Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/14/1994 . . ". Pt.ANN\NG AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 December 14, 1994 7:00 P.M. REVISED I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL ID. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of November 30, 1994 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVEWPMENT PERMIT - PORT OF PORT ANGELES - SMA 94(12)146. Ediz Hook: Request for a substantial development permit to allow a shoreline rehabilitation project. 2. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - PORT OF PORT ANGELES - SMA 94(12)147. 202 North Cedar: Request for a substantial development permit to allow a boatbuilding facility in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District. 3. STREET Y ACA TION PETITION - PETERSEN - STY 94(12)10. Portion of the 5/6 Alley: Petition to vacate a portion of the 5/6 alley located in the west seventy-five feet of Suburban Lot 34 . (To be continued to January 9, 1995.) 4. STREET Y ACA TION PETITION - KEY - STY 94(12)09, A portion of Maud and all of Prank Street abutting Block 11, the alley in Block 11, and lone and Helen Streets abutting Blocks 11 and 12, Frederick's Addition to Port Angeles. PLANNING COMMISSION: Orville Campbell, Chair, Cindy Souders, Bob Winters, Bob Philpott, Bob King, Tim German, and Linda Nutler. STAFF: Brad Collins, Director, Sue Roberds Office Specialist, and David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . '. 5. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 94(12)08 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES: Proposal to amend Chapter 17.86 (Home Occupations) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance clarifying exemption standards. 6. DEVEWPMENT STANDARDS FOR URBAN SERVICES ORDINANCE - Adoption of development standards for consistency with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and with the Growth Management Act. 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS ORDINANCE V. ORDINANCES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AMEND ZONING REGULATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ( A public hearing was held on this item on November 30, 1994.) VI. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Appeal of Preliminary Short Plat Approval Condition - Kaufmann - SHP 94(09)11 vn. STAFF REPORTS: Vill. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS: IX. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence penaining 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. 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 he allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chainnan 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 Chairman. . . . AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGELES PLANNING CO:MMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 December 14, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL ill. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: Meeting of November 30, 1994 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - PORT OF PORT ANGELES - SMA 94(2)146. &Iiz Hook: Request for a substantial development permit to allow a shoreline rehabilitation project. 2. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - PORT OF PORT ANGELES - SMA 94(12)147. 202 North Cedar: Request for a substantial development permit to allow a boatbuilding facility in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District. 3. STREET V ACA nON PETITION - PETERSEN - STV 94(2)10. Portion of the 5/6 Alley: Petition to vacate a portion of the 5/6 alley located in the west seventy-five feet of Suburban Lot 34 . (To be continued to January 9, .1995.) 4. STREET VACATION PETITION - KEY - STV 94(12)09, A portion of Maud and all of Prank Street abutting Block 11) the alley in Block 11, and lone and Helen Streets abutting Blocks 11 and 12, Frederick's Addition to Port Angeles. PLANNING COMMISSION: Orville Campbell, Chair. Cindy Souders. Bob Winlers, Bob Philpott. Bob King, Tim Gennan, and Linda Nutter. STAFF: Brad Collins, Director, Sue Roberds Office Specialist, and David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . 5. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT. ZCA 94(12)08 . CITY OF PORT ANGELES: Proposal to amend Chapter 17.86 (Home Occupations) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance clarifying exemption standards. 6. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR URBAN SERVICES ORDINANCE. Adoption of development standards for consistency with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and with the Growth Management Act. 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS ORDINANCE 8. AMEND ZONING REGULATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN V. OrnER BUSINESS: 1. Appeal of Preliminary Short Plat Approval Condition. Kaufmann. SHP 94(09) 11 VI. STAFF REPORTS: VD. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS: Vill. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence penaining 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. ~ ~~Ji~~N5 GBEEri~G~ PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Infonnation 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 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 Chairman. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 December 14, 1994 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Orville Campbell, Bob King, Bob Philpott, Cindy Souders, Linda Nutter, Bob Winters, and Tim German Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, David Sawyer, Bruce Becker and Jack Pittis Public Present: John Key, Barbara Kaufmann, Jack Glaubert, Gerald Austin, Art Dunker, Ken Sweeney, and Tony Kapetan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Philpott moved to approve the November 30, 1994, minutes as written. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Commissioner Souders corrected the wording on her motion found on page No. 10 stating"... recommend adoption of a revised Zoning Map consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map in separate public hearings, by.~ category, by August 1995,... II and a revision to the statement under "Staff Reports" on page No. 12 "The Commission discussed the need to inform the Councilmembers individually of their budgetary dcsir-e to sl:ij)J:lort the fourth PlftflHing DepnrtffiCftt positioft concerns. Commissioner Nutter offered a clarification of the intent of her suggestion found on page No.9 wherein she suggested some options for more comprehensive notification practices such as fl::lll page maps in the newspaper. The maker and second of the motion concurred. The motion passed 5 - 0, with Commissioner Campbell abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS: SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVEWPMENT PERMIT - PORT OF PORT ANGELES - SMA 94(12)146. Ediz Hook: Request for a substantial development permit to allow a shoreline rehabilitation project. This item was scheduled to be heard on January 25, 1995, in order to provide legal public notice. . . . Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 2 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVEWPMENT PERMIT - PORT OF PORT ANGELES - SMA 94(2)147. 