HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/08/2009')ORT s NGELES
W A S H I N G T O N U S A
COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
July 8, 2009
6 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge Of Allegiance Led by the Chair
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of June 24, 2009
IV. PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONE REQUEST REZ 09 -01 HANKINS Lots 11 and 12, Block 260, TPA,
southeast corner of 8 and B Streets: Request for rezone from RS -7 Residential Single
Family to CO Commercial Office. (Continued from June 24, 2009
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
VI. STAFF REPORTS
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
VIII ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMM (SSIONERS. John Matthews lClrair; Doc Reiss (Vice Chatr), Werner Beier, Mike Caudill; Tun Boyle, Carla Sue, Nancy Powers
PLANNING STAFF Nathan West, Director, Sue Robeui• Planning Munger, Scott Johns, Associate Planner, Robe; t K.,mz, Assistant Planner.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: John Matthews, Mike Caudill, Doc Reiss, Tim Boyle,
Nancy Powers, Carla Sue
Members Excused: Werner Beier
Staff Present: Scott Johns, Nathan West
Public Present: Sean Hankins, Margaret Womack
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Boyle moved to approve the June 24, 2009, regular meeting minutes
as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Matthews and passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
July 8, 2009
6:00 p.m.
REZONE REQUEST REZ 09 -02 HANKINS Lots 9 and 10, Block 260,
TPA, southeast corner of 8 and B Streets: Request for rezone from RS -7
Residential Single Family to CO Commercial Office.
Associate Planner Scott Johns reviewed the Department Report recommending approval of the
rezone proposal, and identified the site location, Comprehensive Plan designation, and current
zoning through the use of a Power Point presentation. Staff discussed the inclusion of Lots 10
and 11, Block 239 in the rezone proposal and emphasized that several contacts with the property
owner had been made. It was pointed out that the property owner was in agreement that their
property should be included in the rezone and that they had no objections to inclusion.
Commissioner Powers asked why the Commercial Office zone was being recommended rather
than the nearby Community Shopping District zone. Planner Johns indicated that staff had
determined that the CO zone was most appropriate due to its intent to be a low intensity use zone
and a transition between low density residential and more intense commercial uses. Director
West added that the existing uses would remain as conforming uses in the CO zone but would
become non conforming uses in any other commercial zone.
Chair Reiss asked for clarification regarding the areas located between Comprehensive Plan use
designations on the Land Use Map. Planner Johns explained the reason for leaving an 'imprecise
margin' between the land use designations is for flexibility in applying zoning classifications.
Chair Reiss then questioned Finding #4 of the staff report which indicated the potential of
additional lots being rezoned similar to the subject lots. Planner Johns concurred that the finding
was inaccurate, and that staff would make changes to correct the finding.
Commissioner Boyle questioned the reasoning of applying Commercial Office to the site and
whether the proposed zoning would encourage extension of the zone to the east, creating a strip
character of commercial zoning along 8 Street. Planner Johns indicated that the application was
non specific to which commercial zone was being applied for and that staff felt that the CO zone
is the most appropriate for the area. He further discussed the process that would be required to
result in further extension of the commercial zoning to the east, including further amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan, and specific application for such zoning changes.
Commissioner Matthews asked for further clarification of Finding #4 and specifically which lots
were being recommended for rezone. Planner Johns pointed out the specific lots on the map
projected on the screen and discussed the corrections that staff would make to Finding #4
Commissioner Matthews then asked as to staff contact with the subject property owners. Staff
suggested opening the public hearing to allow the audience to speak before the Commissioners
asked more questions.
Chair Reiss reviewed the quasi judicial public hearing guidelines and qualifying statements.
Following review of the questions, all Commissioners responded for the record that they had no
appearance of fairness or conflict of interest issues with regard to the pending application. Chair
Reiss opened the public hearing.
Chair Reiss indicated that those who testify must sign the "Sign In" log and affirm that their
testimony will be truthful to the best of their knowledge.
Sean Hankins, 1371 Three Crabs, Sequim, stated that he owns Lots 9 and 10 of Block 260, and
that he is aware that staff had spoken to the owner of Lots 11 12, Block 239 regarding
rezoning that property as well as his. He then stated that he had begun the rezone process several
months prior and has had several conversations with staff over that period of time. He further
stated that he is aware of the proposed CO zoning and understands the rationale of using the CO
as a buffer between commercial and residential uses. Mr Hankins stated that he has no intention
of converting the property to multi family residential. He felt that if the Commission believes
that to be the best use of the property they should apply a zone that would be most appropriate to
allow that use.
Planning Comm,ss,on Minutes
July 8, 2009
Page 2
Planner Johns pointed out that the proposed CO zone would allow for multi- family residential
use as a conditional use.
There being no further comment, Chair Reiss closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Matthews asked staff about the recommendation in the staff report and if the
Commission should include Lots 11 12, Block 239 to the recommendation for rezone. Planner
Johns indicated that staff would like the Commission to make that recommendation.
Commissioner Matthews continued the discussion of spot zoning and strip commercial. He
questioned what could be done to avoid a strip commercial configuration along that vicinity of
the 8 Street corridor Planner Johns pointed out that recent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
amendments to the commercial designated area along 8' Street specifically limited the eastern
extension of commercial uses and that amendments to existing policy language encouraged
commercial nodes rather than a strip pattern. It was also pointed out by Director West that the
use of the CO zone acts as a step down in intensity of use, essentially marking an edge to
commercial development to the east.
