HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/08/2007
~' ~OR'T' l')l! N: rG'Eili' E, "SI,
I' ,i I! I I / I I , I J ",'
r
, I
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
August 8, 2007
6 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: No minutes to review
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.
REZONE APPLICATION - REZ 07-01 - HONG CRONIN. Portions of Race
Street between 4th and 7th Streets: Proposal to rezone property from Residential Single
Family (RS-7) and Residential Medium Density (RMD) to Commerial Office (CO).
.
2. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 07-04 - THE
LANDING. 115 East Railroad Avenue: Proposal to construct exterior additions for
public access and viewing, reconstruction of a pier and building located on the pier
in the shoreline area.
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
VI. STAFF REPORTS
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Werner BeIer (ChaIr), John Matthews (Vice ChaIr), Chene Kldd, Stanley Hams, Dave Johnson, Doc ReiSS, Mike Caudill
PLANNING STAFF Mark Madsen, DIrector, Sue Roberds, Planmng Manager, Nathan West, PnncIpal Planner, Scott Johns, ASSOCIate Plannel
.
.
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
August 8, 2007
6:00 p.rn
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Cherie Kidd, Dave Johnson, John Matthews, Stanley Harris,
Werner Beier, Mike Caudill
Members Excused:
Doc Reiss
Staff Present:
Scott Johns, Nathan West, Sue Roberds
Public Present:
Roger Stigen, Harold and Jewell Brisbin, Thomas Lunderville,
Dave Neupert, Susan and Howard Blair, Dan and Janet Gouin,
Mark Craig
CALL TO ORDER
Salute to the Flag was led by Chair Beier.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No minutes were presented for review.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
REZONE APPLICATION - REZ 07-01- HONG CRONIN. Portions of Race Street
between 4th and 7th Streets: Proposal to rezone property from Residential Single Family
(RS-7) and Residential Medium Density (RMD) to Commerial Office (CO).
Chair Beier noted that his mother lives in a residence that he owns in the area of the rezone but
believed he could act fairly on the application. Commissioner Johnson noted that he lives in an
adjacent area to the rezone and but felt he could act fairly on the matter. No one in the room objected
to either of the Commission members remaining for the proceeding.
Associate Planner Scott Johns reviewed the Department's report recommending approval of
the rezone to Commercial Office. He responded to various questions from the Commission regarding
the City's Comprehensive Plan and commercial zone standards.
In response to Commissioner Kidd, Mr. Johns responded that the City does not have a defined
crosstown route.
In response to Commissioner Johnson, Planner Johns explained that the proposed rezoning
would not constitute a "commercial strip." The action would result in the combination oflots into a
low intensive commercial node that could act as a buffer between single family residential uses east and
west of the corridor and Race Street. He used the overhead projector to identify that Eighth Street to
Seventh Street and mid block between 6th and 7th Streets is zoned Commercial Office, 7th Street to 6th
Street (west side) is zoned Residential Single Family, 6th Street to the 5/6 Alley (west side) is
Residential Medium Density, and lots between the 5/6 Alley and 4th Street are zoned Residential Single
Family but are developed as single family residential or a nursing home. The rezone would combine
.
.
.
Plannmg CommISSIOn Mmutes
August 8, 2007
Page 2
zones in the well traveled corridor into a low intensive commercial node rather than the spot design
of zoning that currently exists. The rezone application was submitted by property owners in the Race
Street area following the City's change of designation of the corridor on the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map in 2006 that designated the corridor as commercial. All but one property owner in the subj ect
area has been contacted and are in favor of the rezone.
Chair Beier opened the public hearing.
Dave Neupert, 403 South Peabody Street represented the applicants. The applicants have no
specific plans for their properties but are aware that the Commercial Office zone allows only low
intensive office type and multiple family uses. They applied for the rezone following a redesignation
of the area commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map in 2006.
Janet Gouin, 823 East Sixth Street lives in the neigJ1boring area and asked if accessory uses
had been considered in staff's analysis? Mr. Johns responded by specifically outlining, one for one,
what conditional uses are possible in the CO zone, and noted that the existing zones mainly allow the
same conditional uses with the one exception of motel and hotel uses. He noted that any proposed
condItionally permitted use would only be approved through the conditional use permit process that
requires a public hearing.
Sue Blair, 604 South Race Street lives in the proposed rezone area. Although she did receive
notification of the proposal, her family has been on vacation and this is the first she has heard of the
proposal. She stated that enough residential property has been gobbled up for commercial use.
Dan Gouin, 823 East Sixth Street noted two previous attempts that had been made to rezone
the area to commercial.