202 North Cedar: Request for a substantial development permit to allow a boatbuilding facility in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District. David Sawyer reviewed the Department Report and answered questions from the Commission regarding the parking requirements for such a use. Chair Campbell opened the public hearing. Kenneth Sweeney, P.O. Box 1350, Port Angeles, represented the Port of Port Angeles. He displayed an artist's rendition representing the elements of the project. The major element being a 20,000 square foot manufacturing building in which the yachts would be constructed and later moved outside for finish work and launched from a boat ramp to be constructed at the south side of Terminal No. I. The manufacturing building is presently occupied by a complex that includes the longshore lunch room, mechanical maintenance building and a warehouse building. The primary use of the current parking spaces is for Port employees who work in the mechanical maintainance division. With the proposed movement of that operation to the west to accommodate the proposed boatbuilding facility, those employees will be parking in the Boathaven area. The Port has planned for the one-half block straight ahead extension of the Tumwater Truck Route for several years. The traffic signalization at the intersection of Tumwater/Marine Drive would have to be changed to accommodate extension of the traveled road. The plans and engineering are available and the project can proceed as soon as the need is demonstrated. He noted that upon completion the facility should employ from 100 to 150 people. There being no further comment, Chair Campbell closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Winters, Mr. Sweeney answered that parking is available in the Longshoremen's parking area south of Marine Drive. Staff responded that parking in that parking lot would have to satisfy the City's parking requirements which requires parking to be no more than one hundred feet from a proposed site. The Longshoremen's parking area is further than one hundred feet away from the proposed facility. He also responded to questions as to the relocation of the employees lunchroom. Commissioner Winters questioned Mr. Sweeney as to the possibility of providing the additional parking spaces required for the use. Mr. Sweeney answered that although he did not know specifically where additional parking spaces would be found, every effort will be made to provide them in order for the proposal to proceed. Mr. Sweeney responded to Commissioner King that the environmental review which accompanied this project did not identify traffic as at a level that would require construction of intersection/roadway extension improvement at this time. The Port performed the environmental review. . . . Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 3 Commissioner King moved to recommend approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit with the conditions as follow: Conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide for the on-site presence of an archaeologist approved by the S'Klallam Lower Elwha Tribe during any substantial excavations of native soils and shall take those steps necessary to protect artifacts which are discovered as prescribed in state law and by the archaeologist. 2. An additional 14 spaces will have to be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. If additional parking is needed within the shoreline jurisdiction, the applicant will be required to obtain another shoreline permit. 3. A State Hydraulics Permit will be obtained, and FEMA flood hazard requirements shall be met. and citing the following findings and conclusions: Findine:s: 1. The site is used as a marine terminal with docking facilities and for log storage and currently is occupied by a port warehouse used for machinery maintenance and a longshoreman's lunchroom. 2. The request is for approval of a substantial development permit to allow for development of a marine manufacturing facility which includes construction of a 20,000 square foot yacht manufacturing facility near the marine terminal. Adjacent to the north side of the new manufacturing building, a space will be allocated to outside storage of completed or nearly completed yachts. A boat launch ramp will be"constructed at the south berth of Terminal #1 for launching of the completed yachts. The existing warehouse will be replaced at a location approximately 800 feet west of the existing location in a new 4,960 s.f. building. An area of about 15,000 s.f. is proposed to be paved north of the maintenance shop. The paving will allow for better containment of runoff through an oil-water separator before the discharge enters the harbor. The existing lunchroom function is to be moved into a warehouse building on Terminal #1. 3. There will be 20 parking spaces eliminated and 40 parking spaces provided in triangular area between the new building and the K-Ply mill to the east for a net increase of 20 spaces. A net increase of 34 spaces, or an additional 14 spaces, is required for the proposed development. 4. The Shoreline Master Program identifies the site as Urban, and the followingoregulations have been found to be the most relevant: General Regulations 1 and . . . Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 4 4, Land Use Elements la, Economic Development, and 7 Historical and Cultural, Natural Systems 11 Flood Plains, and Use Activities 3 Boat Launching Facilities, 8a1d Ports and Water-Related Industry, 12a1c/f Landfill, and 18c Archaeologicial Areas and Historic Sites. 5. The following goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan have been identified as being the most relevant to the proposal: Land Use Goal H and Policy H.4, Conservation Goal A, Policy A.l, Goal B, Policies B.lIB.lO/B.ll, and Economic Development Goal A, Policy A.4, Goal B, Policy B.l. 6. The site is identified as Heavy Industrial by the Comprehensive Plan and as M-2 Heavy Industrial by the Zoning Map. 7. The Port of Port Angeles, acting as lead agency, issued a Determination of Non- Significance for the project on October 31, 1994. 8. The S'Klallam Lower Elwha Tribe, private industries, and the City have agreed that due to the high potential for finding archaeological, historical, and cultural artifacts in the shoreline areas of Port Angeles Harbor because of the long use of the area as tribal settlements any substantial excavations of native soils has required the on-site presence of an archaeologist approved by the S'Klallam Lower Elwha Tribe during the excavation. 9. The shoreline has been altered substantially from its natural state. It consists of a steep rock rip rap wall. Above the wall is a level industrial site with no vegetation. Waterward of the shoreline is the massive terminal dock used for larger ships. 10. The site is located in a Zone C flood plain which requires compliance with federal regulations for development. 11. The boat building facility will create 100 new jobs in the City. 12. The nearest residents are over 1000 feet south of the site and are atop the marine bluff which is over 100 feet above sea level. Conclusions: A. The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, specifically those identified in Finding No.2. B. The use is consistent with the Heavy Industrial desig-nations of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. c. The proposal will not be detrimental to the shoreline. . . . Planning Commission December 14. 