Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/13/1991 . . . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 November 13 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER n. ROLL CALL m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of October 23, 1991 IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. REZONE REQUEST - REZ 91(11)04 - NIICHELIHURWORTH. South Del Guzzi Drive: Request for rezone of approximately 26,000 square feet of property from RS-9, Residential Single-Family, to RMF, Residential Multi-Family. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REOUEST - CUP 91(11)19 - STURGESS. 1621 East Fourth Street: Request to allow a duplex as a conditional use in the RS-7, Residential Single-Family District. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO mE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT CHAPTER OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1709. AS AMENDED: 4. PROPOSED BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE. City-wide: Proposed ordinance developing guidelines for boundary line adjustments. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS All correspondence pertaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Planning Commission: Ray Grover. Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice-Chair; Jim Hulett; Roger Catts; LaITY Leonard; Bob Philpott; Bill Anabel. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist; John Jimerson, Associate Planner; David SlIwyer. Senior Planner. . . . "- Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 VU. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS vm. ADJOURNMENT 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 Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents 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 Planning Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. All correspondence pertaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Planning Commission: Ray Gruver, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice-Chair; Sim Hulen; Roger Cans; Larry Leonard; Bob Philpott; Bill Anabel. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialisl; Sohn Simeraon, Associate Planner; David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington November 13, 1991 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gruver called the meeting to order at 7: 05 P. M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ray Gruver, Bob Philpott, Bill Anabel, Larry Leonard, Jim Hulett, Roger Catts. Members Excused: Cindy Souders. Staff Present: Brad Collins, John Jimerson, Ken Ridout APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Collins presented detailed changes to the October 23, 1991, Planning Commission Minutes which were incorporated into the draft minutes submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration by the Commission at the meeting. The changes tended to be of an editorial nature, correcting verb tenses, spelling, etc. Mr. Philpott moved to approve the minutes of October 23, 1991, with one change, to include the correct spelling of the word "referencing" on page 5. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hulett and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS REZONE REQUEST - REZ-91(11)04 - NIICHELlHURWORTH, South DelGuzzi Drive: Request for rezone of approximately 26,000 square feet of property from RS-9. Residential Single-Family. to RMF. Residential Multi-Family. Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department report. Mr. Leonard asked if approval of the rezone could be conditioned upon limiting the number of units which could be constructed in the rezone area. Mr. Collins responded that legally the City could approve a conditional or contract rezone; however, he advised against such a rezone, as it could create legal entanglements resulting from the contract entered into between the property owner and the City and could limit zoning changes in resolving future land use issues. Mr. Collins'added that if the Planning Commission chooses to proceed with a conditional rezone, he would recommend they follow the precedent the City has already set in requiring the applicant to obtain PRD approval for the site within a given period of time, rather than conditioning the rezone to limit the density. Mr. Hulett asked about the status of the Ennis Creek PRD. Mr. Collins responded that the applicant is free at this time to submit an application for final PRD approval consistent with the preliminary approval. He was not aware of any legal barriers preventing an application for final PRD approval. . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 2 Mr. Leonard asked if the property is landlocked. Mr. Collins responded that the property is landlocked and the City was careful when approving the Ennis Creek Estates PRD to not approve any buildings in locations which would prevent future access to the site, which must be obtained through private negotiations between the applicant and the adjacent property owner. Public Works has commented that they would prefer to see the entrance line up with DelGuzzi Place. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. Bill Lindberg, 319 South Peabody Street, representing the applicant, concurred with the staff findings. He noted that he had prepared a number of alternative development schemes for the site and stated it would be practically impossible to obtain the maximum density of 20 units. The site plan submitted with the application depicts one alternative scheme which covers 30% of the lot, which is the maximum lot coverage in the RMF zone district. Chairman Gruver asked if the time required for a PRD approval would adversely affect the applicants' timing for the project. Mr. Lindberg responded that time could be a factor and reiterated that the applicant is looking at constructing only nine units on the site. . Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, stated that the proposal is more sensible than the previous Ennis Creek Estates proposal. She noted the Comprehensive Plan calls for the It occasional usetl of multi-family development in suburban RS-9 areas. At what point does the City determine that the incidence of multi-family use in the suburban residential area is no longer an occasional use? Townhouses with common wall construction could be constructed on the site without benefit of a rezone. There is an inadequate amount of park and recreational opportunities in the vicinity. The trail provided in the Ennis Creek Estates project does not provide an appropriate recreational opportunity. The rezone would result in additional traffic and she asked who would be required to pay for improvements of Lindberg Road. There could be 500 to 1,000 people living in the Ennis Creek Ravine area as a result of recent rezones. Commissioner Catts asked how many common wall units could be constructed on the site without a rezone. Mr. Collins responded that up to three units could be constructed with a duplex on one lot and a detached single-family home on a second lot. . In rebuttal, Mr. Lindberg, noted that the site is screened on the north (south) by 100 feet of Golf Course property which is wooded and contains a tee for the Golf Course. It is screened on the west by the Golf Course and there is an existing screen on the east side of DelGuzzi Drive provided through the Ennis Creek Estates PRD. Therefore, the rezone would not impact any low density residential areas. There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 3 . 8:00 P.M. After some discussion on, the possibility of conditioning the rezone approval to either limit the number of units or to require a PRD permit approval, Mr. Leonard moved to continue further consideration of the item to the November 20, 1991, meeting so no decision would be made until after the City Council has a chance to act on the PRD ordinance amendments, which action is scheduled for the November 19, 1991, Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anabel and carried unanimously. Mr. Leonard then moved to reopen the public hearing on this rezone application and to continue the public hearing to 7 PM in the City Council Chambers on November 20, 1991. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anabel and carried unanimously. The Planning Commission took a break at 8:30 and reconvened at 8:45 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - CUP-91 (11) 19 - STURGESS, 1621 East Fourth Street: Request to allow a duplex as a conditional use in the RS-7, Residential Single-Family District. . Mr. Jimerson presented the Department Report, and noted the Building Official has inspected the home and has indicated that alterations have been made which would require a building permit. The staff recommendation is changed to add a condition that a building permit must be obtained prior to occupancy of a second living unit in the existing residence. He also noted that the petition which was included in the Planning Commission packet now has two signatures which have been removed by persons who originally signed it. Mr. Collins added the Planning Department would like to include in the recommendation that an additional condition be placed on approval which requires a zoning lot covenant be filed by the property owner which creates one zoning lot out of the two existing Townsite lots. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 8:50 P.M. Eunice Sturgess, 1621 East Fourth Street, pointed out that the petition which was circulated in the neighborhood stated that the request is for a rezone. She has no intention to request a rezone. The request is for a conditional use permit. The house has been occupied as a duplex since prior to when she moved in. It is her intent to have no more than two persons living in the downstairs ,unit at anyone time. . John Teichert, 1713 East Fourth Street, explained that he wrote the petition and circulated it through the neighborhood and that, in fact, the reference to a rezone was in error. The neighborhood is primarily single-family, with one duplex in the area on Nancy Street. The house in question was occupied as a single-family house until three or four years ago, when the rental unit was created. The proposal would result in a decrease of property value and has been operating in violation of City codes. . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 4 area so that he would be located next to other single-family homes and not duplexes. Lori Gray, 1707 East Fourth Street, stated there are few rentals in the,neighborhood, and that they have experienced problems with rentals in single-family homes. Most residents in the area are long-term residents and the proposed duplex would introduce a more transient population. Transient renters have less interest in keeping property up. She was concerned with the adequacy of area for children to play. Dan Bower, 1610 East Fourth Street, was concerned with the type of people who rented the units and was concerned whether adequate management of the units could be provided when Mrs. Sturgess is no longer there. Would the next landlord be as conscientious? Rex Springer, 1701 East Fourth Street, stated the people in the neighborhood are comfortable with their neighborhood and they become concerned when any change may affect that level of comfort. . Jack Dunlap, 1704 East Fourth Street, was concerned with the vacant lots to the west. What is to prevent them from also having a duplex? Mr. Hulett responded that the Planning Commission has traditionally been concerned with permitting duplexes to prevent over-concentration in anyone area. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Collins stated that duplexes have traditionally been allowed in single-family zones for, he believes, two reasons. The first, when the zoning ordinance was drafted there was already an existing number of duplexes in single-family areas and the ordinance would therefore recognize that they could belong in single-family districts. The second reason is that duplex structures are similar and compatible with single-family housing units. There are minimal differences with respect to design. The ordinance provides a safeguard mechanism, namely the conditional use permit process, which allows the City to ensure that any duplex would not be detrimental to the vicinity. Traditionally the City has considered over-concentration of duplexes as being detrimental. A duplex approved on one site, therefore, could result in a decreased likelihood that a duplex would be approved on an adjacent lot. Mr. Leonard added that a duplex requires 10,500 square feet of lot area as opposed to only 7,000 square feet for a single-family home. Dolores Victorian, 1618 East Fourth Street, explained that the neighborhood is somewhat isolated and she does not want to see a precedent set which would allow duplexes in the vicinity. Mr. Philpott asked staff if conditional use permits are transferable. Mr. Collins responded that conditional use permits apply to the property as long as the use is maintained and the conditions of approval are met. . Eldon Officer, 1720 East Fourth Street, opposed a duplex at this location, citing that it would reduce property values in the vicinity. . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 5 Sylvia Teichert, 1713 East Fourth Street, stated that she is aware of one household that moved into the neighborhood to avoid a similar situation. The existing duplex is in violation of City code. It was her understanding that the house has been used as some sort of nursing home situation, which resulted in a number of ambulance visits. She, too, was concerned with the potential for setting a precedent for introducing duplexes into the vicini ty . Lenard Wright, 1818 East Fourth Street, explained that it was his understanding that the two persons who removed their names from the petition removed them because they were concerned with Mrs. Sturgess' financial situation. Eunice Sturgess, in rebuttal, commented that she has worked hard to obtain and keep good tenants and that she would not hesitate to evict tenants, if necessary. She explained the police visits, noting that when she first moved in she was burglarized and therefore purchased a burglar alarm which has accidentally been triggered. Mr. Catts asked if there is anyone living in the downstairs unit at this time. Mrs. Sturgess responded "no". She added that she called the County Assessor's Office and the office staff explained that duplexes do not result in a decrease in property value, and in certain instances, may even increase property value. . There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 9:50 P.M. Mr. Leonard commented he lives next to rental units and an alcoholic rehabilitation facility and has not experienced any problems. He cited the definition of conditional uses, noting that they are permitted in the RS-7 district and the City's review is provided to allow some control to prevent detrimental impacts to a neighborhood. The impacts of placing one duplex on 14,000 square feet of property would not be any greater than impacts created by placing two single-family homes on the same 14,()()() square feet of property, he said. Mr. Leonard moved to approve the requested conditional use permit subject to the following conditions, and citing the following findings and conclusions: CONDITIONS: A. The applicant shall obtain proper building permits and bring the building into compliance with local and State Building Codes prior to letting the apartment unit for occupancy. B. The second unit shall have its own electric meter. . C. The applicant shall record with the County Auditor's office a Zoning Lot Covenant which would create one zoning lot out of the two existing Townsite lots. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 6 FINDINGS: 1. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a duplex within the RS-7 Zone District. 2. The second unit is incorporated into the basement of an existing single-family home and does not extend the exterior walls of the building. 3. The proposal meets or exceeds the minimum lot area, set-backs. and open space requirements of the RS-7 Zone District. 4. The proposal will not increase the overall potential density, as it will result in two dwelling units on two Townsite lots. 5. There are at least six (6) on-site parking spaces, which exceeds the Parking Ordinance requirement of two spaces per unit. 6. The basement area has been modified to be occupied as a separate living unit. Without an inspection, it is unknown if any modifications meet the Building Code. 7. The Fire Department has inspected the building and has no objections to the second unit. t 8. City Light has noted that the building is wired for two living units, and that a second electric meter is required. CONCLUSIONS: A. The proposed duplex is compatible with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. B. The Conditional Use Permit is in the public use and interest and is not detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was seconded by Mr. Philpott. Mr. Philpott added he has heard numerous times as a Planning Commissioner that citizens of the community want to see multi- family housing dispersed throughout the City and not over concentrated in anyone particular area. After a brief discussion the question was called for and the motion carried 5 - 1, with Chainnan Gruver voting "no". Chairman Gruver explained he was not voting against the conditional use permit application not because he believes it would set a negative precedent, and that a duplex is an acceptable use at this location. His vote is because he finds it appropriate the Planning Commission review the possibility of creating additional standards in the zoning ordinance which would protect single-family neighborhoods. Those standards could include requiring minimum distances between PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 7 . duplexes. Prior to taking a break, Mr. Teichert stated that it is his intention to appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The Planning Commission took a break: at 10:15 P.M. and reconvened at 10:25 P.M. