HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/06/2000
,; -,~
.
I~ORTANGELES
AGENDA
",;~,..f '
CITY CO_UNCILME,El'ING
32LEAST FIFTH ,STRfET
June 6,2000
REGULARME~Ti~G.-6:00 p.m.
"W ASH' r' N G TON, U, S. A.
A. CALL TO ORDER -R:egular MeetiIig (6:00 p.m.)
ROLL CALL -
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -
CEREMONIAL MATTERS &
PROCLAMATIONS
Recognition of the retirement of Steve Ilk, Chief of
Police
".:- l~..:;.' _ "
c. LATE ITEMS TOBE PLACEDQN THIS OR FYTUtW,AGEN'DAS (ByCofjf1cil. Staff or Public)
AND PUBLIC COMMENT FORIrE~S NOT ON AGEN,DA (This is (he opportunity for members of the
public to speak to the City Council about anything not on the agenda, please keep comments to 5-10 minutes.)
B. WORK SESSION
.
D. FINANCE
I. Award bid for landfill closure
2. Public Works Trust Fund Pre-Construction Loan
Agreement Amendment (8th Street Reconstruction
Project)
E. CONSENT AGENDA
1. CityCourlcil minutes of May 16,)000
2 Travel request for Government Finance
Officers Association Annual Confe~ep.ce
F. ORDINANCES NOT REQUIIuNGP{JBLIC
HEARINGS
1. Shoreline Master Program Amen,gment - SMP
00-01 - Proposal to increase the maXimum
covered moorage height allowable from 20', to 30'
and to clarify the qeflnition of conditiollal use. .
(Action continued from May 16, 200,0.) ,
2. Municipal Code Amendment - MCA()O~O 1 -'"
Consideration of animal husbaIldry regillations
City wide (Action continued from May, 16, 2000;)
G.CITY COUNCIVCOMMITTEE..REpORTS,
Action
Action
.
. ---,., ,..- -'.
N()TE:HEARI~G DE'1rE~,A VAtHh~~!f!:~R~HO~~N~fj~ING;ASSISTANCE
, ." .; ., ". / MAYOR TODETERMINE'mIM&OFBRE1~K . ....'. .-
June 6, 2000 ';'Port Ang~lesCity cciWicil Meeting '.. C
Page - 1
"'- ,,'
H:'ik,RESOLUTIONS
, Steward Street Vacation fetition - qO-01 - 73
Portj()nof"H" Street north' O(lOth Street: Adopt a
~c.;(reJJI~tion setting'a.public,hJapngr.qll July~5, ,2000.
INFORMATION
1. 'City Manager's~epor(.. <fage183)
* Pavement Restoration pian fo; 2000
," ,
* Draft SalmonHabi~t anciEcosystem Conservation Plan
* Opinion StirveyReg~rdi~gCityCouncil TerrnLi~tS .....' ". . <
2. Public Works & UtilitiesD~pilTinient:Monthl)~Report- Apri12000' (page 20.9)
3. Planning Commission{Minutes"'; Mav lO~and 24,2000.. (P;1ge 213 and223)" '
" '"r: '.f'l <<;:"',,' ,< .' '-', c",' " ,~ ",.-:,', , ,-,' '~<,' ."'<'--<'';' >",: c'"
M. EXECU'!IVE SESSION 'CAs needed and determ~l'ledbyCiij;tAqorrley/
1.''1, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS,{t,~
':;>n, ,,' ,', ,:",' ':'C' ":",:,-"",,
+/'1.; Approve Amendment 2tto'E~teJjdAgreement
" ,- ',-, :" ",,': -',:"" ,,--,',':" ,::' " , ",:, ",~
'with Washingt9n State'Dspartmt:nt of ......;
Transportation for Righkoi- ~'1rSerVices
2. Appeal of Pa:l<.ing yapance - ~KV 00-0 I -
Maverick Developmen('i 16 N[rth Albert. -
3. '. E,conqp:1ic DevelopmentG9Unci120QO .contract
4. 'Surplus City property sale .
J. PUBLIC HEARINGS [QYAS1-JlJDICIAt;
(7:QQ P.M. or soon thereafter)
K. ;,PUBLIC HEARINGS;~O'fHER
1. 200 1-2006 CapitaIFaci1i~i~s PlanffnlnsportatioIl
Improvement Progfam,H~ng"
2. Comp!eheIlsive rlanAplendIllents:
A. Co'mp~~hens~;i!i~~~~~~~~m~nt- Cp'A 00-
01 - LUND"- Redesigl\?ti2~'bf'p,rOper'ty fro~
Medium Density R~~identlaltoCorriinercial, 5th
Street to 7tl' Street \vestofRace street.
B. Compr~hensiv~J~I~~r~~e~dment - CPA 00-
02 - Citv of PortAngeles:;':Aproposal to amend
the den;ityfor residenti,~WritS:iriHigh Density
Residential zones from; ain'kmUm of 43 units an
acre to a "density grea~erthan 43 uIlits per net
acre."
. ' ~
C. Comprehensive Plan,Amendment - CPA 00-
03 - Morningv~ew~eyelg(l,~en,VRe~esignati~n
of property from Low De~ity Residential to High
Density ResidenVallo~atl:d(lt the southeast
corner of Lindoerg Road1Hl9 GolfCqurse Road.
L.
N. APJOURNMENT
129
133
135
151
163
~ 'r
';:,~
.0
NOTE: HEARI~~f1f~C:~~~~t::MN~OT~~~~\7i\~,NG AS,S 1ST "'~CE
June 6:'2000 ';J~~,', . "'~Pott'AligeleS'CitYCdunCiH~1~iiIig/''''': ;.",
,"'" "," ""'.- A"",,"':Y'
'Page -2
pORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
I.
CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING:
II. ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Mayor Doyle
Councilman Campbell
Councilmember Erickson
Councilman Hulett
Councilmember McKeown
Councilman Wiggins
Councilman Williams
Staff Present:
Manager Quinn
Attorney Knutson
Clerk Upton
S. Brodhun
B. Collins
G. Cutler
D. McKeen
T.Riepe
y. Ziomkowski
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Led by: ~~) It _ \. Q {.~ --/
~
+
~
June 6, 2000
(PQ12 .o.'Jt'\.
I
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
· ~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON. U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Attendance Roster
DATE OF MEETING: June 6. 2000
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
WfA.
"3L {/.D
City of Port Angeles
~ORTANGELES
Ordinance/Resolution Distribution List
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
City Council Meeting of ~1 M
I ~ 61DDD
,
~ rf I~ ... f)A.tl ~ K("". ~ .It)
~IJ(IJ' AD -~
J.(J flnj/J Jh. /j....',.,.Af) ,..}G + ".STV
+ ~..'^ I ~ ^ " 4.1. .11._ J --:7~ .{J...(r: "
.4nA ...~ ""l."-'- ~ . "...I, AAJ ;JlI"},.'
, "i
City Manager
City Atty. (1) J/ J ~. IV'
Planning J V JI Iv'"
City Clerk cRV' /' ,0 V" /' ,5(V /'
Deputy Clerk I /' IV / V
Personnel
Cust. Svcs.
Finance
Dir.lMgr.
Police Dept.
Fire Dept.