1994 Page 5 D. As conditioned, the proposal will provide opportunities for industrial development in a manner which efficiently uses the community's various attributes and natural resources~ has minimal impact on the environment~ and contributes to the City's quality of life. E. As conditioned~ the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will protect the area's unique physical features, valuable natural, historical~ archaeological~ and cultural amenities, and the overall environment. F. As conditioned, compliance with State and Federal laws will be done. Commissioner Nutter seconded the motion which passed 6 - O. STREET V ACA TION PETITION - PETERSEN - STY 94(12)10. Portion of the 5/6 Alley: Petition to vacate a portion of the 5/6 alley located in the west seventy-five feet of Suburban Lot 34. Chair Campbell noted that the applicant had not been able to post the site in the given time period for public hearing to occur on this issue. The applicant was made aware of the discrepancy and that the petition will be placed on the January 11~ 1995, public hearing agenda. (Commissioner German arrived at 7:45 p.m.) STREET V ACA TION PETITION - KEY - STV 94(12)09, A portion of Maud and all of Frank Street abutting Block 11, the alley in Block 11, and lone and Helen Streets abutting Blocks 11 and 12, Frederick's Addition to Port Angeles. . David Sawyer reviewed the Department Report and answered questions from the Commission regarding location of the right-of-way requested for vacation and the surrounding property by use of a display map. Chair Campbell opened the public hearing. Jobnie Key, 1325 Bent Cedars Way, concurred with the staff's report and recommendation for approval. There being no further testimony, Chair Campbell closed the public hearing. Commissioner Winters noted that the short plat appears to indicate that the alley in Block 12 is part of the short plat but is not being requested for vacation. Mr. Sawyer stated that Mr. Key cannot obtain the signatures of the necessary abutting property owners in order to be eligible for vacation of the alley in Block 12. (Brad Collins arrived at 8:05 p.m.) Commissioner Winters moved to recommend . . . Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 6 approval of the street vacation petition as requested with the foUowing condition: Condition: 1. Portions of the subject rights-of-way within any required environmentally sensitive area or its required buffer shall not be vacated unless they are protected in the manner prescribed in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Chapter 15.20 PAMC) and Wetland Permit No. WP 94(09)03. and citing the following findings and conclusions: Findines: 1. The request is to vacate 300 feet of Frank Street, 560 feet of Maud Street, 300 feet of Helen Street, 740 feet of the north 30 feet of lone Street, and 500 feet of the alley in Block, 11, Frederick~s Addition. 2. The applicant owns all non-right-of-way land abutting the requested vacation. 3. The requested vacation is required as part of a current short plat application (No. SHP 94(07)10) and wetland permit application (No. WP 94(09)03). 4. The subject area and the abutting property included in the short plat application is currently vacant and is bisected by a small tributary of White Creek along with its associated ravine running north and south. There is also a Category II wetland located to the east of the Helen Street right-of-way and thus subject to the requirements of the environmentally sensitive areas protection ordinance (Chapter 15.20 PAMe). 5. Since adoption of the environmentally sensitive areas protection ordinance, the City has not approved any vacations for right-of-way located within an environmentally sensitive area. Proposals that were denied or modified include Haller - STY 93(11)06; Levick/McCoy - STY 93(06)04; Richmond - STY 93(04)02; Ralston/Wilson - STY 92(09)04; and Hall - STY 94(08)04. 6. The majority of the subject right-of-way and the abutting property included in the short plat application has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Open Space with a small westerly portion designated as Medium Density. 7. The subject right-of-way and the abutting property included in the short plat application is zoned RS-9. 8. A SEPA checklist was completed and a MDNS was issued on October 14, 1994 as part of Wetland Permit (WP94(09)03). . . . Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 7 9. There are no utilities or other improvements existing in or planned for the subject rights-of-way. - Conclusions: A. Although the requested vacation will eliminate a portion of the original grid street pattern, the resulting short plat as proposed will result in an approximate 280 foot cul-de-sac which better relates to the natural features of the land and does not disrupt the overall circulation pattern for the area. B. The vacation of the subject right-of-ways as conditioned, will help prevent potential degradation of the environmentally sensitive areas which may result from development of the original rights-of-way and is thus a public benefit. C. As conditioned, the vacation of the subject right-of-ways will discourage the development of impervious surfaces within the environmentally sensitive areas by preventing public development of the original rights-of-way. D. As part of the proposed short plat application, the vacation of the subject right-of- ways as conditioned, will allow the development of the applicant's property in a manner that both meets the development expectations of the applicant and protects the site's environmentally sensitive areas. E. As conditioned. the vacation of the subject right-of-ways is consistent with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Chair Campbell directed that the next item would be taken out of order. OTHER BUSINESS Appeal of Preliminary Short Plat Approval Condition - Kaufmann- SHP 94(09)11 Chair Campbell and Commissioner Nutter withdrew from the meeting room due to a potential conflict of interest with the application. Vice Chair Winters assumed the Chair. Mr. Collins presented the Department Report which recommended support for the appeal. Barbara Kaufmann, 1725 Lambert Lane, felt that the requirement of sidewalks on her side' (north) of Milwaukee Drive is not necessary as there are no other sidewalks on that side of the street, nor are any planned. A newly approved subdivision in the area will be providing sidewalks on the south side of Milwaukee Drive when complete. She is amenable to signing a no-protest L.I.D. agreement for possible future improvements when needed. Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 8 Commissioner Souders moved to recommend support of the appeal with a change to Condition No.3 to state "Prior to rmal plat approval, the applicant shall sien a no-protest L.I.D. a&reement for sidewalks on the street frontaee of the subject property a sidewalk shllU be installed to City sU1Bdtlf'tls BleBg the MilwaHh.ee Drive frantoge af the shaft plat" citing the following fmdings and conclusions: Findines: 1. The short plat will result in two lots. The easterly lot will have about 18,500 square feet of area, and the westerly lot will have about 1.08 acres. 