Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/08/1998 . . . HEARING DEVICES ARE A VAILABLE FOR THOSE NEEDING ASSISTANCE. AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 JULY 8, 1998 7:00 p.m, I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of June 10.1998 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: SIREEIYACAIIOHEErmQ~IY_9_8~~LYM.~IC_MEMQRIAL tiO_SJ~UAL,_a_p_oIt~QLthe_all.e.}Lb_e.tw..e_en_Ge_oJ:giana~nd_Ga[QJine. djre.c11Y-Yie_sLoLGb.amb.ell:S,- (Continued trom 6/24/98.) PUBLIC MEETING: REZ.01iEAP-eLLCAILO.N--=-.REZ-9.8.~(l3~OB.IHW.ESLE.ERMJI~tb Slre_eLhe.tweeR.Liru;_olILalliLLaureLStre~e!: Request to rezone property designated RS-7, Residential Single Family, to CSD, Community Shopping District. (This item is continued trom June 10, 1998. ) PUBLIC HEARING: .SIREEIJLACAIIOJ'.leEIIIIQ~~_8~1lio.RIHWEs:LE.ERMII, ~oD-oUhe_8tbL9_tlLS1re_eLaUe-y~e!w_e_en LincoJD-and-Lau[8J Slre_ats.: A proposal to vacate right-at-way. (This item is continued trom June 10, 1998.) V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION: Dean Reed, (Chair), Mary Craver (Vice), Bob King, Cindy Souders, Linda Nutter. Fred Hewins. Paul Ziakin. ST AFF: Brad Collins, Diredor, Sue Roberds Planniog Specialist, David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence pertaining to a meeting or hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled meeting/ hearing will be provided to Commission members at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be allowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chair may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents will be heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Board, not the City Staff representatives present. unless directed to do so by the Chair. . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 July 8, 1998 7:00 p.m. ROLLCALL Members Present: Linda Nutter, Fred Hewins, Cindy Souders, Mary Craver, Dean Reed, Paul Ziakin Members Excused: Bob King Staff Present: Sue Roberds, David Sawyer, Dan McKeen, Gary Kenworthy, Gale Turton, Tom Riepe Public Present: Theresa Schmid, Marsha Pearson, Bob Bailey, Kathleen Bailey, Bill Lindberg, Al Gustafson, Bob Dudley APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Commissioner Nutter moved to approve the June 24, 1998, minutes noting that Commissioner Craver was present at the June 10, 1998, meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver and passed 5 - 0, with Commissioner Souders abstaining. PUBLIC HEARING: SIREET VACATION PETITION - STY 98-02=-OLYMPJC MEMO~IAL HOSPIT AL,Jt.p-,>rtmofJhe~y betweeIl.Ge.orgiana_and Camli~dir.e.cll.y. west of Cham hers. (Continued from June 24, 1998.) Planner Sawyer noted that Planning and Police staff had been directed to meet with the applicant's representative, Bill Lindberg, following the June 24th hearing, to discuss a revised site plan presented by Mr. Lindberg at the June 24th meeting. Staff met with Mr. Lindberg and agreed to recommend approval of the right-of-way vacation with six conditions to address the public safety issues that were originally presented by the City's Police Department and testimony presented by neighbors. Sergeant Gale Turton of tile City's Police Department responded to Commissioner Nutter's questions regarding travel options in the alley at the present and ifthe vacation were approved. He noted that his memo dated July 7, 1998, clarified the Police Department's comments and requests that lighting be provided along the alley to increase visibility and direct traffic through the redirected . alley. Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, responded to Commissioner Nutter that the City will require an ingress/egress easement rather than a dedication of the redirected portion of the alley (south to Georgiana Street). . . . Planning Commission Minures July 8, 1998 Pagel Chair Reed opened the public hearing. Bill Lindberg, 319 South Peabody Street, represented the applicant and stated that he has worked the past two weeks with staff to resolve any potential safety issues and will continue to work with staff as necessary to resolve any outstanding issues. Lighting of the alley is not planned as the new parking lot will be lit and should provide enough illumination for safe travel through the alley. Landscaping and issues will be addressed to Planning staff for approval. There being no further testimony, Chair Reed closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ziakin moved to recommend that the City Council approve the right-of-way vacation with the following conditions, citing the following findings and conclusions for that action: Conditions.: 1. The proposed street vacation is subject to the recommendations of the City's Public Works Department (Attachment B ofthe June 24, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STY 98-02) which include construction ofthe alley and street entrance to city standards including drainage, closure of the vacated alley entrance, encasement of the sewer line in the vacated alley, an ingress/egress easement to serve as access south to Georgiana Street (relocated alley. The underground utility easement shall remain. 2. The proposed street vacation is subject to the recommendations of the City's Fire Department (included in Attachment C of the June 24, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STY 98-02) which require that the re-routed portion of the alley shall be provided with an all weather surface meeting the City's specifications and that a fire hydrant is provided at the intersection of Georgiana and Chambers Streets. 3. The proposed street vacation is subject to the recommendations of the City's Police Department included in their letter dated July 7, 1998, presented to the Planning Commission July 8, 1998, which recommends that the west parking lot exit area be sufficient in size to allow a full size police vehicle to make a right turn to continue westbound down the alley, that arrow signs and a light at the comer showing the alley makes a turn south onto Georgiana Street when travelling east down the alley, and that street lighting be provided in the alley west ofthe building. 4. The street vacation shall not be finaled until a building permit is issued for the property consistent with the revised site development plan (attached as Attachment A to the July 8, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STY 98-02). 5. Final occupancy of any structures on the site shall not be allowed until the street vacation is complete and all of the individual lots comprising the development site have been combined into one legal building and zoning lot. 6. Any costs associated with utility relocation and alley realignment shall be borne by the applicant. . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 8. J 998 Ptlge3 Eindings.: 1. The applicant for the requested vacation is Olympic Memorial Hospital. The application/petition is attached as Attachment A of the June 24, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STY 98-02. 2. The applicant revised the original site plan to address the concerns ofthe Police Department. The revised site plan is attached as Attachment A ofthe July 8, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STY 98-02. 3. The requested vacation is for that portion ofthe alley between Caroline Street and Georgiana Street abutting Lots 1,2,16,17,18, and the east one-half of Lot 3 of Hart and Cookes Subdivision of Suburban Block No. 31 in the Townsite of Port Angeles. 4. The street vacation is categorically exempt from threshold detennination and Environmental Impact Statement requirements per Section 197-11-800(2)(h) of the Washington Administrative Code. 5. The subject right-of-way and adjoining properties are currently designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as Commercial and zoned Commercial Office. 6. Multiple utilities including sewer and e1ectricallines are located in the subject right-of-way. 7. The subject right-of-way is currently improved. 8. The Public Works, Fire, and Police Department's original comments are included as Attachments B, C, and D of the June 24, 1998, Planning Department Staff Report for STV 98-02. 9. As noted in their letter presented to the Planning Commission on July 8, 1998, the Police Department's concerns, expressed in their letter dated May 19, 1998, have been adequately mitigated to their satisfaction. Conclusions; A. The Comprehensive Plan's Utilities and Public Services Policies C2 & 3 and Transportation Policy BIB as listed in the June 24, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STV 98-02 directly relate to the proposed vacation. B. As conditioned, the proposed vacation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Utilities and Public Services Policies C2 & 3 and Transportation Policy B 18. C. As conditioned, the proposed vacation will result in improved public health facilities in the community. D. As conditioned, the proposed vacation will benefit the public health, safety and welfare. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hewins, and passed 6 - O. . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1998 Page 4 PUBLIC MEETING: REZONE APPLICA TIO~-=-.REZ..2.8=-03 NORTHWEST PERMIT ,Ninth S.tr.e_eLb_e_tw..e_e~9lrumd~LSt[e_et Request to rezone property designated RS-7, Residential Single Family, to CSD, Community Shopping District. (This item is continued from June 10, 1998.) Commissioner Nutter stated that she has a friend who is a property owner in the area and would stand down from the proceedings if requested to do so. No one objected and so she remained. Senior Planner Sawyer reviewed the Planning Department's staff report recommending approval of the request. City Engineer Kenworthy stated that the Eighth Street intersection is fully protected in that left turns are made only with a left turn arrow. He eXplained that the difference between fully protected versus permissive traffic signalization is that permissive signalization is a turn at will situation. The City would rather have fully protected signalization at this intersection for the present. In response to Commissioner Reed, Mr. Sawyer affirmed that Conclusion "FH suggested by staff concludes that if the property is not developed as proposed, it should be rezoned back to its residential designation. Following lengthy discussion regarding the Washington State Department of Transportation's comments as to access onto Lincoln (SR 101), it was determined that whatever development occurs on the site would have to satisfy both the State's and the City's concerns to proceed. Commissioner Souders noted that the Planning Commission's discussion should be concerned with the highest use that could develop on a CSD-zoned property and whether those uses would be compatible at this location. Planner Sawyer reminded the Commission that the rezone consideration is not for the entire 2.2 acre development proposal being presented by Northwest Permit, but only for the four most southwesterly lots as the remainder of the properties are already zoned CSD. He added that the environmental review performed for the rezone included the overall development proposal as submitted by Northwest Permit, and if a significantly different development is proposed, additional review under SEP A may result in different mitigation measures. Engineer Kenworthy responded to Commission Ziakin explaining the difference between average and seasonal traffic counts. Level of service (LOS) criteria are analyzed for average, not seasonal, traffic counts. Seasonal LOS can drop below what is acceptable for the average LOS. He responded to Commissioner Craver that he feels comfortable with the proposal and the developer's ability to deal with the Department of Transportation's requirements for development of the site. He further explained the information provided to the engineering consultant used to formulate the requested traffic study of the Eighth/Lincoln Street intersection and surrounding streets. Planning Commission Minutes JI/ly 8. 1998 Page 5 . At Commissioner Souders' request, Planner Sawyer noted that mitigation measure No.7 was added to the proposal's Mitigated Determination of Non Significance following the public/agency comment period by the Planning Director. He agreed that these measures are also addressed in the City's zoning/development standards for the CSD zone. The added mitigation measure requires continued review by the City's SEPA Official ofthe project's design, landscaping and screening features. He stated that as he understood the mitigation measures, a separate SEPA review process for the project's building pennit would not be required unless the original plans are significantly changed. Although he signed the revised MDNS as the Acting SEP A Official, Brad Collins is the City's SEP A Official, and was the person'who originally reviewed the project and issued the original MDNS. Mr. Collins also reviewed the subsequent public/agency comments and worded the additional mitigation measure for the revised MDNS prior to leaving on vacation. Consequently, if the Planning Commission is concerned with the SEPA decision, they may wish to confirm