Light I)ept.
Pub. Works (2) ,:)./
.
Parks & Rec.
/
MRSC (1) J/ J ./ /V
PDN (Summary) veJ/lIlM .; vtJ N\ M V" /
Extra Copies A ' D.. .' ,-v
....,..- , Ul
1 \. q.; () V
.
I TOTAL I If) //7 f'!)
" PROCLAMATION
IN RECOGNITION OF
STEPHEN A. ILK
.
Port Angeles Police Department
January 2,1973 to May 31, 2000
Patrol Officer: January 2,1973 to May 1979; Detective: May 1979 to July 1981;
Sergeant: July 1981 to June 1984; Lieutenant: June 1984 to June 1987;
Captain: June 1987 to March 1992; Chief of Police: March 1992 to May 31, 2000
WHEREAS, ChiefIlk has served the City and citizens of Port Angeles as a law enforcement officer
with the Port Angeles Police Department since January 2, 1973, and as the Chief of Police for the past
eight years.
WHEREAS, As a police officer, Chiefllk was always recognized for his strict adherence to the "Police
Code of Ethics" which states:
As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind, to safeguard lives and
property, to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against violence or disorder, and to
respect the Constitutional Rights of all people to liberty, equality, and justice.
.
I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of
danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of
others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in
obeying the laws of the land and the regulation of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a
confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret
unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.
I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to
influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of
criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately, without fear or favor, malice or
violence and never accepting gratuities.
I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to
be held so long as I am true to the ethics of law enforcement. I will constantly strive to achieve
these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession. . . law
enforcement.
WHEREAS, During his tenure with the Port Angeles Police Department, Chief Ilk was a progressive
law enforcement officer who earned the admiration, affection, and high regard of his colleagues, the
citizens he served, and all who came into contact with him.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, on behalf
of all our citizens, does hereby express our sincere appreciation and thanks to Chief Stephen A. Ilk for
his distinguished service to the community and highly commend him for the manner in which he has
carried out his duties and responsibilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council extends to Chiefllk and his family congratulations on
your retirement and best wishes for the future. .
. ADOPTED by unanimous vote of the City Council on June 6, 2000.
Larry Doyle, Mayor, Cathleen McKeown, Deputy Mayor, James Hulett, Lauren Erickson, Orville
Campbell, Glenn Wiggins, Larry Williams
Mike Quinn, City Managaer
'.1
.
.
.
2
.
.
.
DA TE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
June 06, 2000
MA YOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL ~
Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works & Utiliti~--
A ward the Contract for Landfill Closure 2000 Project No. 20-04
Summary: Cell closure is required to comply with state regulations. To comply with these
regulations the City's engineering consultant prepared plans for closure of Cells I & 2 and bids were
requested. Four bids were received and opened on May 16,2000. Glacier Environmental Services,
Inc. of Mukilteo submitted the lowest Base Bid in the amount of $953, 1 08.38, including tax. The
engineer's estimate for this project was $1,029,210.
Recommendation: Award the contract for Landfill Closure 2000 Project No. 20-04 to Glacier
Environmental Services, Inc., of MukiIteo, Washington, in the Base Bid amount of
$953,108.38.
Background / Analysis: Cell closure (encapsulation) is a critical part of operating alandfill. In
accordance with state regulations, it is necessary to encapsulate landfill cells upon filling to cell
capacity. Cell closure protects the environment and reduces the volume ofleachate that must be
treated. This project will accomplish the closure of Cell I, and a portion of Cell 2. A second
project of similar scope will be required to close the remaining portion of Cell 2 and Cell 3 when
these cells have been filled. This final Closure is planned for the year 2006.
The Bid Documents prepared by the City's engineering consultant contained a Bid Alternate to
stockpile additional material at the site for future use. Upon evaluation of the bids, and further
discussion with the Solid Waste personnel, Staff recommends that the Bid Alternate be declined,
and the contract be awarded for the Base Bid only.
Bids were opened on May 16, 2000. The bids received, corrected in accordance with the
'fi' fill
spec I IcatlOns, are as 0 ows:
FIRM CITY BASE BID (Including tax)
,
Glacier Environmental Services Mukilteo, Washington $953, I 08.38
Del Hur Industries Port Angeles, Washington $1,067,964.53
Golden Environmental Management Tempe, Arizona $1,126,349.00
Environmental Reclamation Smelterville, Idaho $1,293,869.90
ENGINEERS ESTIMATE $1,029,210.00
N:\PROJECTS\20-04\CCA WARD. WPD
3
City Council
RE: Contract for Landfill Closure
Page 2
Glacier Environmental Services, Inc., submitted the lowest Base Bid, and the lowest BaseBid plus
Bid Alternate. Their bid is appropriate considering the engineer's estimate and other bids received.
Review of their experience and references demonstrates that Glacier Environmental Services, Inc.
is a responsible bidder and qualified to perform this work.
This project was planned and included in the 2000 budget. Funding will be from the Solid Waste
Construction Fund.
4 N:\PROJECTS\20-04\CCAWARD.WPD
.
.
.
.
DATE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
"''''.',/,''i>;('''';''.'':''.::~~'-*.'':I,". '''''':''~ . . - ',- .-! yj::.;'\ \"~':".'qj;~:i:.'"(:"
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
June 6, 2000
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works aod Utilities ~/
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Pre-Construction Loan Agreement Amendment
No. PW -9S-791-PRE-l 07, Sth Street Reconstruction
Summary: The PWTF original pre-construction loan term for 8th Street reconstruction design
was five years. PWTF Board policy is to extend pre-construction loan terms to twenty years
upon approval of the associated construction loan. The Sth Street construction PWTF loan has
been approved.
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign the PWTF Pre-Construction Loan
A reement Amendment which extends the loan term from five to twen ears.
. Background I Analysis:
In our original agreement for the PWTF pre-construction loan for the design of the Sth Street
reconstruction, the loan period was for five years. Now that the construction loan has also been
approved the Public Works Board policy is to extend the pre-construction loan period to twenty
years. Since Council approved the original loan it is necessary to have Council approval for the
mayor's execution of the amendment.
Attach: Amendment
N:\PROJECTS\99-08Sl\PWTF\AMND 1. WPD
.
5
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
PUBLIC WORKS TRUST FUND LOAN AGREEMENT NUMBER
PW-98-791-PRE-I07 BETWEEN
THEDEPARTMENTOFCO~T~TRADEANDECONON.UCDEVELOPMENT
AND
PORT ANGLELS
.
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the term of Public Works Trust Fund Loan Agreement
Number PW-98-791-PRE-I07 from five years to twenty years. This amendment is being entered into
. based on Pre-Construction program policy adopted by the Public Works Board at its February 3, 1998
meeting.
The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (hereinafter
referred to as the DEPARTMENT) and Port Angeles (hereinafter referred to as the LOCAL
GOVERNMENT) agree to amend Public Works Trust Fund Loan Agreement Number PW -98-791-PRE-
107 as described below.
Section 4.01 Rate and Term is amended to read as follows:
The DEPARTMENT, using funds appropriated from the Public Works Assistance Account, shallloan the
LOCAL GOVERNMENT a sum not to exceed $258,750. The interest rate shall be three percent (3%)
per annum on the outstanding principal balance. The term of the loan shall not exceed twenty years, with
the final payment due July 1,2018.