2. The northern edge of the site is over the bluff along the Strait of Juan de Fuca and is an environmentally sensitive area. The bluff runs parallel to and approximately 114 feet from the front property line on Milwaukee Drive. 3. Milwaukee Drive is fully paved to arterial standards from the site east to "N" Street. There are no sidewalks along the north side of Milwaukee Drive, and there are sidewalks on the south side of Milwaukee Drive near "N" Street. 4. The Planning Department approved the preliminary short plat on November 1, 1994, and the applicant filed a timely appeal on November 7, 1994. 5. Condition No. 3 was attached to the short plat approval in consideration of Resolution 8-83 and RCW 58.17.110, which set out requirements including safe walking conditions. PAMC Sections 16.04.070(A), .090 (B), and 140 (E) also establish standards for street improvements for short plats. Milwaukee Drive is currently designated as a collector arterial and is not presently designated as a school walking route. 6. On the appeal, the Public Works Department has commented that collector arterial requirements for sidewalks is option for one side. Since the immediately adjoining City street has no sidewalks on the north side and has sidewalks installed and planned on the south side, Public Works recommended that a sidewalk not be required on the north side of Milwaukee Drive and that the City continue to have sidewalk improvements made on the south side. 7. The City's Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and objectives were reviewed and the most relevant statements were found to be Transportation Policies A.i, 2, and 3; B.1O, 15, and 19; Objectives 2, 3, and 9; Conservation Policy B.20; and Capital Facilities Policies A.3 and 6. Conditions: A. The revision to Condition No. 3 on appeal of Short Plat No. 94(09) 11 is consistent with the street standards and subdivision requirements. Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 9 B. It is likely under the new Comprehensive Plan policies that the City will be creating a bike path in the future along Milwaukee Drive and that Milwaukee Drive will become a minor arterial requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street. The revision to Condition No.3 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. C. The revision to Condition No.3 on appeal of Short Plat No. 94(09(11 is in the public use and interest. Commissioner German seconded the motion which passed 5 - O. Vice Chair recessed the meeting for a break at 8:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Chair Campbell and Commissioner Nutter resumed their seats, and Chair Campbell, the Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT. ZCA 94(12)08 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES: Proposal to amend Chapter 17.86 (Home Occupations) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance clarifying exemption standards. Sue Roberds reviewed the Department's Report. Brad Collins further explained situations where normal residential parking uses are utilized by home occupations which then results in disruptive neighborhood situations. The proposal is an attempt to gain more control for the typical residential citizen who may be impacted by a commercially oriented use occurring in a single-family neighborhood. The change is only to clarify those requirements under which home occupations may be considered exempt from a permit requirement. These home occupations would not be prohibited but would rather be compelled to be better neighbors. Chair Campbell opened the public hearing, Art Dunker, 2114 West Sixth Street, hoped that the nuisance imposed by a certain situation in the City would not create a limitation to home occupations in the City that are operating in an inconspicuous manner. Mr. Collins reiterated that the amendment only pertains to exempt home occupations and the standards under which they would remain exempt. There being no further comment, Chair Campbell closed the public hearing. Commissioner Winters moved to recommend amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Section 17.86.030 PAMC to read as follows: B.t. No more than one commercial vehicle. no matter how many different home occupations are occurrine at one site. is parked on the premises or the adjacent street at anyone time. citing the following findings and conclusions: Planning Commission December 14. 1994 Page 10 Findines: 1. The Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed with respect to the proposals. The following goals and policies have been identifies as being most relevant to the amendments: Land Use Element Goals B, C, and D, and Policies C.t. 2. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the proposal on December 5, 1994. 3. A significant number of complaints concerning commercial vehicles in exempt home occupations negatively impacting single-family neighborhood parking uses have been received by the City Planning Department. Conclusions: A. The Zoning Code Amendment is in the public use and interest. B. The Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, specifically those found in Finding No.1. C. The Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.86. D. Restriction as to the storage of commercial vehicles will assure the least amount of parking impact in home occupation situations. Commissioner King seconded the motion which passed unanimously. DEVEWPMENT STANDARDS FOR URBAN SERVICES ORDINANCE - Adoption of development standards for consistency with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and with the Growth Management Act. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS ORDINANCE David Sawyer reviewed a Department Memorandum which covered both agenda items. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) established a deadline for adoption of local comprehensive plans in compliance with the GMA. Once a local comprehensive plan is adopted, each jurisdiction has an additional six months to review its existing development regulations to determine their consistency with the newly adopted comprehensive plan and to amend them as needed. The City has until January 1, 1995, to complete its review and revision of its development regulations. A four part process was put into effect in order to meet the January 1, 1995, deadline. The City's Growth Management Advisory Committee (GMAC) reviewed the City's ZOning Code and Map and passed its recommendation on to the Planning Commission Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 11 at the November 30, 1994, meeting, along with 'recommended amendments to the City's Environmental Policy Ordinance (SEPA). Those two ordinance amendments were the first two parts of the four part development regulation process. The remaining two parts have been drafted by a development regulation committee comprised of representatives of City departments, and are referred to as the Urban Services Ordinance (USO) and Comprehensive Plan Implementation and Amendment Ordinance (CPIA). The purpose of the USO is to implement the Comprehensive Plan's policies related to the provision of urban services. It provides