Chair Reiss asked how the issue of spot zoning had come about, and about the contact with the
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 2009
Page 3
owner of Lots 11 and 12. Director West indicated that typically, the applicant would be required
to include all parties in the application, however, in this case staff had taken the initiative to
contact the property owner after the application was submitted. Mr West specifically clarified
that by including the lots north of 8 Street the rezone would be in the best interest of the public
and that it would be the first step toward creating a commercial node in the vicinity of the
Lincoln Center Chair Reiss then asked if the property owners to the south of the proposed
rezone had been approached regarding rezoning their property Planner Johns stated that he had
an extensive conversation with that property owner and they had not been interested in having
their property rezoned at this time, however, they were not opposed to the subject property being
rezoned, and indicated that in the future they would not be opposed to their property being
rezoned.
Following the discussion, Commissioner Matthews moved to approve rezone REZ 09 -02
for Lots 9 10, Block 260 and adding Lots 11 12, Block 239 to the rezone proposal, with the
following amended findings, and conclusions.
Findings
1 An application to rezone 2 lots from Residential Single Family RS -7 to Commercial was
received by applicant Sean Hankins on January 20, 2009
2. The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is the guiding document in determining
the consistency of the City's zoning and establishing an expected framework for land use
e decisions within the City
3 The City's 2009 review of its Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map culminated on
June 16, 2009 Amendments to the Land Use Map included designation of the subject
area from Low Density Residential to Commercial.
4 Properties in the subject area that could potentially be zoned as commercial given their
designation on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map include Lots 11 and 12,
Block 239, and Lots 9 and 10, Block 260 These properties are currently zoned RS -7
Residential Single Family and are developed with single family residences and ancillary
structures. Lots 11 and 12, Block 239, and Lots 9 and 10, Block 260, are currently vacant
and are located along the 8` Street corridor
5 During analysis of the rezone proposal, staff spoke with all adjacent and neighboring
property owners whose properties are designated Commercial on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map regarding the rezone proposal. By phone, property
owner Dorothy Mangano (Lots 11 and 12, Block 239) agreed that a commercial
designation is logical given the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and
historic zoning in the area. A grocery story was previously operated between `B" and
"C" Streets north of 8th Street in the area. Mrs. Mangano agreed to include her property
in the rezone on July 6, 2009
6. An inventory of vacant land within the City done in 2008 identified 2.89 available acres
of Commercial Office zoned property and 87 acres of Residential Single Family (RS -7)
zoned property
7 The Commercial Office zone is intended for those business, office, administrative or
professional uses which do not involve the retail sale of goods, but rather provides a
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 2009
Page 4
service to clients, and do not create high traffic volumes, have extended hours of
operation, or are detrimental to adjacent residential areas".
7. A rezone proposal must pass the following tests to avoid being considered a spot zone:
1) the parcel of land has not been singled out for special and privileged treatment; 2) the
action is considered to be in the public interest and not only for the benefit of the land
owner; and 3) the action is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
8. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were reviewed in its entirety with respect to
the proposal. The following elements, goals, and policies were found to be most relevant
to the proposal: Land Use Element Goal A, Policy A.1 2, and Objective A.1:
Commercial Goal D and Policy D.1; Policy E.1, 2, 3 5; Transportation Element Policy
B.14 and Objective B.1. The Land Use Map designation is Commercial.
9. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non Significance on July 2,
2009. This satisfies the City's State Environmental Policy Act review.
10. Notice of the rezone application was placed in the Peninsula Daily News on May 12,
2009. Mailing labels were provided by the applicant, and surrounding property owners
were notified by mail on May 10, 2009. Written comment was taken on the proposal
until June 22, 2009. One letter was received during the written comment period from Mr.
Higdon. Mr. Larry Higdon's concern, as expressed to staff, is regarding development
that would cause additional traffic issues. This is an issue to be addressed when, and if,
there is a development proposal for the property.
11. The City's Public Works and Utilities Department commented that available utilities to
the area include: City power, sewer, and water. The Fire Department had no objection to
the rezone proposal. All emergency services are available to the area.
12. Future development proposals will require specific project review including issues such
as access, noise, lighting, and landscaping. The City's Public Works and Utilities
Department commented that any commercial use of the site will require off street parking
to address all parking needs.
Conclusions
1. The proposal is in accordance with the City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and
Land Use Map.
2. To avoid any potential claim of spot zoning, a rezone should be comprised of Lots 11 and
12, Block 239, and Lots 9 and 10, Block 260, TPA. The action rezones all of the lots
within the immediate area along the 8 Street corridor that are vacant and that are eligible
for rezone per the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map in accordance with the Map's
Commercial designation for the area. The action cannot then be considered a spot zone.
3. As approved the rezone is compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses and will
encourage development of the area as is expected by the City's Comprehensive Plan as
implemented by the City's zoning regulations. The rezone is therefore in the public
interest.
4. It is in the best interests of the City to designate additional property as Commercial
Office.
Commissioner Caudill seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Planning Commission AGmues
July 8, 2009
Page 5
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
STAFF REPORTS
Planner Johns informed the Commission that the Assistant Planner position has been
filled. Director West briefly mentioned ongoing projects. The AIA SDAT team has
provided staff with a preliminary draft of their report. Mr West indicated that several of the
suggestions have already been added to the Capital Facilities Plan, the Comprehensive Plan,
or have been included in other planning actions.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting djourned at 5 p.m
'Scott Johns, Sec
PREPARED BY S. Johns
Doc Reiss, Chair
A S H I N G T O N, U S A
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEET
PLEASE SIGN IN
Meeting Agenda of
Ll B, J
To help us provide an accurate record of those in attendance, please sign
in. If you plan to testify, by your 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.
NAME ADDRESS:
SNRw R, PNJ4 /frA
Harrel 1 /49 t
/3Z Tµ2P.P CRAes
,f// 4/eg/A /6 ore7 A 4.
Agenda Item No.