A copy of this amendment, consisting of one (1) page shall be attached to and incorporated into the
original agreement between the DEPARTMENT and the LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Any reference in .
such agreement to the "agreement" shall mean "agreement as amended." All other items and conditions
of the original loan agreement or prior amendments shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the DEPARTMENT and the LOCAL GOVERNMENT have executed this
amendment as of the date and year last written below.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Steve Wells
Name
. Director. Local Government Division
Title
Title
Date
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY
lOth Day of May. 2000
Christine O. Gregorie
Attorney General
By: Si~ature on File
Assistant Attorney General
.
6
Jeanne A. Cushman
(Print Name)
,~
DATE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
no' RT' A IN-G'' 'E;L' EiS
I=" / "A · i.. :.. :,
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
June 6, 2000
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
j
Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works And Utilities
A ward Contract to Move Structures for Airport Road Realignment Project.
Summary: The road relocation associated with the Airport Road Realignment Project requires
moving residential structures at 1424 Airport Road. A request for proposals to move the
structures was sent to three house movers and only one responsive proposal was received.
Recommendation: Award the contract to move structures at 1424 Airport Road to the
lowest responsive proposer, Alt- Tech Construction, of Port Angeles, in the amount of
$47,938.62 including sales tax.
Background / Analysis: The alignment of the relocated Airport Road requires relocation of the
residence and garage at 1424 Airport Road. The agreement negotiated for the purchase of the road
right of way at 1424 Airport Road requires the City to move the structures out of the right of way.
The house and garage can be moved for approximately one half the cost to purchase and
demolish the structures. Staff requested proposals from three house moving contractors. The
request for proposals letter stated that the contractors proposals should include all work
necessary for moving the structures, constructing foundations and reconnecting water and sewer
services. Letters wen~ sent to the contractors with the foll~wing results.
1. Monroe House Moving, Quilcene, W A-$22,227.40 - Monroe's quote was for house
moving only, foundations and utilities were not included, and therefore was not
responsive to the proposal request.
2. Emerald City Building Restoration, Kent, W A - No Response.
3. Alt-Tech Construction, PortAngeles,WA.-$44,428.75 - The Alt-Tech proposal
responds to all of the work elements in the request for proposal. Additionally, Alt-
Tech's cost for moving the structures ($21,283.28 )was verified by the Monroe
quote.
The house moving was not included in the road construction contract to avoid delays and to avoid
inclusion of costly specialty items in the bid package. Funding for the move is included as part of
the right of way acquisition for the Airport Road realignment project which is funded by
Transportation Improvement Board grants, Federal ISTEA/TEA 21 funds, and additional
matching funds from the Port of Port Angeles and Clallam County.
N:\PROJECTS\91-07 AR\HOUSMOV\CCA WDMO, WPD
"~
fi
t ',:~,-- ~
~~ ~
~,.""
CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into in duplicate this day of ,2L ,by
and between the CITY OF PORT ANGELES, hereinafter called the Owner, and Alt-Tech Construction ,
hereinafter called the Contractor.
In consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein and attached and made a part of this
agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. The Contractor shall do all work and furnish all tools, materials, and equipment for moving and
resetting, on site, the residence and garage located at 1424 Edgewood Drive, including the concrete
foundation, utility connections and new gravel driveway, in accordance with and as described in the scope
of work attached hereto as Exhibit A and the Standard Specifications for Municipal Public Works
Construction and shall perform any alterations in or additions to the work provided under this contact and
every part thereof.
This contract is subject to minimum wage requirements of Section 1-07.9 (Wages) of the Standard
Specifications as supplemented by the rules of the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries
attached hereto as Exhibit E.
The Owner agrees to pay the Contractor for the actual quantities in the completed work according to the
schedule of unit prices set forth in the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit B.
,
Work shall start within ten (10) days after execution of contract and be completed i~ (working) days.
If said work is not completed within the time specified, the Contractor agrees to pay to the Owner liquidated
damages as stated in the project specifications for each and every day said work remains uncompleted after
expiration of the specified time.
The Contractor shall provide and bear the expense of all equipment, work and labor of any sort whatsoever
that may be required for the transfer of materials and for constructing and completing the work provided for
in this contract and every part thereof.
2. The Owner hereby promises and agrees with the Contractor to employ, and does employ the
Contractor to provide the materials to do and cause to be done the above described work and to complete
and finish the same according to the attached plans and specifications and the terms and conditions herein
contained and hereby contracts to pay for the same according to the attached specifications and the
proposal hereto attached, at the time and in the manner upon the conditions provided for in this contract.
3. The Contractor for itself, and for its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, does
hereby agree to the full performance of all the covenants herein contained upon the part of the Contractor.
The Contractor shall provide a performance and payment bond for the full amount of the contract in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
4. It is further provided that no liability shall attach to the Owner by reason of entering into this contract,
except as expressly provided herein.
5. The Contractor shall obtain and maintain Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance in
accordance with Sections 1-07.18 of the APWA supplement to the Standard Specifications and the following
additions: (a) Workers compensation at the limits established by the State of Washington shall be included.
The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D.
6. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees,
arising out of or in connection with the performance of this contract, except for injuries and damages caused
by the sole negligence of the Owner.
.w
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this contract is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the
event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or
resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor and the Owner, its officers, officials, employees,
and volunteers, the Contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor's negligence.
It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the
Contractor's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purpose of this
indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provision of this section shall
survive the expiration or termination of this contract.
7. Contractor hereby assigns to Owner any and all claims for overcharges resulting from antitrust
violations as to goods and materials purchased in connection with this contract, except as to overcharges
resulting from antitrust violations commencing after the date of the bid, quotation, or other event establishing
the price of this contract. In addition, Contractor warrants and represents that each of its suppliers and
subcontractors shall assign any and all such claims for overcharges to Owner in accordance with the terms
of this provision. Contractor agrees to give Owner immediate notice of the existence of such claim.
8. This contract shall include the following Exhibits, which together with the contract and the Standard
Specifications for Municipal Public Works Construction shall be referred to as the Contract, Contract
Documents or Project Manual.
A: Scope of Work
B: Proposal
C: Performance and Payment Bond
0: Insurance Forms
E: Prevailing Wage Rules
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
By
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Attest:
City Clerk
PW-407 _12 [6/98]
[Alt-Tech Construction
By
Title:
--
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
for
1424 Airport Road
1. Move residence to new location, as shown on the attached drawing, and place on a
new concrete foundation. Construct new concrete steps and porch, similar to existing, at
front and side entrances.
2. Move garage to new location as shown and attach to new concrete floor slab.
3. Reconnect water service, sewer connection to septic tank and install footing drain and
associated dry well.
4. Construct a new 12 foot wide gravel driveway, consisting ofa 6 inch thick layer of
11/2 inch minus crushed rock, from Edgewood Drive to the new garage location.
5.Demolish and dispose of the house and garage concrete slabs, footings and porches.
, Clean up and dispose of all debris, rake smooth all disturbed areas in the old building
locations and seed with grass seed.
6. All work shall conform to the conditions of the Uniform Building Code and current
City of Port Angeles construction codes.