the "if' and "when" various urban services are to be required. The purpose of the CPIA is to provide ordinance authority for the overall implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and how and when the Plan may be amended. Chair Campbell opened the public hearing. Jack Glaubert, West Sequim Bay, took exception with the fact that the Growth Management Advisory Committee's November 30, 1994, minutes had not been adopted by the GMAC but were being referred to by staff as a representation of that Committee's recommendation. Mr. Collins explained that during his review of the Committee's minutes, which he authored, he thought he had not completely covered an issue and therefore asked the Committee to continue its consideration of those minutes. He later discovered that he had included the material in the draft minutes. Mr. Glaubert persisted in his belief that there was something missing from the meeting's discussion that was not included in the minutes. Mr. Collins offered that perhaps he was confusing the information contained in the minutes with a forty-point summary that was prepared for the November 30 Planning Commission meeting which contained information pertinent to his property's zoning designation. He drew attention to the November 30, 1994, GMAC minutes, item No.4 which addressed Mr. G1aubert's concerns regarding possible rezone of his property. Commissioner Souders remembered that the GMAC's final recommendation was a general policy statement to not be specific about any piece of property and to say that in general, any piece of property where the property owners requested time to respond to the proposed rezone of their property, the recommendation would be to not move on those properties at this time. Mr. Sawyer noted that Mr. Glaubert's concerns appear to be directed to a rezone issue which was continued, not the urban services issue under discussion at this time. Art Dunker, 2114 West Sixth Street, represented the North Olympic Homebuilders Association. The NOHA has not had enough time to thoroughly review the proposal before the City regarding the usa and CPIA. He made comment regarding several sections contained in the ordinances which are unreasonable and may require amendment. The issues dealt with sidewalks on school walking routes, residential sprinkler requirements, provision of cable television, sewer hookup, and the definition of tldevelopment" . It would be unfair to the public to adopt the proposed ordinance as it is currently written Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 12 . as it is incomplete and has not undergone a thorough public review at this time. Port Angeles would be only the fifth jurisdiction in the State to have completed its Comprehensive Plan review and he was of the opinion that under that circumstance the State would be hard pressed to penalize the City if the January 1, 1995, deadline is not met on this development review issue. He asked that more time be given to allow adequate review of the ordinances as proposed. There being no further comment, Chair Campbell closed the public hearing. Discussion began, introduced by Commissioner German, concerning the requirement of sidewalks on arterial streets as a result of development under the usa ordinance. He noted the wording that provides that each department responsible for administering the urban service set forth in this Chapter shall have the authority to develop, update and enforce guidelines which describe how the urban standards shall be met. Such standards should be set in writing and not be changeable without public review. Mr. Collins noted that the wording is really setting forth the current policies which are presently in force, not new policies or a change in operation procedure. They are more a formalization. . Jack Pittis, Director Public Works, noted that in cases where property owners are required to hookup to a utility that the City presently allows that work to be performed on a time schedule that provides substantial progress toward the required end in cooperation with the property owner. There are instances where weather conditions or financial constraints restrict immediate compliance with the law. In response to Commissioner German, Mr. Pittis stated that if a septic system is functioning, the property owner may not be required to immediately hook up to the sewer system but would be given the opportunity to utilize an acceptable functioning septic system until it fails. More often than not hookups to the City's sewer system are voluntary not mandatorily imposed. Mr. German stated that that wording should be written into the ordinance stating that policy. Mr. Pittis will review the usa document to ensure consistency with current ordinances and policies. In response to Commissioner Philpott, Mr. Collins pointed out that what is being proposed in this document is a reference as to how to meet the standards and guidelines for development and to the extent that they are drafted, they are the standards and guidelines that are currently being used. This usa document is intended not to be cumbersome by including all the various aspects of development improvements, i.e., pipe sizes, materials, and depths. . The Commission expressed concern with the wide authority that is given to department directors without a process for public review. Mr. Collins responded that actually the City is adding more of a process for review than currently exists. It is simply a matter of putting in writing what is current policy. Chair Campbell reopened the public hearing. Art Dunker stated that many of the Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 13 . regulations spoken of are not as yet promulgated. Those regulations should be written and filed for public feview. He asked that the public have input prior to adoption. Director Pittis concurred with the suggestions but asked that certain things such as forms be left flexible enough to allow adjustment when necessary. Adoption by resolution might be a good idea. Although Commissioner German stated that he has a residential sprinkler in his residence, he does not believe residential sprinklers should be mandatory or that it be mandatory for everyone. Chair Campbell understood that the proposal is not to adopt anything that is not in place now and that there is a mechanism through a public process fOf changing the prescribed standards. Mr. Collins noted that the proposal is to set up the public process for changing the standards when proper. The Commission discussed the requifement for the provision of cable television for each residential unit. . Mr. Campbell responded to Mr. German's statement that certain standards are really unfunded mandates. Basic good housing standards should be available for everyone not just those who can afford it. He was concerned with the concept of low cost housing in the sense that it becomes low cost by ommitting standard benefits that are commonly found in higher cost housing. People living in low cost housing are entitled to many of the same benefits as those in higher cost housing areas. To establish areas of the City without certain standards, such as sidewalks, curbs gutters, doesn't make any sense. Mr. German opined that residential sprinklers should be