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1709, AS AMENDED. Mr. Collins presented the Department Report. He explained that the City Council requested he provide a summary of the issues raised at the City Council meeting to the Planning Commission and a response to those issues. Mr. Collins was unable to have that summary in written form prepared for the meeting and noted that several of the persons who spoke at the City Council were in attendance at this Planning Commission meeting. He encouraged them to repeat their testimony from the Council meeting for the benefit of the Planning Commission. . Mr. Hulett, who had been involved with the Innovative Housing Committee, briefly explained the changes made to the density credit portions of the PRD Ordinance and clarified that the changes were not correctly reported in the local newspaper. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 10:30 P.M. Tim German, 123 East Ninth Street, stated that he is an advocate of the PRD process. It protects the integrity of neighborhoods while allowing flexibility to developers with respect to design. He expressed concern with proposed Section 17. 70.050(B), which would restrict the potential design solutions. He presented an alternative paragraph to the Planning Commission which does not provide such specific development restrictions. Bill Dawson, 1224 West Fourth Street, commented that the PRD ordinance amendment is a significant amendment and may be premature given the City has yet to complete the Growth Management Planning process. The public review period is too rushed. PRDs have a multi-family bias. He did not believe PRDs would result in affordable housing as the design requirements are oriented to up-scale, luxury units. He was asked by Ron Richards to express Mr. Richards' concerns to the Planning Commission, in his absence, which include concern that there is no clear distinction on what work can occur on-site between granting the preliminary PRD approval and final PRD approval. It is unclear whether a building could be occupied before the street improvements are installed. . In response to the Planning Commission request, Mr. Collins addressed several issues raised by Mr. Dawson. The PRD process would not result in eliminating single-family zoning in the City. A single-family area would not change without due process where property owners and area residents are given the opportunity to have input on the decision. The City Council recognized that the City will be completing the Growth . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 8 to encourage affordable housing at this time, rather than wait. The PRO process itself could dovetail with the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance and Wetlands Protection Ordinance, as it allows for flexibility in design which could, in turn, allow for development which is respectful of the natural environment. The Ordinance does provide incentives for multi-family housing, but multi-family housing can only occur in single- family areas if the site area is larger than 3.44 acres and, even then, not at higher densities without a rezone. There are other incentives also relating to the protection of neighborhoods and to the assurance of buffering between uses. There are no changes proposed which affect ownership requirements. PRDs cannot be approved without permission of property owners. The existing language of the Subdivision Ordinance which is less specific about ownership, and the PRD Ordinance provide the means of ensuring that public improvements are installed. DOD Hanson, 117 West Second Street, stated that he does not have any objections to a PRD Ordinance and believes the proposal is probably a good one; however I the citizens and City need more time to review the Ordinance to make sure there will be no problems. . Joe Michalczik, 520 West Third Street, was concerned with the potential impact of the ordinance on older existing neighborhoods. He suggested the City should test the amendments to evaluate potential impacts. He has not had time to study the specifics of the document and he recommends the City slow down the review process. There is a need for more public feedback. The PRD appears to be a vehicle to encourage luxury condominiums along the bluffs and to provide a handle for reviewing new subdivisions on the edge of town, such as Ennis Creek Estates, which was recently approved. Werner Quast, 3800 Park Knoll, stated that the City could get the public's attention by telling them the PRD is a refined form of spot zoning. It does provide greater flexibility in reviewing development proposals, but at a cost of less assurance provided through the rule of the law. He recommended Section 17.70. 120(F) be changed from 3.44 acres to at least 4 acres, and preferably 5 acres, to remove an incentive for a developer to block bust by purchasing all the properties on one block in the middle of a neighborhood. He questioned whether or not the neighborhood would be given proper notification of a proposal for a PRO. He recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council take a field trip to Edmonds where apartments and condominiums have taken over older single-family neighborhoods. In response to the Commission, Mr. Collins explained the public notification process for a PRD approval, noting that all property owners within 300 feet of the site are notified by mail of public hearings. . There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 11:50 P.M. The Planning Commission discussed Paragraph G(2) with respect to preservation of scenic view corridors and concluded that it is appropriate to consider preservation of views . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 9 internal to the site and external to the site to the greatest extent possible, where applicable. Mr. Leonard asked if it is possible that a property could be included in a PRD in which the owner of that property did not approve of said inclusion, Mr. Collins responded that the PRD Ordinance, like rezoning, does not preclude inclusion of properties without the consent of the property owners but does not believe, in practice, that it would occur. Chairman Gruver stated there are certain areas in the City which lack adequate park facilities and asked how the City can use the PRD Ordinance to provide more parks. Mr. Collins responded that parks dedications are legitimate subdivision and PRD requirements and they usually relate to the size of the development: The larger the project, the greater a dedication can be required. In response to the suggestion that the City test the impacts of the Ordinance changes on the older existing single-family neighborhood homes, the Planning Commission concurred it is not necessary; that the review process set up in the PRD Ordinance would allow for sufficient review on a case-by-case basis of each PRO proposal. . The Planning Commission discussed Mr. German's request to delete the restriction that does not allow recreational facilities in the setback areas to be counted toward the open space requirement. After discussion, Mr. Leonard moved to recommend the City Council delete that provision. The motion was seconded by Mr. Catts and carried 5 - 1, with Chainnan Gruver voting "No", because he felt it was needed to provide the assurance that existing single-family neighborhoods would be protected and thereby gain more approval for PRDs; that the setback area is intended to be a buffer, or at least if the setback area is used for recreational facilities, that no density credit is given. Mr. Leonard moved that Section 17.70.170 be amended to include language that other public improvements of each project phase must also be completed before any certificates of occupancy would be issued. This motion was seconded by Mr. Anabel and was approved unanimously. It was also the consensus of the Planning Commission that a neighborhood meeting shall be held for all PRD applications and not just for those PRD applications which pose a probable significant adverse impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Leonard moved to recommend to the City Council to adopt the PRD Ordinance amendments, noting the three changes discussed above, citing the following fmdings and conclusions: . Findings: 1. The City of Port Angeles has received the results of a housing needs study indicating that the housing needs of our community are not being met. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 10 2. A recommended goal of this Clallam County Housing Needs Assessment is to broaden the housing types allowed in the Port Angeles Zoning Code, and recommended strategies include: a. Broaden the land use options in the Port Angeles Zoning Code to include more density choices between the single family roning and high multiple family densities now specified by the Zoning Code. b. Encourage residential development in all zones, including commercial, retail, and some industrial areas. c. Change planned unit development rules to allow smaller PUD's in some zones. 3. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan contains the following goals and policies: a. A community where development and use of the land are done in a manner that is compatible with the environment, the characteristics of the use and the users. b. A community of viable neighborhoods and a variety of opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages, characteristics and interests. c. Residential land should be developed on the neighborhood concept. d. Residential developments should allow Planned Unit Development techniques where emphasis is on the overall density of the development rather than individual lots or dwelling units. Standards should be established to assure access and services adequate for the density and type of residential development proposed. e. Residential developments should preserve and capitalize on eXlstmg unusual, unique and interesting natural features, should utilize and preserve scenic views, should maximize southern exposures, should offer protection from the prevailing winds, and should be designed to minimize energy use. f. Building density should decrease as natural constraints, such as slope, drainage and soil conditions increase. g. High density development should be allowed in areas which would provide aesthetic amenities or suburban environmental characteristics to a larger percentage of the population, provided such development would not have adverse impacts on the surrounding low density development. . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13J 1991 Page 11 h. People of the city should be encouraged to participate in community development decisions. 1. A population growth of approximately 1 % a year should be used as a basis for planning. J. Determination of open space lands should be based upon an open space study which examines natural characteristics and features and is integrated into this comprehensive plan. k. Areas with severe physical constraints should not be intensively developed. 