....
.,."
.......~................_..H...................... .......-.....-........ .........
~/~ ' .,.f ...._...-::.;:~=3[=~~-~~~~=.===:......................m......m.....~~............m~;.. .............../
L*--r-~I:),4i:D- - - - r - - -------------- ~ ~~:-
..~-""""-,,, .. , \ \ I~ \. '
(' ~ \,~-_-----l--- "\
\.,; ['I" \'V/- .:!,v '" - - - - -' )
" ....:::''"=''- 2. ~( - - <:
,,~, ,--1i 7/'" 7i-f\, ,';;(- - - - - - - - _\
~/ >K ,'\ ,,\? r:----__v- - - /
. r---.....\. " J \ 1/ !';-- - -",... '\
1 /~--"""",---, , )' J! .r:~ -.t "-
___"'_ ~..' I
.'"'- _'_-~V ~ - " ,.1
,;'-,_J ,I
~ r~f
\,_ ,,__f-/ I
'----.....J""^-~./~ I
"
.,J
17] 1 0075.0000
=..h
;' ~'...
'tv!
\.~
40-
'f ""'..1
I 2':~..,;;"'-~
" .... ' j'~' J'A.\
,,' ,,/_,,/'--"/--' r--.. ----. ~ I I " "
I' ,yvV"r-~~
i I Y-V--V""'/"v
, '
/,f..--....,?""~
)
"\
.i.
"
~,
~ '__._. ~-:-\L-. X
L::x~Y-' r\
--!.
)
~:
.J
(\
o
(J'\
w
o
~
o
W
o
o
o
o
o
TR'-r-S
, t.~
I
I
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
I I
I I
I
I
'{'r
< '(
-< ''"'"t
) ~
\ '-(
~ ?
~1 /
V
..r
\... ,,-/~.A.J'___)'...:..A../-J,--^J'-../
'V"\,-,
. ......,.......................:,-"";....................
~.. , _...,,~-,-- ~ ... . ---......-..-
'""\
'''~
'i
/ '\
~.,--\
I~ " - - - -- /'
< I
I, M- - - \-/!
_.ii-_._-6?-..-mm... _.2~~-_.~J
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
PUBUC WORKS
~
SCALE
WESTREM HOUSE RELOCATION
60
I
ate' x
ile: x
'''r\;:
........ ~
/;
>i
>l
',<-v;
.t' :
\.,
( i
>. i
~\
r!
?:
>~
';.\
\:"l
\i
, \
AI
\,.)1
'\ ; ,
........1
/'.. i
," :
, /
;"
~.
,+,
.
.
.
CALL TO ORDER-
REGULAR MEETING:
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE:
CEREMONIAL
MATTERS!
PROCLAMATIONS:
National Maritime Day
National Public Works
Week
Presentation of
Distinguished Service
Medal to Corporal Tyler
Peninger
WORK SESSION:
LATE ITEMS TO BE
PLACED ON THIS OR
FUTURE AGENDA:
FINANCE:
Abatement of 135 East
Front Street
.
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Port Angeles, Washington
May 16, 2000
Mayor Doyle called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at
6:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Mayor Doyle, Councilrnembers Campbell, Erickson, Hulett,
McKeown, Wiggins, and Williams.
Members Absent:
None.
Staff Present:
Manager Quinn, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, S.
Brodhun, B. Collins, G. Cutler, S. Ilk, D. McKeen, Y.
Ziomkowski, T. Riepe, T. Peninger, E. Kovatch, L.
Haehnlen, and T. Smith.
David Neupert.
Public Present:
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Doyle.
National Maritime Day: Mayor Doyle read a proclamation declaring May 22, 2000 as
National Maritime Day.
National Public Works Week: Mayor Doyle read a proclamation declaring National
Public Works Week, May 21 - May 27,2000. Public Works & Utilities Director Cutler
accepted the proclamation.
Presentation of Distinguished Service Medal to Corporal Tyler Peninger: Mayor Doyle
presented Corporal Tyler Peninger the Police Department's Distinguished Service
Medal recognizing Corporal Peninger's exceptional service and deportment while
serving as the School Resource Officer during the past two school years. Port Angeles
School Superintendent George Woodruff thanked the City Council and Police
Department for a supportive relationship with the school system. He congratulated
Corporal Peninger for doing such an excellent job.
Mayor Doyle introduced Walt Schubert, Sequirn City Councilmember.
None.
None.
1.
Abatement of 135 East Front Street
Mayor Doyle reviewed the information from the Public Works & Utilities Director
regarding abatement of the structure at 135 East Front Street. Director Cutler explained
that Morrison Excavating is scheduled to demolish the structure beginning May 22,
2000. Building Official Haehnlen advised the Council that the property owner is
responsible for all fees incurred, to include administrative costs. If the owner does not
pay, then a lien will be placed against the property. He added the property is currently
for sale. Discussion ensued on the possibility of a mural being painted on the fencing.
Councilman Wiggins moved to authorize the transfer of monies to the Repair and
Demolition fund to demolish the structure at 135 East Front Street, in an amount
not to exceed $10,000. Councilman Williams seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
- 1 -
7
i,....
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
May 16, 2000
Parametrix Contract
Amendment
Public Works Trust Fund
Loan Application
A ward Bid for Cresthaven
Underground Electric
Rebuild Project
CONSENT AGENDA:
CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE
REPORTS:
8
2. ParametrixContract Amendment
;m~\
Mayor Doyle revie~~d the information from Director of Public Works & Utilities
Cutler regarding tlj~~~Parametrix, Inc., Engineering Services Contract for Landfill
C~osure. Direc~or <8fijF' was pleased with the results. from .Param~trix, noting that the
CIty opened bIds tq~ for the landfill closure which WIll be dIscussed at the next
Council meeting~G8imcibnan lIulett asked if there had been testing changes, and
Director Cutler expnuned there were a number of additional testing requirements. He
added that the curi~f amendment is for construction assistance on the construction
contract.1W
.
:'.-',
Councilman Hul~n: moved to accept the recommendation as presented
authorizing the l\f~yor to~ign the negotiated 597,625 Amendment No.5 to the
agreement with Pijr3metrix. Councilman Campbell seconded the motion, which
carried Uli~nimol1~"f
3. Public Wo1;'ks! Trust Fund Loan Application Approval
MayorDoyle review~d the information for the Director of Public Works & Utilities
regarding the PupJJg: Works Trust Fund Loan Application for Phase III of the
Downtown Wate~inlSidewalk Replacement Project. Councilman Williams asked
if this project has b~~:~oordinated with the Gateway Project and, further, has any of
the informatioq beerishared with those involved in the underground project. Director
Cutler indicated al~tier had been sent to Don Perry advising him of the City's
intention to submit $I'#s loan application for the remainder of the water work. City
Engineer Kenworthy.then addressed the first question by advising the Council that
staff i~ stilfin the p~ljrninary states of the project, but it is intended to coordinate with
the Gateway project throughout this particular endeavor.
Councilmember Mc:~eown moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the PWTF loan
application certification in the amount of 51,500,000 for Phase ill of the
Downto~ WaterrnainlSidewalk Replacement Project and, if the loan is
approved, autho~e the Mayor to execute the PWTF loan agreement provided
that the loan amount~oes not exceed $1,500,000. Councilman Williams seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
.
