HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/13/1998
-"
.
.
.
HEARING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THOSE NEEDING ASSISTANCE.
AGENDA
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
Port Angeles, W A 98362
. May 13, 1998
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of April 22, 1998
IV.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. .cOMPREHENSIYKl!LANAMElWMENT - CPA 28-01 - LaRue,~est
.8t~_eLhetwe~~G~and "H" S.tre_ets.: Request for redesignation of
property currently designated LDR, Low Density Residential, to HDR, High
Density Residential. (Continued from April 22, 1998.)
2. ~.G VARIANCE - PKV 98~.02-=..ROGERs.,n 10 East Front..s.tre_et:
Proposal to allow a reduction from the required 43 parking spaces to 19
spaces to allow for expansion of a use in the Commercial Arterial District.
3. MlllilCII~AL_CODE AMENDMENT - MCA..2.8::.OJ_=-_CITY..o..E_I~ORT
AN-GELES,_Cit~_Mde.: A proposal to amend Chapter 15 (Environment) of
the Port Angeles Municipal Code to process shoreline substantial
development permits administratively. (Continued from April 22, 1998.)
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
VI. STAFF REPORTS
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
VIII.
ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION: Dean Reed (Chair), Mary Craver (Vice), Bob King, Cindy Souders, Linda Nutter, Fred Hewins, Paul Ziakin
STAFF: Brad Collins (Director), Sue Roberds (Planning Specialist), David Sawyer (Senior Planner)
.
.
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
May 13, 1998
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Linda Nutter, Dean Reed, Mary Craver, Bob King,
Paul Ziakin, Cindy Souders, Fredric Hewins (arrived
at 7:05 p.m.)
Member Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, David Sawyer,
Dan McKeen
Public Present:
Theresa Schmid, Marsha Pearson, Lynn Rogers, Bart
Phillips, Nancy Van Sickle, Charles Le Ber, Martin
Mason, Diana Greene, Bill La Rue
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Nutter moved to approve the April 22, 1998, minutes as submitted. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver and passed 5 - 0 with Commissioner
Souders abstaining.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 98-01 - LaRue. West
8th Street between "G" and "H" Streets: Request for redesignation of
property currently designated LDR, Low Density Residential, to HDR, High
Density Residential. (Continued from April 22, 1998.)
Senior Planner David Sawyer reviewed the Planning Department's staff report recommending
that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council in
support of the amendment. Chair Reed read the public testimony oath and reminded those
present of the need to sign in to present public testimony.
Bill La Rue, 222 Jv. Park Avenue, represented the application and stated that his family has
owned the property for a couple of decades. Although there are no current plans for
development or offers to purchase the property, the area seems to make sense for high density
residential development given the Park View Villas development that exists directly across
the street. The location is on a bus route and is less than a block away from Shane Park. The
City's Comprehensive Plan portrays the proposed area as being eligible for redesignation to
High Density Residential. An adjoining property owner contacted him for information
regarding the proposal upon receipt of the public notification letter but did not state objection
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes -May 13.1998
Page 2
to the proposaL
Planner Sawyer responded to a question from the Commissioners that property owners within
300 feet of the site were notified by mail and the site was posted for 15 days prior to the
hearing. This proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site, not to
rezone the property at this time. The application includes three properties that are not under
the La Rue family ownership.
There being no further comments, Chair Reed closed the public hearing.
Commissioner King moved to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment as proposed citing the following findings and conclusions:
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the May 13, 1998, Staff Report for CPA 98-01,
(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.
All infonnation provided in the May 13,1998, Staff Report for CPA 98-01, (including
all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public hearing,
and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation have been considered in
this decision and is considered a part thereof.
2. The applicant, Bill La Rue representing Jack and Ethel La Rue, is requesting to extend
the High Density Residential land use designation to include the north side of the 1400
block ofW. Sth Street (Lots 11-20, Block 245 of the Townsite of Port Angeles). (
Attachment A of Planning Department Staff Report for CPA 98-01 dated May 13,
1998.)
3. The subject properties are located in the City's North West Planning Area.
4. The lots are standard 50' by 140' (7,000 sf) lots fronting on Sth Street. They contain
three single-family residences and one duplex.
5. All property owners were notified of the proposed amendment.
6. The SEP A Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
on May 13, 1998, regarding this request.
7. The properties are currently designated Low Density Residential on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
8.