this interpretation of the additional mitigation measure (No.7) with Mr. Collins following his return. The impact of developing the four lots individually was not perfonned and if proposed, may require further environmental review if the proposed development qualifies for SEP A review. . Scott Grainger, Baldridge Group, 600 University #3012, Seattle, 98101, responded at the request of Commissioner Hewins that if the project is required by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to access onto Ninth Street instead of Lincoln Street, the project would probably not go fOlWard. Access onto Ninth Street would also fly in the face of the neighborhood's objections. Commissioner Ziakin summarized that there appear to be four key issues of concern: the reduction of traffic safety; the issue of rezoning back to residential ifthe subject project does not result as proposed; the WSDOT access issue onto Lincoln Street; and the impact of four additional individual commercial lots being created on Ninth Street. He asked the applicant about attempts to utilize available commercial properties. Mr. Grainger responded that the subject property was not, and is not actively on the market. Based on an in depth market analysis, the subject intersection was considered to be the best site for the market to support the sales in the proposed commercial store. If the site is not developable as proposed, Rite Aid will either remain at its existing Seventh/Lincoln Street location, or close the store and channel business to the east side store. He explained what criteria are used for site selection. Commissioner Craver asked Mr. Grainger if Rite Aid has been working with WSDOT. Mr. Grainger indicated that an access pennit has been applied for but they have not begoo talking about mitigation measures. They are involved with approximately thirty projects state wide with WSDOT and have an excellent working arrangement. If access onto Lincoln Street cannot be obtained, he believes the project will not go forward. . Commissioner Reed wondered if, given the criteria of size, compatibility, direct benefit to the owner/neighborhood, and isolation, could the proposal be considered a spot zone. Planner Sawyer responded that in this case the contiguous CSD zone is being extended and the proposal would not be a case of spot zoning. . . . Planning Commission Minwes July 8, J 998 Page 6 Commissioner Craver was concerned that if rezoned and not developed as intended, the resulting four lots would impact the neighborhood far more than the proposed site development. Commissioner Souders was concerned that the traffic impacts to surrounding neighborhood streets has not been addressed adequately at this point. The traffic report deals mainly with the main arterials, Lincoln and Eighth Streets, but not enough analysis has been performed on the neighboring streets. Commissioner Craver stressed that the professional traffic consultants and the City's Engineering Division has reviewed the situation and has said that the resulting traffic patterns will be acceptable and will not be affected with or without the project by the year 2000. Not being an expert on traffic, she feels that decision makers have to rely on those who are skilled in dealing with traffic impacts. In response to Commissioner Reed, as to what course of action would be taken if the site is not developed as proposed, Planner Sawyer responded that, based upon Conclusion "F" in staffs report, the Planning Commission could direct staff to schedule a rezone request on its agenda for the four subject lots. In response to Commissioner Nutter's statement that Eighth Street has been designated as a cross town bicycle route but that no accomodation to designate the Eighth Street frontage of the site as such has been made, Engineer Kenworthy responded that bicycle lanes require the elimination of parking. Given the width of Eighth Street at present, only the elimination of parking along one side or the other would allow a designated bicycle lane. Commissioner Craver summarized that the issue is whether this proposal presents a logical location for commercial development or not. Commissioner Hewins moved to recommend approval of the rezone as proposed citing the following findings and conclusions: Findings: Based on the information provided in the public record including the application file, the staffreport and its attachments, comments received during the public comment period, and the Planning Commission's deliberation, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds: 1. The applicant, Northwest Permit submitted the application to the Planning Department on February 9, 1998. A Determination of Completeness was issued on February 12, 1998, and the written public comment period initially ran from February 12, 1998 to February 27, 1998. In response to public request, the public written comment period was extended to March 6, 1998. 2. The proposal is to rezone four lots (Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Block 268 in the Townsite of Port Angeles), approximately 28,000 square feet of property, from RS-7, Residential Single Family to CSD, Commercial Shopping District (Attachment A to Planning Commission Minutes July 8. 1998 Page 7 . . to. . the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998). 3. The proposed rezone is part of the applicant's overall proposal to develop 90,000 sJ. ofthe southwest comer of Lincoln Street and 8th Street (extending to 9th Street) with an approximately 17,000 s.f. retail store. The overall proposal includes this rezone request and a street vacation request for the eastern portion of the Eighth/Ninth Streets alley. 4. As part of the application's SEP A review, a traffic analysis was requested of the applicant on February 13, 1998. 5. On April 20, 1998, the Planning Department received a letter from the applicant waiving the City's 120 day permit processing requirement due to the applicant's delay in preparing the requested traffic analysis. 6. On May 14, 1998, the Planning Department received the requested traffic analysis and on June 3, 1998, the Planning Department received an addendum to the analysis with comments regarding Ninth Street, Laurel Street, and the Eighth/Ninth Streets alley. 7. This application was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on March 11, 1998, at which time it was continued, due to lack of a traffic report and a SEP A determination, to April 22, 1998. On April 22, 1998) it was again continued for the same reason until June 10, 1998, at which time it was continued until July 8, 1998, to accommodate the resulting Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) required comment period. 8. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a MONS for the proposal on June 3, 1998 (Attachment B to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998). The MDNS was mailed to all persons who submitted written comments related to the applicant's environmental checklist, and the comment period for the MDNS ran until June 19, 1998. 9. On June 26, 1998, the City's SEPA Responsible Official re-issued the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance with an additional mitigation measure requiring certain development aspects of the project be subject to furtherreview. The public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal during the written comment period provided which ran from February 12 to March 6, 1998. All ofthe written comments received during this time are included as Attachment D to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998. The issues addressed include increased traffic on Ninth Street, potential crime, increased noise and lighting, the general impact of the project on the Cherry Hill residential area, and the availability of alternative commercial properties. 11. The subject area is within the undesignated area between the Comprehensive Plan's Commercial land use designation to the north and the Residential designation to the . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 8. ]998 Page 8 south. It is currently zoned RS-7. 12. The subject area is level and is currently developed with two single-family residences and an unimproved parking lot used by a business located on property to the north of the rezone area. The adjacent properties are developed with the following uses: To the north: To the south: To the east: To the west: commercial uses; single family residences; single family residence; and single family residences. 13. The adjacent properties are zoned as follows: To the north: To the south: To the east: To the west: CSD; RS-7; CSD; and RS-7. 14, The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies Lincoln Street as a principal arterial street and Eighth Street as a minor arterial street. 15. The traffic analysis noted the Eighth and Lincoln Street intersection currently functions at an average level of service (LOS) D, and projected that in the year 2000 it will continue to function at an average LOS of D with and without the proposed project. 16. The traffic analysis noted the Eighth and Lincoln Street intersection currently functions at a seasonal level of service (LOS) E, and projected that in the year 2000 it will continue to function at a seasonal LOS ofE without the proposed project, and a seasonal LOS of F with the project as proposed. The report projects the intersection will operate at a seasonal LOS of E with the project if the project is subject to the report's mitigation measures. 17. The City Engineer reviewed the traffic analysis and recommended a revision to the report's mitigation measures. With the project subject to the revised mitigation measures, the City Engineer states the average LOS for the Eighth and Lincoln Streets intersection will remain at D in the year 2000, and the seasonal LOS will remain at E. 18. The Department of Transportation comments are included as Attachment E to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998. They address the impact of the overall project on the Lincoln Street and 8th Street intersection, stormwater issues, signage requirements, and a recommendation the proposed development of the overall site be accessed from 9th Street instead of Lincoln Street (SR 101). ~ Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1998 Page 9 . Conclu.si.ons.: Based on the infonnation provided in the public record including the application file, the staff report and its attachments, written comments received during the public comment period, the Planning Commission's deliberation, and the above findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes: A. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are most relevant to the proposal, Land Use Policies Al and A2, CI, Dl, and E7. B. If the property is developed as part of the applicant's overall development plan as described in Attachment A to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998 and mitigated in the project's revised MDNS attached as Attachment B to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998, the rezone is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies Al and A2, Cl, Dl, and E7. c. If the property is developed as part of the applicant's overall development plan as described in Attachment A to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998 and mitigated in the project's revised MDNS attached as Attachment B to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998, the rezone is in the public use and interest and is compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses. . D. If the property is developed as part of the applicant's overall development plan as described in Attachment A to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998 and mitigated in the project's revised MDNS attached as Attachment B to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998, the rezone will result in an increase of economic activity in the City. E. If the property is not developed as part ofthe applicant's overall development plan as described in Attachment A to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98- 03 dated July 8, 1998 and mitigated in the project's revised MDNS attached as Attachment B to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998, the rezone could have a negative impact on adjacent residentially zoned and developed properties along Ninth Street. F. Ifthe property is not developed as part ofthe applicant's overall development plan as described in Attachment A to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98- 03 dated July 8, 1998 and mitigated in the project's revised MDNS attached as Attachment B to the Planning Department Staff Report for REZ 98-03 dated July 8, 1998, the City should consider a rezone of the property back to RS-7. . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver and passed 4 - 2, with Commissioners Ziakin and Nutter voting in the negative. Commissioner Ziakin stated that although he is in favor of commercial development, he does not believe the rezone is in the best interest of the community due to a reduction in traffic Pla/l/ling Commission Minllles JIIly 8. 