4. Award Bid, for Cresthaven Underground Electric Rebuild Project
Mayor Doyle revie",ed the memorandum from Public Works & Utilities Director
Cutler regarding the award of the Cresthaven Underground Rebuild Project. The
question was raised as to whether the City was comfortable with the references
received on Colvico; Director Cutler offered a correction to the staff's
recommendation.ipthat the contract amount was by competitive bid as opposed to
negotiation.. Additionally, in response to the question, he noted that Jim Harper,
Electrical Engineer, felt comfortable with the bid price from Colvico of $115,614.85
since it was so close to the estimate. Director Cutler noted he had worked with
Colvico in the past, a& they replaced more than half of the electrical distribution system
at the Naval SubmaD11eBase Bangor; the company did a very good job. Kudos were
given to staff memb~J:S Jim Harper and Gail McLain for such a fme job on the bid and
the engineer's.estimate.
. "f
Councilman Campbell moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the $115,614.85
contract with Colvjco,Inc., for the construction of the Cresthaven Underground
Rebuild (project 20':15). Councilman Wiggins seconded the motion, which
carried. unallimously.
Councilman Wiggins moved to accept the Consent Agenda to include: I) Travel
request - Water Law Seminar for City Attorney; 2) City Council Minutes of May 2,
2000; 3) Check Register - May 10,2000 - $765,559.27; and 4) Water Quality Report.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Campbell. Mayor Doyle conunented that
the Water~lity Report must be prepared annually, as it is required by the EPA.
Following limited discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Councilmember McKeown reported that the octopus on the City Pier is being .
refurbished. and will i>e planted by the Soroptimist Club. On behalf of the
Soroptimist's, Councilrilember McKeown complimented the Parks Department for
- 2-
CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE
REPORTS: (Cont'd)
.
Ordinance Establishing or
Revising Commencement
Dates for Terms of
Various Advisory Boards
and Commissions
Ordinance No. 3051
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
QUASI-JUDICIAL:
Appeal of Denial of
Parking Variance -
Maverick Development
.
CITY COUNcn.MEEI1NG
May 16, 2000
Councilman Wiggins reported that, because of an A WC Nominating Committee
meeting, h~i;\\j1l miss at leastll:,pqrtion of the next Council meeting. He reported that
Economic Development CoiffieirDirector Bart Phillips has resigned, so Councilman
Wiggins will be involved in the selection process for Mr. Phillips' replacement.
Councilman Campbell attended a Board meeting for the Olympic Air Pollution
Control Authority, at which time he learned there will be no rate increase for the fiscal
year, 2001.
Mayor Doyle and City Manager Quinn attended the Three Mayor's Meeting, during
which discussion was held on the inatter of fiber optics. Also, Mayor Doyle attended
the Sequim Irrigation Festival, which was a magnificent event. He also reported he
was appointed to the A WC Resolutions Committee, and a meeting has been scheduled
for May 19, 2000. The City's proposed resolution regarding street vacation
compensation will be considered.
Ordinances Not Requiring Public Hearings
Mayor Doyle reviewed the memo provided by the City Clerk regarding an ordinance
establishing and/or revising commencement dates for terms of various advisory boards
and commissions to March 1.
A question was raised pertinent to the Economic Development Steering Committee
(Port Angeles Works!) and whether it has short-term versus permanent status. Also,
reference was made to the oversight responsibility for those funds provided by
Rayonier under the name of Port Angeles Works! Manager Quinn confirmed that
those specific funds are still available and have not been expended. Further, he
advised the Council that he and Economic Development Director Smith had recently
considered economic development efforts underway in the community. With various
projects being undertaken and coordination between the City, Port and the EDC,
Manager Quinn felt that economic development will playa major role in community
development for many years to COI~l~,. He suggested the possibility of combining some
of these functions under one committee on which the City Council has a presence so
that all functions can be well coordinated in the future.
i
Mayor Doyle read the Ordinance by title, entitled
ORDINANCE NO. 3051
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington,
establishing or revising commencement dates for terms of various
advisory boards and commissions, repealing the ordinances that
established the Human Relations Commission and Publicity
Board, amending Ordinances 2724, 2982, 2489, and 2972 and
Chapters 2.26, 2.66, 2.68, and 2.70 of the Port Angeles
Municipal Code, and repealing Ordinances 1652 and 1216 and
Chapters 2.28 and 2.40 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code.
I .
Councilmember McKeown moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title.
Councilman Hulett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilman William~ moved to revise the term commencement date for the
Downtown Forward Executive Committee to March 1 st. Councilman Campbell
seconded the motion'iwhich carried unanimously.
Mayor Doyle reviewed the memo from Planning Director Collins regarding the
Maverick Development Parking Variance appeal. Director Collins noted that the staff
report should be corrected in that this is not a closed-record appeal hearing, but rather
it is an open-record hearing. In conferring with the City Attorney, Director Collins
concluded this issue is 'not governed by State Statute 17.24, which limits the number
of public hearings that can take place on a land-use matter. The parking variance has
been before the Planning Commission several times, and the Commissions's fmal
decision of April was to deny the parking variance, which left Maverick the option of
revising the project, appealing to the City Council, or terminating the project.
Following the filing of the appeal, Director Collins understood that the applicant would
I
,
- 3 -
I
I
I
I
1
9
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
May 16,2000
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
QUASI-JUDICIAL:
Appeal of Denial of
Parking Variance -
Maverick Development
(Cont'd)
Shoreline Master Program
Amendment
Municipal Code
Amendment - Animal
Husbandry
10
now be requesting a,continuation of the matter to the Council meeting of June 6, with
a r~quest that the ~,9.,','~}!P.,',,~, ~:cil send it b, ,ack for reco~ideration by the P~g Commission
at Its May 24th mer,m~. ~e appl1cant ~ contmue~ t? w?rk o~ t:Ymg to res~lye the
problems that wer!ila~Jagumg the Plannmg Comnnsslon m amvmg at a decIsion to
support the parkil1g"!y'~ance. Director Collins spoke in support of the request for
continuation, noti:Qgl!Jtat by so doing, the Council would be remedying a noticing
problem with regllI,'4t9 this evening's hearing.
'.'r"~{~,}i{i
In responding to atlimguiry from Mayor Doyle, Attorney Knutson offered clarification
as to a closed- vers1\s'open-record appeal. Further, he indicated that in this instance
it would beapproprjilfp to accept a statement from the applicant's attorney which has
been indicated ~'Q~ing a request that the matter be remanded to the Planning
Commission,andt:MHhe Council continue the appeal to the next meeting. He added
this may not ultinW.tely be necessary, depending on the outcome of the Planning
Commission meetiP,g'f;
Dave Neupert, 403, South Peabody, was present as the representative of Maverick
Development. Mr. Neupert asked that the City Council refer this issue back to the
Planning Commissip'pso that they can reconsider the variance application and, further,
continue the helU'ijigto the June 6th Council meeting, if necessary. Mr. Neupert
advised the Councila~ to the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. The
number of parking,~aces the applicant is trying to provide is one space per unit, as
well as a disabledpll!'king space for visitors. His client is attempting to accomplish
this by amending ,~~Condominium Association CC&Rs so that they would have a
permanent obligati61ito assure a minimum of one parking space per unit. Also, they
hope to show the ~llu1ning COJnmission revised drawings of the ground floor of the
structure, allowing for a couple more spaces in the old pool area. They also plan to
present a lease fora~ditional parking spaces across the street from the development.