Planning Manager Sue Roberds was asked to provide a history of those attempts. She stated
that, since 1993, there have been attempts to redesignate and rezone the remaining residential area
between 7th Street and 4th Street to commercial as a result of the assortment of uses in the corridor. In
1996, property between 6/7 Streets along the east side of Race Street was rezoned to CO. In 2001, a
rezone proposal to CO for the property directly west across Race Street from that property was denied
but the property was rezoned to RMD. In 2004, a proposal to redesignate the subject area to
commercial was denied by the Council, while it had been recommended to be approved by the Planmng
Commission, only because of the indefinite boundary proposed by the applicant. The applicant was
directed to be more certain as to the boundaries of the proposal, and Council left the door open for that
reconsideration. In 2006, the area was redesignated as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map which then left the door open to future rezone proposals. The current proposal is made by
the property owners of nine of the remaining properties along the corridor. Until the public hearing,
the City had not heard from 3 of the 7 affected property owners: 2 did not respond to letters, and the
Blairs who expressed their objection. Four (4) property owners of 11 properties expressed support for
the proposal.
Dave Neupert reiterated that his clients are aware that the zone change being requested is the
most restrictive commercial zone in the City and that retail uses are not permitted.
Howard Blair, 604 South Race Street opposed a hotel/motel use along Race Street near his
residence. He believes that residential activity should be encouraged along the arterial corridor leading
to Hurricane Ridge.
Planning Manager Sue Roberds said that, given the limitation of two properties deep for the
proposed rezone area, it would not be possible to develop a large hotel/motel use in the CO zone. The
density permitted in the CO zone is that of the RHD zone, and would therefore not be dissimilar to
neighboring properties ifhigh density residential use is desired for the properties. The only real change
would be the potential for low intensive commercial uses such as office use.
Chair Beier indicated that he needed more direction in the matter.
.
.
.
Plannlng CommiSSIOn MlI1utes
August 8. 2007
Page 3
Planner Johns noted that the Comprehensive Plan is the document that outlines the goals and
objectives of the City in its planning efforts and the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map is a
descriptive direction as to where particular zones will occur. Planners are to plan for those areas to be
developed as is described in the Map once it is adopted. He noted that the current Planning
Commission sent a recommendation to the City Council in 2006 to designate the subject corridor as
commercial on the Map, and the Council did agreed and changed the Map. This rezone then follows
that directIOn. He noted that, in fact, the RMD zone, which is also found in the subject corridor, allows
for a higher density even than the CO zone. The only difference is found in the list of conditionally
permitted uses, which may only be developed followmg a public hearing process.
There being no further testimony, Chair Beier closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kidd moved to deny the rezone as proposed. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Harris. Planning Manager Roberds asked what findings would be cited in support of
the motion. Commissioners Kidd and Harris withdrew their motions.
Following deliberation, Commissioner Harris moved to deny the rezone as proposed citing
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Goal B, Policies 2, 3, 4, 5,6,8, and 10 in support
of the action, and making one conclusions as follows:
Findings:
Goal
B. To improve circulation patterns across and within the community, andto achieve the desired
urban design of the City.
Policies
2 The City should divert cross-town truck traffic around the downtown area.
3. The City should facilitate the development of a cross-town truck route with
improvements, which provide full access to SR 117 to and from US 101, and
improvements to the Lauridsen Boulevard Bridge over Peabody Creek and the
intersections of Lauridsen Boulevard at Race Street and US 101.
4. The City should facilitate an additional route for local cross-town traffic along
Lauridsen Boulevard across White's Creek ultimately connecting with US 101.
5. In association with these two proposed cross-town routes the City should require
adequate mitigation measures to reduce any negative impacts on existing land uses,
including buffer areas, pedestrian sidewalks and crossings, bikeways, and reduced
speeds.
6.
The CIty should facIlItate the development of an alternate local cross-town route with
improvements, which provide full access at US 101 and SR 117 (the Tumwater Truck
Route). Improvements should be made to the intersections of Lauridsen Boulevard at
Lincoln and Peabody Streets. Improvements should be made to the Lauridsen
Boulevard Bridge over Peabody Creek. Improvement should be made for the
development of a crossing over White's Creek. The City should revise its development
regulations as necessary to preserve the right-of-way within an identified US 101
corridor.
.
.
.