1998 Page 10 . safety, creeping encroachment into the residential neighborhood, the access issue to Lincoln Street, and the impact of future commercial use of the four lots if the proposal does not go fOIWard. Commissioner Nutter agreed. Chair Reed noted that the City Council will conduct a public hearing on July 21st, 7 p.m. A ten minute break was called for at 9:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9: 10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: STREET V ACA TION PETITION - STY 2.8=.OL..NORTHWRST URMIT, a_pDrtion ofthe-Eightb&rinth Street alley_hetween Lincoln and LaureLStre.ets.:. A proposal to vacate right-of-way. (This item is continued from June 10, 1998.) Commissioner Nutter stated that she has a friend who is a property owner in the area and would stand down from the proceedings ifrequested to do so. No one objected and so she remained. . Planner Sawyer reviewed the Planning Department's staff report and responded to questions regarding the staff report addendum which recommended approval if the Police Department's concerns are met. Chair Reed asked Deputy Chief Tom Riepe to elaborate on the Police Department's submitted memoranda. Deputy Tom Riepe, Police Department, stated that although the Police Department initially believed that the proposed alley vacation could result in a negative impact with regard to response and observation practices by the Police Department, further analysis indicates that the impacts which could result will not be significant enough to recommend denial of the vacation. Response activities could easily be routed along Ninth Street and observation activities could still occur in the proposed parking area for the development. He appreciated the Planning Department's concerns regarding the Police Department's initial recommendation but cannot at this point see a major detriment to public safety as a result of the vacation. The Police Department's initial response was submitted out of an obligation to point out the practiced vehicular response patterns in the alley area but was not intended to be the criteria upon which the decision to vacate or not to vacate would hinge. Further review indicates that vacation of the alley may actually improve safety conditions in the area which experiences a good deal of nuisance activities and complaints, Observation of surrounding businesses would not be impacted by the proposal. Chair Reed opened the public hearing. . Scott Grainger, Baldridge Group~ 600 University #3012, Seattle, 98101, presented the proposed development plan for the Northwest Permit/Rite Aid proposal planned for the overall site. Substantial perimeter landscaping is planned as a buffer to the Ninth Street residential area with additional landscaping on Lincoln and Eighth Streets. The development should enhance the appearance of the two main travel arteries, Lincoln and Eighth Streets. The group supports the police staging needs in the parking lot area and will make every effort to accommodate those public safety issues which is in their best interest as wen as the neighborhood. A thirty-six foot egress is proposed to Lincoln Street in the location where Planning Commission Minutes July 8, J 998 Page J 1 . only the existing twenty foot ingress/egress location exists at present. Commissioner Hewins asked Mr. Grainger if the remaining alley, which would not be vacated, would have access to the site. Mr. Grainger responded "no". Theresa Schmid, 114 East Ninth Street, presented testimony that the City's recent practice has been to vacate alleys to create large sites for development, she referenced the City's Senior Center, the public library, the Safeway and Albertson's developments in support of this conclusion. She opposes forcing alley through traffic use to surrounding streets. As a resident of the neighborhood, she disagreed with the City's Engineering Department's conclusions that traffic patterns in the area would not be negatively impacted. The traffic already stacks up daily at peak times which can only increase if the proposal is approved. The traffic report indicates that the level of service ofthe Eighth/Lincoln intersection is at a level "D" at present which is not acceptable to her, and to further degrade that LOS is completely unthinkable. She strongly recommended denial of the street vacation. Nancy Van Sickle, 819 South Laurel Street, also a neighboring resident, agreed with the previous speaker and requested denial of the street vacation. She stated that vacation would only worsen traffic in the area and the development would create a new hang out for youth in the new parking area. . Marsha Pearson, 118 East Ninth Street, a neighboring resident, believes that vacation of the alley as proposed would eliminate the ability of the four lots requested for rezone along with the alley vacation project (Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16) in this block to access the alley, thus forcing all activity from those lots if developed individually, onto Ninth Street. It is not acceptable to route any additional traffic onto Ninth Street. Neighbors in the area park on the street, and the street is not wide enough to accommodate two way traffic when that parking occurs. Katltleen Bailey, 817 South Laurel Street, is in favor of the vacation as proposed. She is sympathetic to her friends and neighbors in the area, but feels that the continued use of the EighthlNinth alley in this location as a frontage road to Eighth Street is too dangerous to allow to continue. Two way traffic occurs in the narrow alley and loitering and commercial truck activity is excessive. The Eighth and Lincoln intersection is a problem. There have been commercial buildings in this location for over sixty years and the uses have by and large been good neighbors. The proposal should greatly reduce the unwanted activities in the alley and increase the safety of the residents. Typically large amounts of traffic are routed onto neighborhood streets, not alleys. . Bob Bailey, 817 South Laurel Street, explained the damage that has occurred to his property as a result of the intensity and speed at which vehicles travel through the alley to avoid the intersection in this location. Commercial use of the alley as a result of the existing businesses has resulted in damage to the alley surface and curbs. He believes that vacation of the alley as proposed will result in an increase in safety of the alley residential uses and will force commercial traffic to be more site specific. It will result in traffic use which now occurs in the alley to be placed onto streets where