CouncilmemberMcKeown moved to refer the matter of appeal of denial of
Parking Variance!KV 00-01 - Maverick Development back to the Planning
Commission for consideration if the Commission so desires and continue the
appeal to June 6, 20~O. The motion was seconded by Councilman Campbell and
carried unanimously:'
.
.
Public Hearings - Other:
1. Shoreline Master Program Amendment - SMA 00-01 - Proposed amendment to the
City 's ,Shoreline Master Program.to increase maximum covered moorage height
allowable from 20' to 30' and to clarify the definition of conditional use: Mayor Doyle
reviewed informatiqn provided by the Planning Director regarding the Shoreline
Master Program Amendment 00-01, which Director Collins depicted as being
administrative am~~~ents which represent practices that are already in place.
Conditions were pbl\::~d on approval of Substantial Shoreline Developments Permits
without intet1ding they be processed as conditional use permits. The language adopted
with the new Shore~ine Master Program in 1995 established that if the City placed
conditions, on a suhsfimtial development permit, it became a conditional use permit
which resulted in grea~er delays. The proposed amendment eliminates unnecessary
delays for Departm~nt of Ecology approval of substantial development permits.
The second administrative change related to the damage of the boathouses due to the
1997 winter storm: One of the boat houses exceeded the 20' height limitation, and the
City determined it could not be repaired without a variance. In the process of doing
the variance, the City,discovered a dozen boat houses in similar condition. Director
Collins determined tlte height would need to be changed from 20' to 30'.
Mayor Doyle opened the public hearing at 7: 15 p.m. There being no public testimony,
the public hearing was closed at 7: 15 p.m. Councilman Wiggins moved to continue
the proposed Shoreline Master Program Amendment to the June 6, 2000, Council
meeting. Councilman Campbell seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
2. Municipal Code Amendment - MeA 00-01 - Animal Husbandry: Consideration of
animal husbandry regulations City-wide: Mayor Doyle reviewed information
submitted by Planning Director Collins, who then noted the five proposed changes as .
set forth in the packet. ,Brad Collins noted that on Page 190 of the agenda listed, five
changes. Discussion followed concerning the proposed regulations and how they may
relate to animal control regulations. In addition, discussion centered around animal
- 4-
Municipal Code
Amendment - Animal
Husbandry (Cont'd)
.
Break
City Council Term
Limits
.
Hearing Date for 2001-
2006 Capital Facilities
Plan / Transportation
Improvement Program
Resolution No. 5-00
.
crIY COUNCIL MEETING
May 16, 2000
noise and odors. or ColliDs agreed there should be more clarity in defming and
regulating animal nOIse 'and odor.
Mayor P9~;~, ppened thJ p;b,M~,~~aring at 7:28 p.m. There being no public testimony,
the publiclieifring was !clo"SeQ~~9:28 p.m. Councilmember Erickson moved to
continue the action on the proposed Municipal Code Amendment to the regular
City Council meeting of June 6, 2000. Councilmember McKeown seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
Mayor Doyle recessed the meeting for a break at 7:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened
at 7:45 p.m.
Ordinances Not Requiring Public Hearings (Cont'd)
2. City Council Term Limits: Mayor Doyle reviewed the memorandum from Manager
Quinn on the matter of City Council term limits. In the discussion that followed,
Councilman Wiggins voiced his opposition to term limits noting if candidates are not
desired, then they are voted out of office by the public. Councilmember'McKeown
stated she was opposed to term limits, but she supported seeking public input by a utility
billing return insert. Councilman Campbell indicated term limits were intended to
encourage more interest in the elective process. Having followed the elections over the
last 8 - 10 years, he indicated this just hasn't happened. He noted how many of the
CounciImembers have run unopposed for a City Council position.
Councilman Williams stated he has been against term limits; however, he has been
seeking public input as to how members of the community felt on the matter. In
addition, he has done a great deal of research studying the history of City Council terms.
He shared with the Council certain conclusions he has reached by virtue of conducting
this research. Councilman Hulett voiced the opinion that a great deal has changed in
City government since the time the term limits were imposed. Councilmember
Erickson noted that she has typically been a supporter of term limits; however, she
acknowledged that it can take a lengthy period of time to get up to speed on issues and
r committees on which a CounciImember might serve. Also, Councilman Campbell drew
attention to the fact that only ~ other cities in the State presently have term limits.
Mayor Doyle agreed this is a representative form of government, and the people should
decide who holds office. Further, he felt that experience does make a difference in the
operation of the City.
Lengthy discussion ensued aBout the best means of seeking public input on the issue of
term limits. Manager Quinn expanded on the various options outlined in the packet,
such as an advisory ballot, a newspaper advertisement or tear-out ballot, or a utility
billing insert. He emphasized the fact that the latter option would be more cost effective
as compared to costs incurred with an advisory ballot which could cost the City up to
$20,000. It was suggested that a utility billing insert would be favored, and
confidentiality would be protected if the survey cards were returned to the City Clerk.
Councilman Williams moved to have a combination of one or two public hearings,
to establish an advisory committee to form a ballot, and that a utility insert be
placed in the utility bills and the results tallied. The motion died for lack of a
second.
After further discussion, Councilmember McKeown moved to use a utility bilI insert
to seek public input to include, a pro and con statement. Councilman Wiggins
seconded the motion. Consideration was given to the writing of the pro and con
statement to be included with the utility billing, and it was suggested that Councilman
Wiggins write the statement opposing term limits and Carl Alexander be asked to write
the statement in favor of term limits. Further details can be worked out by staff. A vote
was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously.
Resolutions Not Requiring Public Hearings
Resolution setting Hearing Date for 2001-2006 Capital Facilities Plan / Transportation
Improvement Program: Mayor Doyle reviewed a memo from Public Works & Utilities
Director Cutler regarding the need to set a public hearing on the 2001-2006
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) & Capital Facility Plan (CFP). Director
Cutler requested that, if Council follows the recommendation, three Councilmembers
are needed to work with staff to review the priorities. In addition, on Page 93 of the
packet information, the recommendation should reference "...the Transportation
Element of the 2001-2006 Capital Facility Plan".
- 5-
11
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
May 16, 2000
Hearing Date for 2001-
2006 Capital Facilities
Plan / Transportation
Improvement Program
Resolution No. 5-00
(Cont'd)
Approval of Forks Jail
Contract Renewal
INFORMATION:
ADJOURN TO
EXECUTIVE
SESSION:
ADJOURNMENT:
12
Mayor Doyle read !h.:e Resolution by title, entitled
::'?;~}dI!
RESOLUTION NO. 5-00
A RESOtl.;jION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles
Washington, setting a public hearing date for review of the
~*-:'Y ear Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and
Tiim.sportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan
(gl''f) for the years 2001-2006.
.