The Planning Department Staff Report for CPA 98-01 dated May 13, 1998, identifies
the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element Policies CI-4 as being the most relevant
to the proposal.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes -May 13.1998
Page 3
9.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations adjacent to the subject site are
as follows:
To the north:
To the south:
To the east:
To the west:
LDR
HDR
Open Space (OS)
LDR
10. The properties are currently zoned RS-7, Residential Single Family.
11, The existing land uses adjacent to the subject properties are as follows:
To the north:
To the south:
To the east:
To the west:
single family residences
senior housing complex
single family residences
single family residences
12. The proposed amendment extends the existing high density neighborhood across 8th
Street to the north for one haIfblock into an area that is primarily composed of single-
family residences.
13.
Eighth Street is identified in the Transportation Element as a Collector Arterial.
Conclusions:
Based on the information provided in the May 13, 1998, Staff Report for CPA 98-01,
(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 the following:
A. Restricted to the lots south of the 7th/8th Street alley, the amendment should not
change the overall character of the low-density neighborhood to the north.
B. Urban services which are in place to serve the existing high-density development on
the south side of 8th Street are sufficient to serve the proposed area.
C. The proposed area can serve as a transitional use between the heavy traffic of 8th
Street and the low-density neighborhood to the north.
D The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policies Cl-4
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Souders and passed 5 - 2 with
Commissioners Hewins and Nutter voting "no". Commissioner Hewins did not vote for
the amendment because there are other residential high density properties that are not
developed in the area, and there is not an apparent need for additional RHD properties at this
time. Commissioner Nutter agreed with Commissioner Hewins and also felt this created an
unnecessary encroachment into the residential area on the north side of Eighth Street.
Planning Commission Minutes - May J 3. 1998
Page 4
.
PARKING VARIANCE - PKV 98-02 - ROGERS. 1210 East Front Street:
Proposal to allow a reduction from the required 43 parking spaces to 19
spaces to allow for expansion of a use in the Commercial Arterial District.
Commissioner Souders stepped down from the meeting and left the meeting due to an
appearance offaimess as the application involves a printing business and she is the owner of
such a business.
Senior Planner Sawyer reviewed the Planning Department's staff report recommending denial
of the requested variance and explained how staff determined the parking requirements for
the type of uses that exist on the site at the present time. He offered two alternatives in
analyzing the parking requirements for the site which result in a difference of only two spaces.
The alternatives involve whether the subject use is viewed as a print shop or an office use.
In responding to Commissioner Hewins, Planner Sawyer verified that a previous reduction
in the parking regulations was approved for the use. However, at that time, parking spaces
were calculated under more restrictive guidelines than at present. There was further
discussion regarding parking off site that appears to be related to the AGS business.
Chair Reed opened the public hearing.
.
Lynn Rogers, 121 O-C Front Street, stated that the current parking layout for the site, which
contains three business uses, was prepared by a professional parking designer with the
approval by the City. His proposal is to add a second story to a portion of the main building
structure that contains the Domino's Pizza use but will not result in a second story to that
portion of the building. AGS is not a commercial printing business. They print only their
own materials, do not encourage salesmen, and have no walk-in trade. Thirteen hundred
seventy-six (1376) square feet of usable area exists at present. That area does not allow for
room to store paper Jor the printing use. The proposal will add an additional nine hundred
(900) square feet of storage area for continued operation of the business. In addition to the
print operation, AGS operates an internet based business which would also be located on the
proposed second floor. Employees in this portion of the business will work on a shift basis
24 hours a day.
He was surprised to learn that the request for a reduction in parking requirements was not
acceptable to two adjoining property owners, Dr. Wilcox and John St. Laurent, who asked
that the proposal be denied. He spoke with Dr. Wilcox regarding his concern but could not
reach Mr. St. Laurent.
.
Subsequent meetings with employees resulted in agreements from the employee group to seek
alternative modes of transportation to work and to work split shifts to reduce the amount of
parking generated by the business operations at anyone time. Additionally, he spoke with
the property owner directly to the east of the site regarding the possibility of obtaining
property for approximately ten (10) additional parking spaces. He believed this is a viable
option.
Planning Commission Minutes - May J 3, J 998
Page 5
.
In response to Commissioner Ziakin, Mr. Rogers responded that he currently employs twenty-
seven (27) employees, twenty-three (23) of which work during the day. He expects to hire
approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) new employees during the next year that will work
mainly a night shift. He has been operating from the existing location for the past five years.
Commissioner Reed began a discussion on the possible conflict that could occur at the end
of a shift unless there is a brief down time. Mr. Rogers proposed a one-half hour stagger
period.
