Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/24/2002 o ~ ~~j ---.",. ........ - - ~ORTANGE,L,ES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street April 24, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER 7p,m. II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of April 1 0, 2002. IV. OLD BUSINESS: PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS - MCA 01-02 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES. City-Wide: Suggested changes to the City's sign, parking, environmental, subdivision, and zoning regulations (Titles 14-17). The changes were largely recommended by the Citizens Code Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council in 2001. (Continued discussion from April 10, 2002.) v, COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII, ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Chuck Schramm (Chair), Fred Hcwins (Vice Chair, Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Mary Craver, Rick Porter, Len Rasmusstn PLANNING 5T AFF: Brad Collins, Director; Scott Johns, Associale Planner; Sue Roberds, Assistant Planner. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 April 24 , 2002 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Philpott, Fred Hewins, Chuck Schramm, Mary Craver, Rick Porter, Len Rasmussen Members Excused: Fred Norton Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Scott Johns Public Present: Mike Millar APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Rasmussen indicated that during the discussion of amendments to the City's sign ordinance during the April 10, 2002, meeting (Page 6) he suggested that A-frame signs be redefined as a type of freestanding or detached sign so that they would be regulated under the pennit process thereby providing maximum flexibility to enforcement personnel without putting a burden on business owners. Ms. Roberds noted that she would include that summary in the minutes. Chair Schramm noted that the first sentence on Page 6 should read "... businesses appear to be in favor of such signs, and one sign per physical business location would not seem to present any negative impacts." With the corrections as noted, Commissioner Philpott moved to amend and accept the Apri11 0, 2002, minutes, The motion was seconded by Len Rasmussen and passed 5 - 0 with Commissioner Craver abstaining. OLD BUSINESS PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS - MCA 01-02 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES - City wide: Suggested changes to the City's sign, parking, environmental, subdivision, and zoning regulations (Titles 14 - 17). The changes were largely recommended by the Citizen's Code Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council in 2001. (Discussion is continued from April 10, 2002.) Director Collins reviewed the Community Development Department's staff memorandum outlining changes to the sign ordinance that were made by the Planning Commission following discussion on April 1 0, 2002. He indicated that Mike Millar, a commercial sign company business owner, was present to answer any questions regarding signage. Commissioner Porter disclosed that he is running for election and was not sure whether he should be included in the discussion regarding the size of political signs. Director Collins noted that as the issue is a legislative one, his participation should not be a problem. . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2002 Page 2 In discussing the maximum size of political signs (32 square feet) in residential zones, Mr. Collins indicated that he did not know if the size was set by the City or by some other legislation. He will check with the City Attorney on the issue. It was agreed that a clause should be included in the current proposed sign ordinance amendments indicating a commencement date following which existing signs could become nonconforming. In response to Commissioner Philpott, Mike Millar, 1327 East First Street, Port Angeles, thanked the Commission for their consideration of the amendment which he had originally requested allowing temporary commercial event signs intended to advertise a special event or special sales event. In response to Commissioner Porter, Mr. Millar discussed message center signs as opposed to flashing signs. Message center signs are regulated per International Sign Association (ISA) parameters which provide guidance as to the length of the message and the time delay period between messages. Mr. Millar said that the standard allowance for changing an electronic message is approximately 30 seconds. He answered Chair Schramm that the ISA has not come to a determination that traffic accidents are caused by message center boards. The Department of Transportation agrees that accidents have not been caused by message center boards and in fact commonly uses message center boards to alert motorists to needed traffic information as a public servIce. Director Collins concurred that message center signs are not a problem as long as the length of time between message changes is regulated and not constantly changing or a continuous scrawling message. Lengthy discussion ensued as to what is a lengthy message and the different periods of time for intermittent messages, blinking and flashing signs, and balloons. Mr. Collins pointed out that Mr. Millar stated the industry standard between message bursts is 30 seconds. Chair Schramm polled the Commission as to their concerns about flashing, rotating, blinking, and balloon signs. Commissioner Philpott felt that there is a double standard between these different types of