1. Wherever possible, unique environmental and topographic features should be preserved. m. Natural topographic conditions and soil conditions should be a major determinant of the intensity of development of all areas of the community. n. Wherever possible, open space areas should be used as a boundary between neighborhoods. . o. To avoid undue concentration of population. p. To provide for, encourage, and preserve the identity of the neighborhoods in the city. q. To make the environment of the community conducive to a better life: spirituall y, morally, and physically through the provision of various opportunities. r. To encourage the most appropriate use of the land in Port Angeles. s. To group together similar and functionally related land uses; to prevent land use conflict resulting from the unplanned intermingling of incompatible uses. t. To conserve and restore areas of natural beauty and other natural resources. . u. To prevent overcrowding of the land use in the city and its environs, thus safeguarding against blight and hazards. . v. To guide the physical development of the area through planning and planning implementing methods. 4. The City Council established an ad hoc housing committee on November 20, . . . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 12 4. The City Council established an ad hoc housing committee on November 20. 1990, after considering that work on perfecting the mechanism of the PRD Ordinance to allow affordable multi-family housing should be addressed immediately by the City Council and not wait for changes under growth management planning due by 1994. Conclusions: A. There is a shortage of affordable housing in general and a low vacancy rate for rental units in particular in Port Angeles. B. The Innovative Housing Committee's proposals are consistent with the strategies proposed by the Cla11am County Housing Needs Assessment. C. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies and are based on the premise that people who live in multi-family housing are entitled to the same suburban, neighborhood atmosphere as those living in single family housing. D. The proposed amendments provide incentives for housing development at transitional densities between low density single family and high density multi- family zoning uses and provides safeguards for compatibility of new development to the surrounding neighborhood through the design review process. E. The proposed PRD amendments are in the public use and interest. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anabel and carried unanimously. PROPOSED BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE, City-wide: Proposed ordinance developing guidelines for boundary line adjustments. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 1: 15 A.M. Mr. Anabel moved to continue the public hearing to the December 11,1991, meeting at 7 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hulett .. and carried unanimously. v COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Joe Michalczik noted that the vote for recommending approval of the PRD amendment was taken at 1:10 A.M. and expressed concern over how the City expected public input at such an hour. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 13 Mr. Leonard commented that the three public hearings, two at the City Council level and one at the Planning Commission level, provide opportunities for the public to give their input to the City. Bill Dawson, 1224 West Fourth Street, stated that the three hearings are held back-to- back and do not provide enough time for review. Mr. Leonard commented that Mr. Dawson would have the opportunity to express that concern to the City Council at the next public hearing. Mr. Hulett observed that Planning Commission recommendations and changes are always made after obtaining all public testimony offered at the time of the public hearings. VI STAFF REPORTS Mr. Collins informed the Planning Commission that due to multiple meetings, short handed staff, and holiday schedules, the Planning Department may have difficulty in preparing the packet for next week's Planning Commission meeting by Friday afternoon, and suggested that perhaps next Monday or Tuesday may be the earliest it would be available, also noting he was not sure whether both items on the next agenda could be read y to be heard at that time. The Planning Commission concurred that the Planning Department do the best it can to have the items prepared as soon as possible and that, if necessary, review of the items could be continued to a future meeting. VII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Mr. Leonard noted that the Board of Realtors would like to receive agendas of the Planning Commission on a regular basis and would be submitting self-addressed stamped envelopes to the Planning Department to help facilitate receiving them. Mr. Philpott asked if it was possible for the Planning Commission to schedule a work session to discuss many of the issues which have arisen with regard to the development of multi-family housing. Mr. Collins responded that the Planning Commission agendas are full and the next work session that may be available would not occur until next March. To have one sooner would require a special meeting. The consensus of the Planning Commission was not to have a special. meeting at this time and to have staff prepare calendar items for the 1992-93 Planning Commission Chairman. ~. -- '. PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1991 Page 14 VIII ADJOURNMENT There being no additional business, Mr. Hu mov the meeting, which motion carried unanim usl Mr. Catts seconded to adjourn A.M. .~ . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of Meeting Planning Commission Date tJ()Vff-MBP~ rs, (11 I Location 321 E. 5th Street - City Hall . Address ~ o~ vJ (p '5- .-[3v ,~ C\. ~ Ufl. f A-~ . '-J-M- M 1?20 E ti /2-:3 3 W S- f? 0 I t. fi1L Jj. / tP.;). cj {.u I ~/ c J ~ I t:J -E. lj.J J.., . .I