Councilman Willi~ms,'moved to accept the Resolution as read by title. Councilman
Wiggins seconded ~11~ motion, which carried unanimously.
Other Considerations
Approval of Forks Ja,i/(AJntract Renewal: Mayor Doyle summarized the memorandum
from Police Cbief.;Ilk on tbe matter of the renewal of the Forks Jail Contract.
Councilmember EiiCI(son indicated she would be abstaining from the vote on this
matter. . Councilm!p.Campbell moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the
agreement for cori!!~~ment services with Forks. Councilman Hulett seconded the
motion, which c~!ned by a majority vote, with Councilmember Erickson
abstaining. Becall~e'abstentions are counted as affirmative votes, the motion
carried unanimou~IY.
City Manager's R$Jort: Manager Quinn reported on the Unisys proposal, the
Downtown Deve1ppment Plan, National Police Week, a Telecommunications
Conference he arid 'Economic Development Director Smith are to attend, a
memorandum regarqwg the success of Dump Day, as well as a communication from the
North Olympic Lib!ary System on grant funding received. Anyone interested in
assisting with plantijIl.gand promotion for the Library's project should contact Manager
Quinn. ..
Mayor Doyle noted, that,Martha Choe will be ,the speaker at The Chamber of Commerce
on May 22, 2000.~he is the Director of Wa~h#tgton State Community Trade and
Economic DeveloPm.ent. 4.
Also, noting the di~Q\lssion on animal husbandry, Mayor Doyle drew attention to the
Humane Society Report and the fact the Society has handled 229 cats and 312 dogs
from the City of Porti\ngeles.
.
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Becky J. Upton, City qerk
Larry Doyle, Mayor
.
- 6 -
.
.
.
:~~~~~~4~f~~;;:~.~r?';):~'~~~:"~~~~~_";iA ,-. ti*f:'>,::~'*~~~'!
~ORTAt;I,
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY OF PORT ANGELES COUNCIL MEMO
DATE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 6, 2000
MA YOR DOYLE AND CITY OF PORT ANGELES COUNCIL
Yvonne Ziomkowski, Finance Dire~'1/
Travel Request for Government Finance Officers Association Annual Conference
Summary: The 94th GFOA annual conference will focus on the rapid technological, cultural, and
economic transition to a digital economy and performance measurement and budgeting for
governmental activities. The conference is June 11-14, 2000 in Chicago.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Finance Director
to attend the GFOA annual conference in Chicago.
Background / Analysis: This year's conference theme is "e-Volving in a Cyber World". Changes
in technology impact all public-sector managers. An additional focus will be on performance
measurements to make the government more accountable to the public and to improve effectiveness
and efficiency of all operations. These are only two of several subjects which will be discussed at
the conference. Given the importance of these issues to the City, it is worthwhile for the Finance
Director to attend this conference with expert speakers on a number of specific topics of current
interest.
The estimated cost of attending the conference is $1,250, including $350 for registration, $329 for
airfare, $171 for meals, and $340 for lodging. Since the total cost is more than $750, the City's travel
policy requires City Council approval.
,,~!
13
.
.
.
14
.
.
.
,>~.,,:,;~-'~~t~~.'i' ;
FORTANGELJ3S
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
DATE:
June 6, 2000
To:
MA YOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Brad Collins, Planning Director ~
Shoreline Master Program Amendment 00-01
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Summary: A proposal to amend the 1995 Shoreline Master Program consistent with the City's
administrative practices of conditioning substantial development permits that are not intended to be
processed as conditional uses requiring Department of Ecology approval and to allow the height
limitation of covered moorage to go from 20 to 30 feet.
Recommendation: Approve Shoreline Master Program Amendment 00-01 citing 17 findings
and 12 conclusions as recommended by the Plan nine Commission.
Backlround I Analysis:
The proposal would amend two sections of the Shoreline Master Program. First, it would change
the definition of a shoreline conditional use in Chapter 2. Second, it would change the height limitation
for covered moorage from 20 to 30 feet in Chapter 6B Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered
Moorage Regulation No.3. Both of these changes represent shoreline management practices that have
been followed by the City of Port Angeles.
Adoption of a new Shoreline Master Program in 1995, the definition of conditional use
unintentionally broaden the application of conditional uses to include any substantial development
penn it to which conditions of approval were attached. The administrative practices of the City of Port
Angeles before and after the 1995 update placed conditions on approval of substantial development
permits without intending that they be processed as shoreline conditional use permits. The new
environmental designation matrices in Chapter 5 of the 1995 Shoreline Master Program determined
which shoreline uses are considered as conditional uses. Shoreline conditional uses take a longer time
for approval than shoreline substantial development permits, because conditional uses require
Department of Ecology approval as opposed to review of City approval. The proposed amendment
eliminates unnecessary delays for Department of Ecology approval of substantial development permits.
Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered Moorage Regulation No.3 limits the maximum height of
covered moorage to 20 feet above the extreme high tide level. In January, 1997, a snow storm caused
severe damage to approximately a dozen boathouses in the Boat Haven Marina, and, in one case, the
covered moorage height restriction would have prevented reconstruction. There are about a dozen
similar existing boathouses in the Boat Haven Marina that exceed 20 feet in height. It was concluded
that these over 20-foot high structures did not need to be made nonconforming structures which could
be reconstructed.
G:\CNCLPKT\PLANNING\000606C.WPD
L: 15
16
Shoreline Master Program Amendment 00-01
May 16,2000
Page 2
The proposed amendments were sent to the Department of Ecology, the Department ofFish and .
Wildlife, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe for comments. With minor editorial comments that have
been integrated into the Planning Commission's recommendation, the other jurisdictions have accepted
the changes.
Attachments:
A. Ordinance
B. Findings and Conclusions
C. Planning Commission February 23, 2000, Minutes Excerpt
D. Planning Department February 23,2000, Staff Report
E. Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Department of Ecology, and Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
Comment Letters
G:\CNCLPKT\PLANNING\000606C.WPD
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, amending the City's
Shoreline Master Program by revising the definition of "conditional use" and by
increasing the allowable height for covered moorage facilities from 20 feet to 30 feet
and amending Ordinance 2033 as amended and Chapter 15.08 of the Port Angeles
Municipal Code. '
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Section 3 of Ordinance 2033 as amended and PAMC 15.08.040 are
hereby amended by amending the Shoreline Master Program's definition of "conditional use" ,
as set forth in Chapter 2, page 8, to read as follows:
e
Conditional Use - A use or the expansion of a use, which is permitted on shorelines
and desi&nated as a "Conditional Use" in the Shoreline Master Pro.:ram. and which, because
of certain characteristics~ requires a special degree of control to make it consistent with the
intent and provision of the Act and these regulations and to make it compatible with, other uses
permitted on ~ shorelines. Conditional Use Permits reqJIire review by the Washin~n State
D~artment of Ecoloi}'. An, usc which requircs a Other substantial development permits to
which "conditions" are attached is are not to be considered to be a conditional use~.
Section 2. Section 3 of Ordinance 2033 as amended and PAMC 15.08.040
are hereby amended by amending the Shoreline Master Program's Shoreline Use Boating
Facilities Covered Moorage Regulation No.3, as set forth in Chapter 6 B, page 82, to read
as follows:
3. The maximum height for covered moorage is 2e 30 feet above the cxtrcnc ~
.. high tide level. Maximum allowable area of covered moorage within the over-water
portion of the marina is limited to 10 percent of the over-water area.