Bart Phillips, Clallam County Economic Development Council, spoke in favor of the
proposaL As a private non-profit operation that encourages the retention of existing
businesses and the acquisition of additional business uses, the EDC is in favor of flexibility
that allows an employer to encourage alternative modes of transportation and utilize split shift
opportunities to solve parking problems and operate efficiently. The business does not
depend on retail trade. Parking on-site is generated by employees only. Growth of the
business is being impinged by the site. He is convinced of the applicant's sincerity to seek
inventive parking solutions. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the broader
context of the situation and work out the technical aspects in a favorable manner.
.
Chuck LaBar, 401 Whidby Avenue, defended staff's recommendation because staff is
charged to analyze the application from the regulations that are found in the Port Angeles
Municipal Code but the Planning Commission should act as members of the community and
take the "Port Angeles Works" statement to heart. He applauded the applicant's willingness
to be flexible and asked that be taken into account in the decision.
There being no further public comment, Chair Reed closed the public hearing.
Planner Sawyer responded in detail to the Commission's questions regarding the method of
calculation of required and supplied parking spaces for the existing uses and the expansion
that is proposed. He offered to work further with the applicant at the Commission's direction
to detennine if there is some additional flexibility that would make a difference. The applicant
did not provide information regarding split shift possibilities or the use of additional off-site
parking in the initial proposal so these possibilities were not analyzed in the staff report. He
had not been able to speak in detail with the applicant as he [the applicant] had been out of
town, although he had spoken briefly with Mrs. Rogers by phone. Off-site parking
arrangements are a possibility and have been utilized by other business sites in the area.
Commissioner Ziakin commended the applicant on his willingness to work with his employees
on alternative transportation methods and working arrangements to reduce site congestion.
Upon inquiry, Planner Sawyer noted that he counted only those parking spaces that qualify
as standard parking spaces. He did not count areas along the alley.
.
Planning Director Collins stated that he believes conditions could be attached to a decision
of approval that would address specific concerns. He repeated the various methods used to
calculate parking requirements for the site.
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 1998
Page 6
.
Commissioner Hewins moved to deny the parking variance as proposed due to the
existing congestion on site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nutter.
In response to Commissioner Ziakin, Planning Director Collins and Planner Sawyer provided
alternatives which included continuation of the request to work further with the applicant to
investigate the various alternatives previously spoken of in an effort to come to a workable
solution to the concerns prior to denial of the request.
The motion failed by a 3 - 3 vote. Commissioners Hewins, Nutter, and King voted for
the motion, Reed, Craver, and Ziakin voted against the motion.
Commissioner Ziakin moved to reopen and continue the public hearing to May 27,
1998, in order to allow this applicant to explore with Planning staff which would
include shift work and transportation options. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Craver.
.
Commissioner Nutter applauded the success of the business and stated that although she
would like to see the business continue to flourish, she felt that too many concessions were
being proposed that are not enforceable and which may not be fair to other property owners.
She encouraged denial ofthe motion but would like to see the applicant return with a more
complete proposal which includes the options and variations proposed by the applicant during
the public hearing. Commissioner King agreed with this analysis.
Commissioner Hewins noted that today's society is based around the automobile and it is
necessary to provide for those needs. Although the applicant has stated a willingness to work
out alternate work schedules and seek alternative forms of transportation for employees,
invariably, a reduction in required parking runs its course and results in a deficit that affects
everyone. Busses do not always run on business schedules and employees will need to drive
to work.
Commissioner King agreed and added that the applicant did not propose alternative methods
of transportation in his application. He hoped that the applicant would have thoroughly
analyzed his options prior to making his application to allow the Commission to thoroughly
study those options and be able to render a well thought out decision. He encouraged the
applicant to correct that deficiency in a second application. He agreed that in his professional
experience most parking reductions do not work out in the long run as there is a demand for
parking in today's society that must be addressed.
Commissioner Craver encouraged a favorable vote on the motion in order to provide the
applicant an opportunity to work through the alternatives that he proposed including the
possibility of obtaining parking on the property to the east which would solve the problems
at hand.
.
Commissioner Reed stressed exploring every opportunity to work within the set guidelines
and that maybe a little more effort would result in a workable solution without appearing to
twist the rules. The business is valued by the community, and as staff didn't have the
opportunity to work closely with the applicant in this situation due to business conflicts and
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 1998
Page 7
new information prior to the meeting, he encouraged continuation of the item to provide more
review time and to explore all the options available before rendering a final decision.