greater traffic use is anticipated. Vandalism should be greatly reduced due to the proposed development of the area. With or without the proposed development, some type of traffic control needs to be implemented on Planning Commission Minllles July 8, 1998 Page 12 . this alley. It is important that ifthe vacation is approved, the lots facing onto Ninth Street be closed to egress from the site development that is proposed. Theresa Schmid, 114 East Ninth Street, asked if an emergency vehicle turn around would be required at the west end of the alley if the vacation were approved. Al Gustafsoll, 903 South Peabody, asked if this action is precedent setting. He owns commercial property in the 200 block of Eighth Street which he would like to similarly develop and asked if this action would set the stage for that development. Planner Sawyer responded that comments must be directed to the issue at hand, but noted that this would not be a precendent setting situation. Mr. Gustafson added that vacation of the alley is not a good idea. To develop the site such that traffic now using the alley will be shifted to the neighboring street is improper. Safety of the residents using the neighboring streets cannot be assured. Bob Dudley, 106 East Nblth Street, enouraged the City to take a good look at the traffic patterns in the area. He verified that Ninth Street is narrow with a good deal of on-street parking, and the traffic is already congested. Additional traffic would be more difficult. There being no further testimony, Chair Reed closed the public hearing. . Commissioner Nutter opened discussion regarding a turn around at the east end of the alley, were the west portion of the alley to be vacated. Engineer Kenworthy responded that all ofthe site plan information that he has responded to indicate that access will be available to the site from the east end of the alley, and the City would be requiring an easement to ensure that access will not be hindered through to Lincoln Street. The Public Works Department will require such through access for site approval and will not support a dead end alley. Alleys are basically intended for utility purposes and secondary residential access. They are not meant for vehicular through traffic. To maintain the ease of these intended activities, it is preferred not to provide turn arounds but to loop through those areas. . Chair Reed agreed with the statement that there have been vacations approved that allowed larger commercial site developments, as stated by a resident of the neighborhood. This is true, however, each case is analyzed individually, and would not have been approved if not found to be in the greater public interest with sensitivity toward the individual areas involved. He felt that future access to Ninth Street is protected from the site by condition No.4, which provides that the vacation will not be tinaled until a building permit can be issued for the entire site, which would eliminate the possibility ofthe lots adjacent to Ninth Street being developed independently ofthe current proposal. Although staffhas confirmed that the intent of alleys is for utility and residential uses, the reality of it is that alleys, particularly this alley, experiences a much more intensive use, That traffic will be using Ninth Street if this proposal is approved. Commissioner Ziakin did not believe that the traffic situation/impacts have been analyzed . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1998 Page 13 to everyone's satisfaction. He does not believe the applicant has provided enough information for approval at this point. Commissioner Hewins noted that the subject location is one of the most desirable commercial intersections in town. The properties surrounding the intersection will eventually be developed in a manner that will inevitably increase the already heavy traffic in the area, and should be addressed in a serious manner. The City's Comprehensive Plan establishes the area as a primary commercial area which will result in a major trafffic corridor. Commissioner Craver felt that given the testimony verifying that the alley in this location is heavily travelled by those visiting the various commercial uses which occupy the area at present as well as those using the alley as a frontage road to avoid the intersection congestion, development of the area from several businesses into one single commercial site may actually reduce the congestion in the area somewhat. She noted that the applicant's testimony indicates that the alley will not be continued through to the parking lot, but the site information presented for review indicates through access. Chair Reed again noted that closure of the alley will force the traffic uses to the side streets, and was not comfortable with that impact. In response to Commissioner Souders, Planner Sawyer noted that he believes the applicant's site plans are dependent on the street vacation. Furthermore, he stated that staff would have difficulty recommending approval of the accompanying rezone proposal without the street vacation due to the fact that without the added right-of-way area the commercial site would be bisected by the alley. Commissioner Nutter moved to deny the proposed street vacation petition citing the following findings and conclusions: Eindings.: 1. The applicant for the requested vacation is Northwest Permit. The petition is attached as Attachment A of the July 8, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STY 98-01. 2. The requested vacation is for that portion of the alley between 8th Street and 9th Street abutting Lots 1-6 and 13-18 of Block No. 268 in the Townsite of Port Angeles. 3. The street vacation is categorically exempt from threshold determination and Environmentallmpact Statement requirements per Section 197-11-800 (2) (h) of the Washington Administrative Code. 4. The subject right-of-way and abutting properties fall within the undesignated area between the Comprehensive Plan's Commercial land use designation to the north and its Residential designation to the south. The majority of the abutting properties are zoned Commercial Shopping District (CSD) with four of the properties currently . . . Planning Commission Minllles July 8. 1998 Page 14 zoned Residential, Single-Family (RS-7). 5. The Public Works Department has indicated a 24" sanitary sewer main and overhead electrical lines are located in the alley and will need to be relocated if the vacation is approved. 6. The subject right-of-way is currently improved. 