completely at the homeowner's discretion or be required for everyone, not just those outside of the four minute response radius. He questioned adoption of the environmental impact statement prepared for the Comprehensive Plan as the review document for adoption of the proposed usa and CPIA ordinances. Mr. Collins explained the SEP A appeal procedure to Commissioner German. Commissioners Winters and German made suggestions on the appeal process proposed in the ordinances. Commissioner Winters shared the concern that the development community has not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the material. Mr. Collins noted that the City Council is anxious to meet as many of the deadlines imposed by the State as is possible. He explained the benefits of meeting the imposed deadlines and the budgetary benefits as grant funding could be at risk without compliance. However, the City has performed very well thus far and it is likely that whatever penalties are imposed will be looked at in the light of that progress thus far. . Art Dunker's ultimate concern is for the development of an equitable ordinance that has been publicly reviewed and has resulted from that public input. The City should not be bribed with the promise of State money in order to meet the January Lst deadline. Many other jurisdictions have not, and may not ever, meet the January 1st deadline. Port Angeles has done very well in that regard so far. The community needs a usa . . . . Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 14 ordinance it can live with. Commissioner Nutter expressed concern that if the City loses its State funding, the entire community will suffer. Mr. Collins noted that the State monies on the table at this point are around a million dollars for sidewalk improvements and substantial funding for housing rehabilitation projects. It is not clear whether those projects will be affected. The State may look favorably upon Port Angeles due to the distance we have come in complying with imposed deadlines. He was sure we would not face penalties, the question is whether we would lose some advantage gained thus far. Chair Campbell closed the public hearing. Following continued discussion, Commissioner Souders concluded that the City is doing a very good job in meeting its state imposed deadlines and a one month delay should not cause any real problems. Commissioner Winters agreed that the City has certainly made a good faith effort thus far. Commissioner Souders moved to reopen the public hearing and set a special public hearing for January 25, 1995, for further consideration of the usa and CPIA ordinances proposed by staff with the revisions as directed by the Commission. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Commissioner Souders then amended her motion to direct that the hearing be for January 18, 1995, in an attempt to complete the process by the first part of February. The second agreed. The question was called for and passed 6 - 1, with Commissioner Nutter voting in the negative. The Commission took a break at 11:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:15 p.m. Commissioner King moved to continue with a new public hearing beyond 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. AMEND ZONING REGULATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ( A public hearing was held on this item on November 30, 1994.) Mr. Collins reviewed the City Council's December 6, 1994, draft minutes directing the Planning Commission to attempt to provide the Council with a recommendation regarding amendment to the City's zoning regulations for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan at this time in order to meet the January I, 1995, deadline. Commissioner Souders reminded the Commission members that the public was informed at the November 30, 1994, meeting that a special hearing would be conducted on January 25, 1995, in order to gain testimony and sufficient public input on the proposed Zoning Ordinance text changes. The public expects the City to allow an appropriate review period. More time is needed for complete, thorough review of the changes, and public input. The zoning ordinance is a major ordinance and amendments need not be rushed . . . Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 15 into. Comissioner Winters concurred and offered to attend the December 20, 1994, City Council meeting to address the Council on the matter. Commissioner German moved to adhere to the Commission's original recommendation to schedule a special public hearing for January 25, 1995, 7 p.m., for consideration of the Zoning Ordinance text changes for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Souders seconded the motion. Commissioner Nutter spoke of her concern that the public has had a good deal of time to comment thus far with very little to show of that interest. Meetings have been occurring for nearly four years, although she agreed wholeheartedly that public input is most important. The question was called for and passed 6 - 1, with Commissioner Nutter voting in the negative. Mr. Collins added that more time should help to make the end result better. STAFF REPORTS None. REPORTS OF COM:MISSION MEMBERS: Commissioner Nutter wished to extend congratulations to the Fire Department and the City for the new fire station. Commissioner Souders stated her concern and discomfort with the SEP A Responsible Official being the applicant in cases such as the Port' s Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application. If the applicant and Official are the same, extra time should be given in review. and thorough cooperation between departments for interdepartmental review is imperative. She asked members who agree that the City should not pull out of the GMA at this point to write letters to the Council of that concern to remind them that the only way the City is going to grow is for the County to retain its rural integrity. Commissioner German said he would not be able to sign such a letter without more information. Commissioner Winters asked for information on the results of the City remaining in the GMA without county participation. Mr. Collins responded. It was decided that Commissioner Souders would draft a letter for interested Commissioners to sign. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. e. . . Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 16 &~LJ (;;Ill Orville Campbell, Chair ~ CeeJ---o B ad Colhns, Secretary PREPARED BY: S. Roberds :# '"" ". /'~ . .. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 12/14/94 \~:S<'R....lfM.iD I I .~'I3'-t t-0.,.....I. -'PATT'( UAA..S - 'e.e.J1\9J.JOO [3'1 -3A..<:-K:.... 6,-A..t.A~ 1 (10 ,",S ~pY . 223 +lA-R..1::'<...J'c,...~ Po 1iV'T 12o.e.D ~ Dave: ... said plans within every five years thereafter. S""""'......, G....,. W"",,,-, Q"3"L ) /J (pe \ ,J6!~r> That's fme. ~"-~......,......,,~ {\If r1ri J ?f,f' Dave: With that change, we I re going to take out the two columns that says, n Completion (J ( /I1~ .' Date II and II Update II . They I ve got three columns immediately following that sentence, r/Jr Lfl "Utility Setvices", then "Completion Date" and then "Update"J so it will just be the Utility (J pp"Jr Setvices, we'll strike out "completion Datell and "Update". r.,.