On call for the question, it resulted in a tied vote: Commissioners Nutter, Hewins, King
to deny; and Reed, Ziakin, and Craver in favor.
Planning Director Collins suggested that as the Commission appears to be deadlocked, it
reconsider the original motion and pass the item along to the City Council.
Chair Reed asked Mr. Rogers to address questions regarding his wishes in the matter.
Mr. Rogers stated that he understood the question to be whether he wishes to proceed with
a continuance to the next meeting or to ask for a clear denial to be able to appeal the decision
to the City Council. He answered that it is obvious the Commission is prejudiced against
certain points of view and his only alternative is to take it to the City Council.
Given the applicant's decision, Commissioner Hewins moved to deny the parking
variance citing the following findings and conclusions:
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the May 13, 1998, Staff Report for PKV 98-02,
(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:
L The applicant and owner of the property is Lynn Rogers.
2. The subject property is located at 1210-C Front Street.
3. The applicant's proposal is to reduce the number of required parking spaces required
for the subject site and its existing and proposed uses from 43 to 19.
4. The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 900 square feet of additional
ground floor area which will be used to expand the printing shop portion of the AGS
business and to construct an additional 4,400 square feet of floor area as a second
story on the existing eastern building. This area is to be used for AGS and ARCV
office operations.
5. The property is designated as Commercial in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
6. The property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA).
7.
The existing and proposed uses are permitted uses in the CA zone.
8. The site is located on the north side of the 1200 block of East Front Street. It
consists of three 50' by 140' townsite lots totaling approximately 21,000 square feet
ill Size.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 1998
Page 8
9.
The site is level and currently developed with three individual buildings. The largest
building (approximately 5,500 sf) is located on the east half of the site and contains
three separately addressed businesses, a small pizza delivery outlet, an internet service
business (affiliated with the applicant's primary business), and the applicant's mapping
business. The other two buildings are on the west half of the site. The second
building (approximately 3,500 sf) near the front of the site is occupied by a retail
pawn shop and the third and smallest building (1,350 sf) located near the rear of the
site is occupied by the printing portion of the applicant's business.
10. There are currently 20 striped parking spaces on the subject site with access to Front
Street, Jones Street and the alley to the south.
11. Existing land uses adjacent to the subject site are as follows:
To the north:
To the south:
To the east:
To the west:
multi-family housing
commercial uses
single-family residence
veterinary office
12. The proposed variance is categorically exempt from State Environmental Protection
Act threshold determination and environmental impact statement requirements.
13.
In December of 1992, the City Council approved a reduction in parking requirements
from 40 spaces to 20 spaces for similar uses on the subject site (pKV 92(12)03).
Since that time, the Parking Ordinance has been amended reducing the number of
spaces required for retail and office uses and establishing one standard size parking
space (8.5' by 18).
14. Although the application is for a reduction from 43 required spaces to 19 spaces, the
Port Angeles Municipal Code requires a total of 44 spaces for the existing and
proposed uses.
15. The requested variance results in a shortage of 25 spaces or 57% of the number
required by the Port Angeles Municipal Code.
16. The Public Works Department indicated the parking at this site "is currently utilized
fully." Their complete comments are attached as Attachment B of the May 13, 1998
Staff Report for PKV 98-02.
17. The fire Department indicated they feel any potential parking overflow would not
effect fire access to the site. Their complete comments are attached as Attachment
C of the May 13, 1998 Staff Report for PKV 98-02.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes -May 13,1998
Page 9
Conclusions:
Based on the information provided in the May 13, 1998, Staff Report for PKV 98-02,
(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. The subject site's existing uses and reduced number of required parking spaces
combined with any increased use of the site without additional on-site parking spaces
has the potential to further impact adjacent properties and the flow of traffic in the
abutting alley.
2. Based on the information provided by the applicant regarding the current and future
types of business activities conducted by AGS, the AGS business is considered a
mapping business with the parking requirements of an office use rather than a printing
business.
3. The proposed variance is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
specifically Transportation Element Policy B 14.
4. The proposed variance does not meet the intent of the City's Off-Street Parking
Ordinance.
Commissioner Nutter noted that she would like to see a re-application with all the various
alternatives clearly spelled out for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Ziakin
asked if the applicant was aware how difficult this issue was for the Planning Commission and
that the members were endeavoring to seek a favorable solution.
Director Collins stated that he believes the applicant is hoping that by making an appeal to
the City Council he can move forward in a more timely fashion as the Commission appears
to be deadlocked.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nutter, and passed 5 - 1 with Commissioner
Ziakin voting in the negative.