7. The Public Works, Fire, and Police Department's comments are included as Attachments B, C, and D of the July 8, 1998, Planning Department Staff Report for STV 98-01. 8. The Police Department originally submitted written public safety concerns related to the proposed vacation. These concerns include the current use of the alley for traffic diversion in the event of an accident at the 8th Street and Lincoln Street intersection, the use of the alley by officers in response to calls from the bank: located at the comer of 8th Street and Oak Street, and the use of the alley for access to and observation of the 24 hour retail/gas station use at the comer of 8th Street and Lincoln Street. 9. At the July 8, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, the Police Department's concerns were further explained. Deputy Chief Tom Riepe stated that the July 7, 1998, memorandum from the Police Department was intended to point out issues for consideration but the concerns do not warrant denial of the proposed vacation. Conclusions: A. The Comprehensive Plan's Utilities and Public Services Policies C2 and 3 and Transportation Policy B 18 are the most relevant to the proposed vacation. B. Based on neighborhood traffic concerns including the use of the alley for public safety purposes, the proposed vacation is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. C. Based on the Police Department's comments and stated use of the alley for public safety purposes, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed vacation may have an impact on public health, safety and welfare. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ziakin and deadlocked 3 - 3, with Commissioners Reed, Nutter, and Ziakin voting for the motion, and Commissioners Hewins, Craver, and Souders voting against the motion. Commissioner Hewins stated that he did not believe the vacation will have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Reorientation of traffic patterns in the alley will result in the direction of traffic through to Eighth Street. The project, not the vacation, may result in an increase in traffic to Ninth Street. . . . Planning Commission Minutes JI/ly 8, 1998 P(lge 15 Commissioner Craver restated her belief that the consolidation of the uses at this comer may ease the impact to the neighborhood and the alley. Chair Reed reiterated that his primary reason for voting to deny the vacation is due to the public testimony that traffic volumes along Ninth Street during rush hour traffic exceeded that which was suggested by the consultant's report and that the proposed vacation would aggravate that situation. When asked to comment on the traffic impact, Engineer Kenworthy again noted that alleys are not intended or developed for heavy, through traffic use. He is comfortable with the proposal and vacation of the alley subject to the conditions recommended. The Commission took a short recess at II :00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11 :05 p.m. The Commission discussed traffic concerns and potential traffic patterns at length. Commissioner Ziakin noted that he would abstain from voting on the issue because he does not believe enough information has been presented to vote fairly. Staff responded, at the direction ofthe Chair, that the Commissioners should endeavor to vote one way or the other. lfthe Commission cannot break a deadlock, the issue would have to be passed on to the City Council as such. Engineer Kenworthy responded to Commissioner Hewins that the traffic consultant provided additional information at his request which concluded that, following their analysis as traffic engineers, the additional traffic to Ninth and Laurel Streets would not be significant. Mr. Kenworthy agreed that there will be impacts and increases, but they would not significantly affect the level of service. Commissioner Nutter stated that she can't give credence to the traffic engineering study prepared by the traffic consultants because it is too vague. Testimony received by the neighborhood does not support the traffic consultant's conclusions. Commissioner Souders noted that her vote against the motion was because the [acts presented by staff in recommending denial of the vacation cannot be supported without the Police Department's concerns. Staff noted in the report that if the Police Department's concerns could be mitigated the recommendation would be for approval. Commissioner Craver believed that significant weight should be given to the traffic consultant's report because the authors are trained in traffic matters and are professionals in their field, where the individual Planning Commission members are not traffic experts. She has to assume that reports presented by specialists in a specific field should be given particular weight in a final decision. Commissioner Ziakin believed there are glaring gaps in the information provided. Chair Reed pointed out the options available at this juncture and encouraged the Commission to try to forward a clear recommendation to the City Council. . . . Planning Commission Minures July 8. 1998 Page 16 Commissioner Hewins agreed with Commissioner Craver that the requested traffic information had been provided and the City's Engineer had reviewed it and agreed with the conclusions. He then moved to approve the vacation as proposed citing the following six conditions, ten findings and four conclusions: Conditi.ons.:. 1. The proposed street vacation is subject to the recommendations ofthe City's Public Works Department (Attachment B of the July 8, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STY 98-01) which require that a twenty-four inch sanitary sewer main will need to be relocated. A twenty foot wide access and utility easement shall be required. 2. The proposed street vacation is subject to the recommendations of the City's Fire Department (Attachment C of the July 8, 1998, Planning Department Staff Report for STV 98-01) which requires that through access shall be maintained at the west end ofthe vacated Eighth/Ninth alley. The access shall be a minimum of twenty feet in width and shall consist of an all weather surface meeting the City's Public Works Department specifications. An approved turn around meeting the City's specifications may be approved at the east end of the remaining EighthlNinth alley in lieu of through access. 3. The street vacation shall not be flnaled until a building pennit is issued for the property consistent with the revised site development plan (Attachment A to the July 8, 1998, Planning Department Staff Report for STV 98-01). 