other candidates for Commissioner? Mr. Carr advised that there are four, and hopefully the Council will appoint someone on the 20th. VIII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:37 P.M. ~~~CM- aul D. Carr, Secretary Chairman Tape Condition: Satisfactory PDC:DVH:LF . C I l' Y 0 r PO I1'f AN G 1: L J; S .!\'J'TI:NDh ~cr. HOS'f}:R .' . . Type ~f M eeti 09' p / ?t:Y0A I \\1. (I dIi\ 'rl1 t" Sf Oh Date: Location: J J i /!Ies 1- Gffi,i~". )f-reei- /-/t.j-<Jl- 1 N^ME . ADDRl:SS/AGENCY ~/ I tJ l',. F If d ""7 7' 1-1 () t: ~. .yc/~ ~~t'Y~ . . . rl. .. cJ...U) )71 .-- .-- l///7 r/llRi11 dv-"/ J1:t Ht--.Jy /01 Lv 4ff{:3 I II . ~ ",)( <;2 d .W ":~ . I . Ll.~.:~ .~j ;/24ti :21~;':.r: R~~ .~)? ;r;. '--.--,-.- ~ ..' ~ , jtJ3..:l 7nd~SI, If J { . i I i . . , . i J f I -/U I j . . i f ! i J. .. ~ I I t I I .1 I t J I .' I. ;""1 . I i t . .. _~J . , -----...-... I 1 .. t . ; . 0.... _____ I i ij0-1 ,If. ?/'tJNI ~T: Lj ~:; 0 .E , E..__~JA. , ( . I ( ---- . I , CITY or PORT ANGLL1~S .ATTI:ND1\NCr. nO~T]:R Type of Meeting: DiltC: . t . . , i . N^ME . ADDRJ:SS ^GT:UCY I I . i I i - . Lociltion: - . . , .. . "\~q W. 'O-~" ,,- .J..:;<<{- .C / () ~ I . . . ;)....ri-~ -c:. "?~ lAZ- I I ~ t I I . . I l "; J. , '! t . . . f i f I . I I # -. I . . . . - i . I ._-~----