Planning Director Collins indicated that he believes the applicant accepts the denial in a effort
to be able to appeal the decision to the City Council.
Commissioners Reed and Craver wanted it made clear that their votes in favor of denial were
in acknowledgment of the applicant's request for such and to enable him to continue as he
requested with an appeal without further consideration by the Planning Commission.
Director Collins explained the appeal proceedings to the applicant and that there is an appeal
fee involved in that process.
Commissioner Souders returned to the meeting room.
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, J 998
Page 10
.
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - MCA 98-01 - CITY OF PORT
ANGELES. City wide: A proposal to amend Chapter 15 (Environment) of
the Port Angeles Municipal Code to process shoreline substantial
development permits administratively. (Continued from April 22, 1998.)
Commissioner Souders noted for the record that although she was not present at the previous
meeting, she had read the minutes of that meeting and was prepared to act on this issue.
Director Collins reviewed staff's memorandum.
Commissioner Souders noted that if the amendment is approved, the City Planning Director
would become not only the City's SEPA Responsible Official, which he is at present, but
would then also be the final authority on shoreline permit application. She believes more
people should be involved in decisions on shoreline permits.
The Commissioners discussed the drawbacks to the proposal which would allow a public
hearing only by appeal to the City Council rather than during the application process.
Commissioner Craver felt strongly that actions on shoreline permit applications should be
made only after a public hearing. The proposal would result in a decision being rendered
outside of a public hearing, and, if an appeal is filed by an interested party, a public hearing
would then be held on that appeal by the City Council.
.
In response to Commissioner Ziakin, Chair Reed explained the history of the relatively recent
development and adoption of the City's Shoreline Master Program and that its regulations
with regard to pennit activities and uses are very specific. Public testimony is rarely given nor
is there generally ever anyone other than the applicant to speak to, or object to, an application
request. Decisions are largely based upon the proposal's compliance with the Master
Program. Under the current proposal, appeals of decisions would be heard by the City
Council through a public hearing process in the event someone disagreed with a decision.
Currently, appeals would be heard through a closed record hearing only with no public
hearing at the City Council.
Commissioner Ziakin noted that although he realizes the amendment is in an attempt to hasten
the lenghty shoreline permit application process, in trying to accomplish this end we are
taking away the right to be heard to a certain degree, except by appeal of a decision.
Director Collins noted that there is a 30-day public comment period prior to any decision
possibility in which staff will be reviewing the application with anyone who chooses to
question anything about the process and who wishes to add their thoughts and concerns to
the file. The same review process would be followed with the staff making a recommendation
the same as to the Planning Commission, but to the Director. Beyond that, anyone aggrieved
by the decision could appeal to the City Council and be heard at a public hearing.
.
Director Collins elaborated in response to Commissioner Ziakin that the types of shoreline
uses that would fall under the pennitting authority would range from minor improvements to
existing facilities to a major mill proposal on the water.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 1998
Page 11
The Commission continued to discuss their concerns regarding the appeal process.
Commissioner Craver stated that as the City's waterfront/shoreline areas are one of its major
resources, she would rather the Planning Commission act on shoreline permit applications
than those decisions being made by one individual.
Commissioner King agreed that it is important to allow the public an opportunity to speak and
to contribute to shoreline issues; however, it is also important to hasten application processes
when possible.
Commissioner Ziakin stated that the public's past indifference or lack of involvement is not
a valid reason to cut them off from future involvement.
Commissioner Ziakin moved to retain the current processing procedure citing the
following findings and conclusions:
Findings:
1. The City of Port Angeles adopted, and the State of Washington approved, a revised
Shoreline Master Program, which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
in 1995 that contains standards under which development within shoreline areas may
occur.
2.
In accordance with State statutes, the City passed new requirements (Ordinance
2911) limiting certain permits to one open record public hearing process.
3. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits (SMA) are currently processed by the
Planning Commission, which meets twice a month.
4, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit applications require an extraordinary (30
days) public notification period by the State prior to a decision.
5. There is a 21-day appeal period at the state level during which no work may be
commenced following the local authority's final action on a shoreline permit.
6, Currently, appeals of shoreline permit decisions must go to the City Council on a
closed record basis.
7. The City's Municipal Code allows for appeal of administrative actions to the City
Council on an open record basis.
Conclusion:
A
Applicants and the public benefit from an open public hearing process.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver, and passed 6 - 1. Commissioner
Reed voted against the motion as decisions regarding shoreline permit applications are strictly
prescribed in the City's Shor~line Master Program with appeal of those actions to the City
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minules - May J 3, J 998
Page 12
Council at a public hearing.
COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
TheresaSchmid, 114 East Ninth Street, asked the Planning Commission whether it would
continue with consideration of the Northwest Permit rezone proposal (Item I on the agenda)
as the applicants did not submit the promised traffic study by the time promised. She clarified
that although she is asking about a specific issue, she would also like to know generally if
material is not received when it is due, what actions the Commission is accustomed to take.
At the direction of the Chair, Director Collins explained that when staff requests materials in
order to perform an adequate review and recommendation to the Planning Commission, if that
material is received in a manner that allows for that review, all efforts are made to accomplish
the application process in a timely manner. When staff requested the Planning Commission
to continue the subject rezone public hearing to its June 10 meeting it was with some
skepticism that a traffic study would be completed by April 30th, as stated by the applicant,
given the time frame involved. The study is late by that fact, but if the information is received
in a manner that allows for a thorough review and recommendation, the Commission will
continue to process the application at its June 10 meeting.
Marsha Pearson, 118 East Ninth Street, asked if the commissioners vi sit specific sites prior
to decisions. The Commissioners and staff responded that they do visit sites but do not stop
or speak to applicants or neighbors.
STAFF REPORTS
Director Collins explained drafting corrections that were made to the City's Shoreline
Environment Map following the Commission's recommendation to the City Council to change
two areas at the April 22nd meeting. The corrections were to clarify the Commission's
action.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Senior Planner Sawyer clarified a condition of the conditional use permit for the Virginia
Mason.Clinic on Eighth and Vine Street.
Commissioner Nutter commented on the progress of the City's Non Motorized Advisory
Committee meetings. She also noted the illegal use of Francis Street by a commercial rental
activity (V-Haul) that is storing moving vans on the street. Not only is this a zoning violation,
it is a hazardous traffic situation. Director Collins noted that it is a police issue.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Brad Collins, Secretary
PREPARED BY: S. Roberds
.
PLEASE SIGN IN
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND SIGN UP SHEET
For the items listed on the Agenda of: \r)a.j I s) \~
Please read the following: If I testify, by signature below, I certify that my testimony is
true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington.
.
Signature Print Name Address Agenda
Item II
.~~ M A.t" -h "- n &u\"'\ 7 tf1 5, 1-) J+- I
ti A Ai At ~1AU. 75 ~ JA /;. h 1/ jP e.J.,u IDe, ~, H 5-+ )
c :\wp\forms\attndrst. pc
.
PLEASE SIGN IN
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND SIGN UP SHEET
For the items listed on the Agenda of: '-;7Jo -y /, j /99 /
Please read the folio wing: If I testify, by signature below, I certify that my testimony is
true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington.
Signature
Print Name
Address Agenda
Item #
.
^
~J1 j /l~ /mJ1.fill j /i 111 U-t. (t{ 01111 WiT d
W~;t Varu$l9-- UrJ..1'S~' VlJJJ~
l:.....-f/ ; J (-)
\7 AJ 1<",,".-.. L '" ,..; tU \<C,a ~ r $
~"i /7,. i-rY;;A',LJ.,,- B&.Y' i P),~-)/lJJ5
"-:1; 'rJUA ,V .4., u1~ 1.#. Ii Iri/AW f/;jll L5!(!.M
(./!J, 'f// /)/ 1/ IA./ r- C-{!;.-A-P J A I -E RFfC
,
1/ Y F: q'2!
il )( E Ol~
lQ. 10 1;:. C 1'r>.Jt
P, O,)J 0.); I orS- ~1Z c..
fJq S, 1/111 j Ilt fo,J 111/ " I,,,, flo Y'\ ty\ llll\ to ~'c'1
4D I u J LLI r.;;trr-' U
f
t^ M Mil 'IAV~ I\1d~
~ ...
CEMlW."lY) left 'I1lJl
c; Iwplforms\attnclrst.pc
.
PLEASE SIGN IN
--
~
,o(ANN\~G
For the items listed on the Agenda of: \YJ ~ I 3 l 1'03 t
Please read the following: If I testify, by signature below, I certify that my testimony is
true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington.
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND SIGN UP SHEET
Signature Print Name Address Agenda
- ^ Item #
fr:q '0 p. ~ ill 0 "R " /1 ilL Eu'IL t2R:;) U), td?-K AIL:.'. #/
.
c :\wp\fonnslattndrst. pc