Plannzng CommiSSIOn Mznutes
August 8,2007
Page 4
The City should coordinate with the State Department of Transportation, Clallam
County, and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization
transportation planning efforts. This includes recognition of US 101 and SR 117, along
with connecting roadways of Front, Lincoln, Railroad, Oak, and First Streets to and
from the ferry landings, and along Front Street and Marine Drive and First Street
between US 101 and SR 117, as transportation facilities of state-wide significance
whIch are declared essential public facilities under the Growth management Act.
Review of potential impacts to these facilities and LOS standards will be incorporated
with future updates to the CIty'S ComprehenSIve Plan, as reqUIred by the Act.
9. The City should complete the arterial circulation system for wests ide development.
8.
Conclusions:
1. The proposal is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposal is not generally in the public interest.
Commissioner Kidd seconded the motion, which passed 6-0.
Planner Roberds noted that this item would come before the City Council for a public hearing
on August 21,2007, 7 p.m.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 07-04 - THE
LANDING. 115 East Railroad Avenue: Proposal to construct exterior additions for
public access and viewing, reconstruction of a pier and building located on the pier
in the shoreline area.
Chair Beier noted for the record that he has a business relationship with the proponents but
that he believed he could act fairly on the application. No one in the room objected to his remaining
for the deliberation. At staffs request, Chair Beier called a five minute recess. The meeting
reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
Associate Planner Scott Johns reviewed the Department's report recommending approval
of the application with conditions. In responding to a question from the Commission with regard
to the proposed replacement or repair of the pier piling, Mr. Johns stated that he was not certain of
the preferred method of repair as those activities would fall under the purview of the Army Corps
of Engineers and the Department ofFish and Wildlife.
Chair Beier opened the public hearing.
Mark Craig, 32933 SE 33'd Street, Fall City, Washington represented the applicant and
noted his experience in marina purchases and similar development and redevelopment over the past
15 years. He believes that the current plans will enhance the public's enjoyment of the waterfront
area and will be beneficial to both tourists and locals alike. The project will be developed in two
phases: Phase I will involve a rebuild of the entryway and the addition of a viewing tower similar
to the Municipal Pier and the construction of walkways for tenants and visitors around the perimeter
but will not expand the existing footprint. Phase II will improve the dock and provide moorage for
large vessels, improve pedestrian access, provide a public fishing area, and provide a float plane
access for seasonal use April to September.
In response to a question from Commissioner Beier as to timing, Mr. Craig responded that
.
.
.
Plannmg CommiSSIOn Mmutes
August 8, 2007
Page 5
he hopes to complete the project by mid summer 2008. In response to Commissioner Kidd, Mr.
Craig stated that he hopes to be able to moor vessels from 120' to 125' in length at a floating dock.
Commissioner Kidd noted that it what is needed for Port Angeles. Mr. Craig responded to Planner
Johns that the floating dock would be stored elsewhere for the winter season.
Doug Timmons, 814 Milwaukee is acquainted with Mr. Cronauer and believes the visions
expressed in the proposal are dynamIte. He supported the application.
Commissioner Kidd congratulated Mr. Craig on the vision provided in the application and
stated that the activity is exactly what is needed for the waterfront.
Chair Beier closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kidd moved to approve the shoreline substantial development permit
with the following conditions, citing the following findings and conclusions in support of the
action:
Conditions:
If the subject site has not been previously inventoried, evaluated, and reviewed to the
satisfaction of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the subject site shall be evaluated by a
cultural review team, which shall include a professional archaeologist, a representative of
the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the site owner, and the Port Angeles Department of
Community and Economic Development. This team shall determine the extent of
excavation monitoring for the project during the permit review process. As an
alternative, the applicant may have an approved archaeologist on site during any
excavation in lieu of a review by the aforementioned cultural team. If during an
excavation that, by decision ofthe cultural review team occurs without an approved
archaeologist on-site, any phenomena of possible archaeological interest are uncovered,
the developer shall stop such work and provide for a site inspection and evaluation by a
professional archaeologist to ensure that all possible archaeological resources are handled
in accordance with applicable law.
2. In the event archaeological artifacts, features or human remains are discovered, the
permittee will immediately notify the Tribal Chair and specified Tribal staff by both letter
and telephone, as well as the City. The City, in turn will immediately notify the State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, as required in RCW 27.44 and
27.53.
3. The project must comply with all the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) and local Flood Damage Prevention Regulations and provide a flood-proofing
certification prior to issuance of further city permits.
1.
4. Erosion Control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction.
5. Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris
cannot enter the Port Angeles Harbor, Strait of Juan de Fuca, or cause water quality
degradation of state waters.
6.
During construction, all releases of oils, hydraulic fluids, fuels, other petroleum products,
paints, solvents, and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a
.