& \1\ r"~ "A Cindy: tJ VlX'~ \ )~rl ? )'10l . . Are you going to do something similar to B? Dave: Yes. We're going to take out those two same columns, and at the end of the sentence on B, where it states, n ... attempt to meet the following schedule II, we f 11 say~ "We'll attempt to complete said plans within five years and shall update said plans every ten years thereafter." This one is ten instead five the update. The reasoning behind that is that this group of service plans are ones that the City does not have complete control over. Why they're separated. Linda: Repeat again, " ... and in doing so, we f 11 complete said plans ..." Dave: We 111 complete said plans within five years and shall update said plans every ten years thereafter. Cindy: They f re taking out the "attempt to II? Dave: No, the lIattempt toll is still there. Strike out "meet the following schedule". Linda: I thought you said "complete" instead of attempt. Dave: No, we'll attempt to complete ... Brad?: We could strike the "attempt to" if you wish (chuckle). Cindy: I think that would be a good idea. Dave: And this is just corrections to this portion from the City Attorney. Now, we tried to work out the completion dates~ the updates and some of them are so far off that we felt that it didn't make sense to put dates in at this time, but we want to make sure that they are completed within five years, so we put a general . On page 4, under Section 070C, the Growth Management Advisory Committee has made one recommendation that I s different from the text. That is to take No.4, "Reduce demand by (\) 1 reducing consumptionll, make that No.1 in that list and renumber the others accordingly. . That was a recommendation from the Growth Management Advisory. Brad: The minutes from that meeting are attached to your report. Tim: Is there a significance to the numbering as to II this has to be done 1st and if it doesn I t work, you have to do this or this... tI Dave: They are not in a priority listing, but the understanding was that if they are to be looked at, they wanted to have the reduced demand at the top of the list, rather than at the .. bottom of the list, falling sbort of actually being a priority listing. Brad: It was a positive suggestion. Dave: Power of positive With those changes, we'd have to recommend that the Planning Commission send the recommendation to the City Council for adoption of both the Urban Services Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Amendment Ordinance and the following findings and conclusions. 1 through 8, included in your staff report, at the request of the City Attorney, he would like to add a new No.9 for findings. The new No.9 will be Title (?) 11 and 15 are already generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals, policies and objectives. That . would be on page 3 of your Staff Report. Cindy: Dave, I don't have a Staff Report. Is that something that came out in the packet? I just received some ordinances. Dave: Yes, it was in the packet. It should be in your staff packet. Orville: I must be totally lost here. I got 12 findings. Dave: Yes, there are 12 findings. We' fe adding a new 9 and then we'll renumber the following ones. Orville: Oh, you're changing No.9? Dave: We I re adding a new 9. Brad: Well, the 9 stays there, then. Orville: 9 stays there? Dave: 9 then becomes the new 10. So, after 8, please add the new No.9, would read "Title (?) 11 and 15 are already generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan I s goals, policies . and objectives. (2) ~/ I~ . . . Bob (?): Does 9 become 10 and 10 become 11? Dave: Absolutely. 12 to 13, 11 to 12. I apologize for the confusion. The City Attorney wasn I t available, wasn I t in town to review this for your packet, he wasn I t able to review it until just today. Bob (?): What does the new No. 9 say? Dave: No. 9 reads, "Title 11 and 15 are already generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan I s goals, policies and objectives. II The purpose of adding that is to . .' indicate that those titles were reviewed, they weren I t just left out, even though they don It have changes. There are two conclusions, I I m not going to change those, on A and B, and I III answer any questions. We have representatives from Public Works and from the Fire Dept. to answer any questions regarding those urban services. Brad: One thing we might add is that these ordinances set out what the standards are that will be required. The "how" those standards will be met is in a separate set of standards and guidelines which the City has been using all along in one fashion or another. They t re being drafted and Jack can hold up the book and tell you how thick it is and stuff like that. So, this is not a "how to" guideline, those guidelines are still the ones the City has been using and I I d simply note that while there are some additional requirements that make them a little bit strongert like it I S a little more difficult to get sanitary sewer exemptions than before. All of these requirements have been required of projects in the past under one circumstance or another. This simply brings it into consistency and clarifies the regulatory concerns. If you recall, during the Comprehensive Plan public hearings, there was considerable debate on some of these issues and we expect that there will be that again. Orville: Any other questions of Staff? Tim: I have quite a few questions about what this is saying. I I m wondering is this an appropriate time to ask Staff or should we wait until the public hearing. I mean, is this Orville: Perhaps we could go through the public hearing and then raise those issues. Tim: What I was thinking is though, the public might want to comment on the clarification of a couple of the questions. Orville: I think we can allow that, since we want to get complete public input anyway. Any other process or procedural questions? _ open the public hearing. Jack: My name is Jack Glaubert, East Sequim Bay. I am not sure exactly what is happening here, but I have some questions. I attended the Growth Management Advisory Committee on the morning of December 7, 1994 and 7 a.m. in the morning. The minutes (3) of the November 30th meeting, 1994 were presented for approval. They were not approved . because there was either an irregularity with or there was an addition to put in them. But the Growth Management Advisoiy Committee on that morning did not approve the minutes of November 30, 1994. there were four people in this room right now that were at that meeting. Brad Collins, myself, Jerry Austin and Bob King. My understanding was that those minutes of November 30th still have not been approved and are to go out to the February 1st meeting of 95. Some of the issues that are being brought to view right now have items that that committee was supposed to review and here it is being presented to you right now. I'm not quite sure what t s going on, is anything I said incorrect at this point, Brad? ! Brad: Mr. Chairman? Orville: Go ahead. Brad: I think what Mr. Glaubert is saying is correct and that's what t s written in the minutes. It reads that the minutes of November 30th were reported as incomplete and tabled until the next meeting, which will be February 1st. But, in reviewing the minutes, we determined that we were mistaken, they' are complete and so they do accurately reflect the minutes of November 30th. Jack: Well, I have some concerns about that, Brad, and I would like to have those in the minutes, and I have, right now, some concerns about this that is currently in front of the . Planning Commission. Brad: Well, these minutes are an accurate representation of what took place at those two meetings. Cindy: We don't have the meetings from the December 7th meeting, or I don t 1. I don't either. Brad: They t re attached to the Staff Report. Dave: Did you get the new Staff Report right now? Brad: Back three pages. Jack: Are those approved minutes? (Brad: Frequently, the City does ~ot have approved minutes when they take action. for example, the City Council doesn t t have approved minutes of the Planning Commissionewhen they take action. Jack: That's normal? . ~il'~l'.