4. Final occupancy of any new structures on the site shall not be allowed until the street vacation is complete and all of the individual lots comprising the development site have been combined into one legal building and zoning lot. 5. Any costs associated with utility relocation and alley realignment and/or improvements shall be borne by the applicant. Endings.: 1. The applicant for the requested vacation is Northwest Pennit. The petition is attached as Attachment A ofthe July 8, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STV 98-01. 2. The requested vacation is for that portion of the alley between 8th Street and 9th Street abutting Lots 1-6 and 13-18 ofBIock No. 268 in the TOWl15ite of Port Angeles. 3. The street vacation is categorically exempt from threshold determination and Environmental Impact Statement requirements per Section 197-11-800 (2) (h) of the Washington Administrative Code. 4. The subject right-of-way and abutting properties fall within the undesignated area . . . Planning Commission Minrltes July 8. 1998 Pagel 7 between the Comprehensive Plan's Commercial land use designation to the north and its Residential designation to the south. The majority ofthe abutting properties are zoned Commercial Shopping District (CSD) with four of the properties currently zoned Residential, Single-Family (RS-7). 5. The Public Works Department has indicated a 24" sanitary sewer main and overhead electrical lines are located in the alley and will need to be relocated if the vacation is approved. 6. The subject right-of-way is currently improved. 7. The Public Works, Fire, and Police Department's comments are included as Attachments B, C, and D ofthe July 8, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STV 98-01. 8. The Police Department originally submitted written public safety concerns related to the proposed vacation. These concerns include the current use of the alley for traffic diversion in the event of an accident at the 8th Street and Lincoln Street intersection, the use ofthe alley by officers in response to calls from the bank located at the comer of 8th Street and Oak Street, and the use of the alley for access to and observation of the 24 hour retail/gas station use at the comer of 8th Street and Lincoln Street. 9. As noted in their presentation to the Planning Commission on July 8, 1998, the Police Department's concerns expressed in a letter dated February 23, 1998, attached as Attachment D of the July 8, 1998 Planning Department Staff Report for STV 98- 01) do not warrant denial ofthe proposed vacation. 10. On May 14, 1998, the Planning Department received a traffic analysis for the applicant's overall development plan which includes the proposed street vacation. On June 3, 1998, the Plarming Department received an addendum to the analysis with comments regarding Ninth Street, Laurel Street, and the Eighth and Ninth Streets alley. Conclusions: A. The Comprehensive Plan's Utilities and Public Services Policies C, 2 and 3 and Transportation Policy B 18 are the most relevant to the proposed vacation. B. As conditioned, the proposed vacation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Utilities and Public Services Policies C, 2 and 3 and Transportation Policy BI8. c. As conditioned, the proposed vacation will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety and welfare. D. As conditioned, the proposed vacation will benefit the community's economic development as well as the general public health, safety and welfare. . . . Planning Commission Minllles July 8, 1998 Page 18 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver and passed 3 - 2 with Commissioners Hewins, Souders, and Craver voting in favor, Commissioners Nutter and Reed voting in the negative, and Commissioner Ziakin abstained. Those who voted against the motion restated their original objections, and Commissioner Ziakin's abstention was due to the desire for additional traffic infonnation. Chair Reed stated that the City Council will hold a public hearing on this item at its July 21, 1998, meeting, which will begin at 7:00 p.m. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Marsha Pearsoll, who provided testimony during the public hearing, stated that this is one of the highest walking neighborhoods in the community. This fact should be given significant import when dealing with issues that will cause an increase in vehicular traffic. Theresa Schmid, 119 East Ninth Street, noted that the issues presented before the Commission are complicated in nature and the process is very confusing. Citizens are not given a fair opportunity to comment because the comment periods specified by ordinance are not long enough to formulate an educated response. Neighbors in the area under consideration were concerned enough to reschedule their education and physical health needs in order to be in attendance at the meetinglhearing. Commissioner Craver responded that the Planning Commission wholeheartedly appreciates the efforts of citizens who take the time to present testimony and respond to issues of concern. The intention of the Planning Commission is to plan for the whole community and in the best interests of its citizens. STAFF REPORTS Commenting on the statement that was made by Mrs. Schmid regarding the opportunity for public comment prior to a meeting, Planner Sawyer noted that in this particular issue members of the neighborhood made note of their need for additional time to present additional comments and staff was happy to comply by extending the original comment period as requested by the spokesperson, Mrs. Schmid. A specific public comment period is identified in order to keep the application process moving, and, only in cases where the Planning Commission does not hold a public hearing is the time period for submission of public comment restricted. Staff previously informed Mrs. Schmid and others who expressed interest that only the Planning Commission would be a closed record meeting. The City Council's deliberation would be a full public hearing which would provide ample opportunity to present additional written and verbal comment for that hearing. Brad Collins, the Planning Director, would be returning from vacation on July 13th. . . . Planning Commission MinUles July 8. 1998 Page 19 REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Nutter asked staff to review opportunities for the public to be able to provide comment for a more lengthy time period prior to Commission actions in situations where the Commission is not the hearing body. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11 :40 p.m. D~~ David Sawyer, Ac g Secretary PREPARED BY: S. Roberds