advertising media. Commissioner Hewins believed there is a distinct difference between balloons to attract attention and moving message signs. Commissioner Craver believed that balloons are more distracting than message signs. Commissioner Porter did not have any problem with bal.1oons. Commissioner Rasmussen believed that to allow balloons would open up the proverbial Pandora's Box - how big should they be, how high could they be, content - etc. Huge blow up balloons intended to attract attention are distracting and not aesthetically pleasing to the driving public or to surrounding residential areas. It's a case of what we want the City to look like. The Commissioners agreed that standard message center signs should be permitted at the industry standard with intermittent message changes at no more than 30 seconds. Staff will bring this revision to the May 8, 2002, meeting. Commissioner Philpott asked if the City has analyzed its parking ratios for adequacy. Director Collins indicated that parking ratios were revised in 1995 and seem to be quite generous. If a particular business feels that their parking needs are less than the requirement, a parking variance may be requested. Commissioner Hewins noted that Port Angeles is trying to attract tourism and that most tourists arrive by vehicle transportation which must be accommodated in order to be successful. Parking reductions need to be justified on a case by case basis. Parking should not be reduced across the board without significant data indicating that existing requirements are too great. Commissioner Schranun agreed that adequate parking is needed for a healthy business economy. Commissioner Craver indicated that until a study is prepared indicating a need for more parking, Planning Commission Minutes April 24. 2002 Page j . current ratios should not be changed. Commissioner Rasmussen noted that in the Downtown, a multi-story parking garage may be the answer to parking concerns. However, outside of the Downtown PBIA, individual business owners are required to provide their own parking or through parking agreements with adjacent business owners. Possibly on-street parking should be permitted in areas where cooperative parking situations do not exist. Commissioner Schramm stressed the need to accommodate traffic particularly in the Downtown - ifthere isn't enough parking, people will not patronize those businesses. Commissioner Rasmussen stated that the parking problem is not so much in the Downtown but elsewhere throughout the City. Commissioner Hewins noted that new development in the Downtown such as the new convention center may significantly affect available parking in that area. Referring to Commissioner Philpott's opening question - do existing ratios make sense? - it was agreed that until a concern is raised the current parking ratios will continue to be the standard with the exception of the minor changes proposed in the current Municipal Code Amendment, because the proposed amendments reflect concerns that have been addressed throughout the past couple of years in parking variance applications. [Commissioner Porter excused himself from the meeting at this point.] . . The Commission took a 5 minute recess and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Director Collins noted that he had not completed his staff report on parking and would like to conclude that in the proposed Parking Ordinance amendments, under "Public and Institutional Uses," hospital and school parking requirements were discussed but no changes are proposed.. Over the past few years, it has become apparent that, particularly in the case of the Hospital where parking is dependent on the number of beds, there are far more employees than patients and that parking is an issue. However, staff does not have a suggestion for an amended standard at this time even though staff is well aware of the concerns that have been expressed by several Planning Commissioners. The requirements for parking for outdoor commercial recreational facilities were next discussed. Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Hewins who suggested that the minimum of 10 parking spaces should remain and any identified additional parking or parking reduction could be addressed through the Planning Commission review required for uses such as a ball field, skating rink, golf course, etc. Commissioner Rasmussen suggested that a standard be established such that staff can inform applicants of parking requirements for outdoor recreational facilities in advance. Director Collins pointed out that there is not a standard at this time for various outdoor recreational facilities and the only way we can identify specific parking needs for some uses is on a case-by-case basis through the Planning Commission review. The Commission agreed. Parking for trailer parks and recreational vehicle parks was next discussed. It was decided that in trailer parks, where trailers are fixed and more residential in nature, two additional vehicle parking spaces are and will be required per site regardless if a "lot" is occupied by a house trailer or a recreational vehicle. For recreational vehicle parks, where transient parking is the norm, one space plus a space for the recreational vehicle itself could become the standard. It was decided that at some point in the future, a separate standard should be established for recreational vehicle parks as opposed to manufactured home parks. Commissioner Philpott noted that a requirement in the subdivision regulations [Section 16.08.060(E)(2)] reads that "... lots may not have a depth greater than