~ 'tC.tL~~___~__ (4) )<. Jl / .. e:('Brad: Yes. Dave: If I would that on November 30th when the changes to the Urban Services Ordinance was review by the Growth Management Advisory Committee, was presented to them with the intent of presenting their changes to the Planning Commission Meeting of that night and that's why they were included in that written handout. Jack: Well, I never quite understood what was wrong with the minutes of November 30th, but there was something, Brad, that was not in those minutes, they weren't complete, and the Committee didn I t see that. Brad: Actually, I was the one that raised the question, Mr. Chairman, and I did not think that we had put all of the information about the Urban Services Ordinance in the minutes, and then when I read the minutes, I realized that we had, and so I was mistaken and the minutes do reflect all the changes that were proposed by the Growth Management Advisory Committee and they I re shown in your Exhibit A So the confusion was mine and mine alone. . / Cindy: So your point is that they didn I t, then they didn I t discuss the minutes at all, '" they just went on. ~ Jack: That I s right. What I I m saying right now is, in my opinion, you have information in front of you that hasn I t gone through the proper reviews, and as such, should not be acted upon. Orville: I would ask if Mr. Glaubert, is there something specific in the November 30 meeting that you find troubling? I I m talking about the minutes of November 30 now. Jack: In the minutes of the November 30th meeting? Orville: Is there something, one specific or one or two specific items that are troubling? Jack: It doesn I t show up in these minutes, but there was an item in there that had a date on it of November 30th that indicated that my property is being, the development rights, taken off of it. That I had a concern with. It doesn I t show up in these minutes, however. As I understand it, these minutes yet, now, are not approved. Brad: I can probably clear up Mr. Glaubert I s concerns. Orville: Go ahead. . Brad: What he I s referring to is the summary that wasn I t part of the Growth Management Advisory Committee meeting. I had prepared a summary for the Planning Commission on the 40 points of changes that were by the Growth Management Advisory Committee to you on the Zoning Code and the Rezones. And one of those points was the (5) change that involved Mr. Glaubert I s property. Item No.4 at the end of, on the second . page of the November 30th minutes which reflects that the Growth Management Advisory Committee changed their recommendation on Mr. Glaubert I s and Mr. Austin's properties and that was at the Red Lion, to suggest that the Planning Commission should table that item until, if the owners requested more time, which the owners did, and so the recommendation was altered by the Growth Management Advisory committee to take that matter up at a different time, presumably in 1995. Cindy: Actually, that f s not exactly what was decided. This is my first time seeing the minutes, too, because I wasn't at the December 7th meeting. What, this was brought .' up and this was proposed, but I believe that our final recommendation was that was to not be specific about any piece of property and to say that in general, any piece of property where the property owners requested more time to respond to the Zoning Code amendment, our recommendation would be to not move on that at the Planning Commission Meeting that night. Jack: And I think that I s pretty much what happened. Cindy: Yes, exactly. So, actually, I don f t think, I mean the only thing that this does, it goes and lines out certain.pieces of property, -but We made a general statement that, just as I just said, instead of speaking to specific pieces of property, we made a general policy statement. . Brad: Mr. Chairman? Orville: Yes. Brad: With regard, it I S sounding as though the concerns of _ the speaker is talking about has to do with the Zoning Code and not the Urban Services Ordinance and that Zoning Code and these comments may be more appropriate when, later on in the agenda when we are discussing the Zoning Code. Orville: Thank you. Brad: If I'm understanding the comments correctly. Jack: Well, I may have some comments here on the Urban Services portion. If it I S the correct one that I have here. The one that was presented at the 12/7 meeting in the morning. I don't see a real number on it. It says Chapter 1804. We I re looking at a Comprehensive Service and Facility Plans? Brad: That I s the second ordinance that we're dealing with right now. Jack: Do you lump these together? . Brad?: No. Chapter 1808 was discussed at, and 1830, were discussed at the November (Q ~ . 30th meeting. Right, that I s 1808. Jack: That was the one that was presented there at the meeting that I attended for the Growth Management Advisory Committee. Brad: No, 1804 was discussed at the meeting you attended, Mr. Glaubert. Jack: Right. Dave: The Urban Services Ordinance 1808 was presented to the Growth Management ". I Advisory Committee on November 30th. The Comprehensive Plan Implementation and . Amendment Ordinance was presented to them December 7th. And right now we are in Public Hearing, Commissioner. I don I t know that we specified whether or not you I re wanting to combine the two Public Hearings or just the Urban Services Ordinance. You may want to clarify that at this point. Orville: What we I re dealing with is the development regulations and it I S Items 6 and 7 on the agenda and, be sure and get my words right here, but there are two aspects to it. First it has to do with the Urban Services Ordinance itself and the second the Comprehensive Plan Implementation and Amendment Ordinance. We I re not talking about the Zoning Map. . Jack: Right. I haven I 1, I I m looking at this right now without sitting down and actually detailing it out, I haven I t got any specific comments on this draft right at the moment. My concern is still on the procedure that we I re dealing with right here~ however. Still, those minutes of the meetings and comments that needed to be put through at that time.t Orville: Thank you. Are there any other comments on the two development regulations we I re talking about? . fJJ . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Planning cott:on Attendance Roster MeetingDateJ, ## k. /t /99t;' tY . l't~::.:;. .