.
.
Planmng CommiSSIOn Minutes
August 8, 2007
Page 6
manner that will prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the state. The cleanup of
spills should take precedence over other work on the site.
7.
Provision shall be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles
onto paved public roads. If sediment is deposited, it shall be cleaned every day by
shoveling or sweeping. Water cleaning should only be done after the area has been
shoveled out or swept.
8.
The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required state and federal permits.
9.
The project proponent shall conduct a reconnaissance study to determine whether critical
salt water habitats are present within the area affected by the proposed development. All
impacts to critical salt water habitats shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of Washington
State Departments ofFish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology; the U. S. Army
Corp of Engineers, or other agencies with jurisdiction.
10.
All uses proposed for the upland portion of the project shall meet the definition of water-
oriented and for those uses waterward of the OHWM shall meet the definition of water
dependent.
Findings:
Based on the mformation provided in the August 8, 2007, Staff Report for SMA 07-04
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. An application for a shoreline permit was submitted by The landings Partnership, on June
21, 2007 for the remodel of the existing Landings Mall, including the addition of a
viewing tower, second story walkway, replacement and repair of existing piling,
replacement and repair of decking on an existing dock, the rehabilitation of the existing
structure located on the existing dock, and the addition of 1,920 square feet of floating
dock.
2. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued by the City of Port Angeles SEP A
Responsible Official for the proposal on August 1,2007.
3. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, has been reviewed with respect to this
application. The uplands portion of the site is designated Urban Harbor (UR) and the
waterward portion is designated Aquatic Harbor (AR).
4.
The Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and critical areas ordinances have been
reviewed with respect to this application. The site is designated Commercial and
Industrial on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Central Business District
(CBD) and Industrial Heavy (IH) in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
.
.
.
Plannmg CommiSSIOn Minutes
August 8, 2007
Page 7
5.
Chapter 5 of the City's Shoreline Master Program indicates water oriented uses are
permitted in the U-H designation, and water dependent uses are permitted in the AH
designation.
6. The following adopted City policies are most relevant to the proposed project:
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policies A-2; the City's Shoreline Master
Program's Urban-Harbor designation and Chapter 4, Policies B. 1 and 2; D. 1; E. 1,2; G.
1, and 4-9; L. 1-4; 1. 1-3; K. 1-3,5,6; M. 1,2; and O. 1,2; Chapter 5, Policies D. 1-5,8-
11 and F. 1-8; and Chapter 6, Policies C. 1-5; F. 1-5; and all associated regulations.
7. The City's Waterfront Trail runs east and west along the south side ofthe project and is
located within the city owned Railroad Avenue right-of-way. The proposed work wIll not
impact the Waterfront Trail.
8. The project as designed will increase and improve shoreline access to the public.
Conclusions:
Based on the information provided in the August 8, 2007, Staff Report for SMA 07-04 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:
A. The proposed project as conditioned, is consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance,
Comprehensive Plan, and Shoreline Master Program.
B. The project as conditioned will not be detrimental to the shoreline.
C. The project as conditioned will improve public access, both visual and physical, to the
Port Angeles Harbor.
D. As conditioned, the proposed project will improve public use oflands or waters and
serves the public interest.
E. The project as conditioned will be reviewed by all state and federal agencies with
jurisdiction.
F. Public notice was provided per city policy with no comment received.
Commissioner Harris seconded the motion which passed 6 - O.
.
.
.
Plannmg CommiSSIOn Mmutes
August 8,2007
Page 8
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ST AFF REPORTS
Planner Johns noted that the Port Angeles Forward Committee meeting is August 9,2007,
7:00 a.m. He noted that the subject is a cross town route. He encouraged those who are
interested to attend. Commissioner Johnson, as the Commission's representative to the Port
Angeles Forward Committee, invited Commissioners who are interested in discussing a cross
town route to let him know their thoughts.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Nothing further.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m.
~
PREPARED BY:
S. Roberds
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, USA
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET
PLEASE SIGN IN
Meeting Agenda of: Ave; V.sT 8> ~ dcD 1-
To help us provide an accurate record of those in attendance, please sign in. Your
signature acknowledges your presence. 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:
6C:t;~~ ~-rIG-t,u
Agenda Item No.
'fA - (pu. R,4.eLtf
tot-f)) ^-
(p f R1J
yo)
~O
6"0 ~
.cJ4.
~'~ l'nE-
:rI..' .
51
I~~
.
C: \My Files\FORMS\Mtgrostpc. wpd