twice its width" which must be in error because the standard lot within the City of Port Angeles is 50' x 140'. Director Collins . . . Planning Commission Minflles April U. 2002 Page" noted that the section appears to have been established in 1967. He didn't have an explanation as to why such a requirement exists in contradiction to a standard RS-7 lot but would investigate whether it should be changed. Commissioner Hewins noted that it is possible that the provision is to identify a newer development pattern that may be desired as opposed to the original Townsite platting configuration. Other amendments were pointed out for clarity and ease of reading. Commissioner Rasmussen asked if the City has given consideration to raising the maximum number of lots in short subdivisions from four lots to nine lots as is allowed under State law. Director Collins did not favor an increase to nine lots for short plats. The City doesn't have that many subdivisions going on and the primary difference is the type of street improvements that are required in a subdivision versus a short plat. If an increase to nine lots is made, we really need to require all of the same street improvements for short plats as for subdivisions in which case we would defeat the purpose of having short plats which allow for a slightly lower standard of street improvement for fewer lots. Director Collins noted in the Zoning Code that the proposed purpose section wording amendments are intended to clarify the intent of each zone but do not change the original purpose of the zone. Staffhas tried to accomplish the directive of the Citizen Code Advisory Committee to describe what we want people to do in each zone rather than setting a tone of what can't be done. In discussion of the adoption of certain exemptions to the standard exemptions allowed in critical areas per WAC 197-11-908 through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) to allow more expeditious processing of pennits, Director Collins stated that the exceptional exemptions could be adopted and would not negatively affect critical areas because the City has critical areas ordinances in place; however, he did not feel certain about such an adoption. Scott Jolms, Associate Planner, indicated that Municipal Research Services had been contacted and it appeared that a few cities had selectively adopted the exceptional exemptions but that no city had adopted the possible exemptions in their entirety. It was decided that the exceptional exemptions would not be adopted at this time but considered again in the future. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. STAFF REPORTS Director Collins briefly reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and detailed how review of the amendments would be handled at the May 8th public hearing. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Schramm asked if the City has ever considered another method of collecting fees for the landfill other than a tipping fee. As the tipping fees increase, the amount of non landfill dumping will increase. Has the City ever considered a joint percentage of sales tax revenue going for landfill disposal fees rather than increasing tipping fees so that the cost of maintaining the landfill is borne by some other mechanism that would not encourage indiscriminate illegal dumping? Director Collins noted that an extensive study was done recently which concluded that changes proposed by the City would not have an adverse effect increasing illegal dumping. Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2002 Page 5 . Schramm encouraged the City to explore ways to fund landfill disposal to discourage the illegal dumping that occurs regularly. Director Collins noted that there are several groups working with these types of issues. The theory is to reduce costs associated with the landfill. One thought is that if residents who use the landfill make fewer trips, staffing needs at the landfill could be reduced. Commissioner Schramm commended the City administration for its annual dump day. However, the amount of participation in such an activity should make it obvious that it's largely the dumping cost that encourages illegal trash disposal. If fees are collected in some other manner like a sales tax such that the dump service is paid for every time something is purchased, illegal dumping activities may be allayed. Director Collins responded that another concern is that people don't want to pay taxes and so user fees are preferred. Commissioner Philpott asked why Port Angeles Ford can no longer wash cars. Director Collins was not aware of such a shut down but assumed that such a directive may have come from the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife. Director Collins stated that the City is trying to develop a stonnwater management program to better manage stonnwater. Whether such a program will alleviate the car washing problem or make it worse is not known. Two stonnwater meetings will be held at City Hall on April 25th at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. to discuss stonnwater utility issues. Planning Commissioners could try to attend one of those meetings. ADJOURNMENT . The meeting adjourned at 10: 1 0 p.m. ~~ B ad Collins, Secretary OhJ-~~e Chuck Schramm, Chair PREPARED BY: S, Roberds . . . · FORTANGBLES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET N Meeting Agenda of: ~I d?f .2M~ PLEASE NOTE: IE you plan to testify, by 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 - it only acknowledges your presence. NAME: ADDRESS: Agenda Item No. fV'\ 't!Ce M ~ \ la--y .