Section 3 - Severability. If any provisions of this Ordinance, or its application to
any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or application
ei
of the provisions of the Ordinance to other persons or circumstances, is not affected.
- 1 -
17
~
18
Section 4 - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five days after
publication.
.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of
said Council held on the
day of
, 2000.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
.
Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
PUBUSHED:
A:\2000-04.ord.wpd
May 10. 2000
.
-2-
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN S~PORT OF AMENDMENT TO SHORELINE
MASTER PLAN :
.
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the February 23, 2000, Staff Report for SMP A 00-
01, :comments, and information presented during the public hearings, the Planning
Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the City Councils discussion and
deliberation, the City of Port Angeles City Council hereby finds:
1. The proposal is to amend the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program consistent with
the City's administrative practices of conditioning substantial development permits that
are not intended to be processed as conditional use permits and of allowing the height
limitation for covered moorage to go from 20 to 30 feet in certain circumstances and in
recognition of existing boathouses located at the Port of Port Angeles Boat Haven on
Marine Drive.
2. The proposed amendments would apply citywide and at the Port of Port Angeles Boat
Haven on Marine Drive.
3. The existing land uses in the City's shoreline and surrounding areas are as follows:
shoreline areas:
marine and heavy industrial, public parks and recreation
(including recreational boating), central business district
commercial, and governmental installations
.
surrounding areas: central business district commercial, open space
(environmentally sensitive marine bluffs), and residential (above
the marine bluffs)
4.
The SEP A Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on
February 16,2000.
5.
Public notice was provided by legal notice published in the Peninsula Daily News on
December 24 and 29, 1999, and posted at City Hall on December 23, 1999.
6.
Public hearings were scheduled for February 23,2000, before the Planning Commission
and March 7, 2000, before the City Council.
7.
A simple description of the amendments was distributed to the Department of Ecology,
the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.
The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe responded with the following comment:
.
"On the issue. of Shoreline Master Program Amendment, we suggest the
following definition of Conditional Use:
Conditional Use - A use or the expansion of a use permitted on shorelines ami
designated as a 'Conditional Use' within the body ofthe Plan which, because of
certain characteristics requires a special degree of control to make it consistent
19
. Findings and Conclusions - June 6. 2000
Shoreline Master Program Amendment
Page 2
with the intent and provision of the Act and,these regulations and compatible .
with other uses permitted on shoreline. Conditional Use permits will require
review by the Washington State De.partment of Ecolog)'. Any use -.vhich
reqt:rircs a Qthg substantial development permit~ to which 'c6Iuiitions' certain
construction reqJlirements are attached is eOfl.sidc:red to be a will not be
considered a conditional use ."
8. The shoreline areas have been designated Open Space, Industrial, and Commercial and
zoned Public Buildings and Parks (PBP), Industrial Heavy (IH), Central Business
District (CBD), and several small areas of Industrial Light (IL) and Commercial Arterial
(CA).
9. The Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives identified as being the most
relevant to the proposal were Growth Management Element Goal A, Policies Al and
Al7, Objective AI, Land Use Element Map Goal A, Open Space Goal I, Policies 11 and
12, Goal J, Conservation Element Goal A, Policies AI, A2, and A3, Goal B, Policies B2,
B3, B5, B6, B8, B9, B17, Bl9, and B21, Objectives B2, B3, and B9, Goal D, Policies
Dl, D4, D7, and D8, Objective Dl, Economic Development Element Goal A, Policies
AI, A4, and AlD, Goal B and Policy Bl.
10. The Shoreline Master Program Goals, Policies, and Regulations identified as being the .
most relevant to the proposal were Shoreline Use Element Goals 1, 2, and 5-9,
Economic Development Element Goals 1-5, Circulation Element Goal 4, Conservation
Element Goals 3-7, Public Access Element Goals 1-3, Recreational Element Goals 1 and
2, Historical/Cultural Element Goal 1, Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered
Moorage Regulations 1-5, and Definition Conditional Use.
11. The Boat Haven Marina is a longstanding commercial and recreational boating facility
in the Port Angeles Harbor and provides safe harbor and ready access for marine
transportation in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
12. The 100+foot high marine bluffs are a unique characteristic open space which separates
the Boat Haven Marina from the nearest residential views located on top of the marine
bluff with the intense marine and heavy industrial activities located at the base of the
bluff and north of Marine Drive.
13. There are a dozen existing boathouses in the Boat Haven Marina that exceed 20 feet in
height and in the view of pedestrians using the Waterfront Trail along the north side of
Marine Drive.
14. A January 1997 snow storm caused severe damage to approximately a dozen boathouses
which received permits to repair and/or reconstruct to new structural load standards, but,
in at least one case, the covered moorage height restriction would prevent .
reconstruction.
20
;;,::;i';;{..ii,:'~:1}jc' , ,~ ,>''/, ?:~,
Findings and Conclusions - June 6. 2000
Shoreline Master Program Amendment
Page 3
.
15. The historical, archaeological, and cultural amenities found on the Port Angeles Harbor
shoreline because of the Lower Elwha Klallam tribal village sites once located here are
protected with nearly every substantial development permit through conditions which
are routinely applied.
16. A citizen shoreline advisory committee working with a consultant hired under a Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) grant prepared a completely new Shoreline Master Program
under the then new shoreline management guidelines just finished by the State
Department of Ecology following their review of twenty years of the Shoreline
Management Act implementation.
17. This second Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program was adopted on May 23, 1995, as
part of the City's effort to bring development regulations into compliance with the
State's Growth Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1994.
Conclusions:
.
.
Based on the information provided in the February 23, 2000, Staff Report for SMP A 00-
01, comments, and information presented during the public hearings, the Planning
Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the. City Councils discussion and
deliberation, the City of Port Angeles City Council hereby concludes:
1.
The unique characteristics of the marine bluff open space protects the residential views
located on top of the marine bluff from the intense marine and heavy industrial activities
located at the base of the bluff
2.
The maintenance or installation of30-foot high boathouses below 1OO+foot high marine
bluffs will have no appreciable effect on residential views and make little difference to
views enjoyed along the Waterfront Trail in comparison to 20-foot high boathouses and
the multitude of large scale industrial facilities also located along the Waterfront Trail
and Marine Drive.
3.
The dozen existing boathouses in the Boat Haven Marina that exceed 20 feet in height
will likely remain for a very long time, especially as nonconforming structures.
4.
There have been no general public or other agency comments indicating there is
minimal environmental impacts on fish habitat and on Waterfront Trail views due to the
existing covered moorage and surrounding large scale industrial developments.
5. The proposal supports the existing and planned land use development of the City.
21
Findings and Conclusions - June 6. 2000
Shoreline Master Program Amendment
Page 4
..
.
6. The housing oflarger yachts should be allowed at the Boat Haven Marina, where little
or no impact is caused by larger boathouses, encouraging economic development in
support of the type of pleasure boats being built in Port Angeles by Admiral Marine.
By allowing larger scale boathouses in Port Angeles Harbor, larger yachts can be housed
sparing other marinas where residential views may be impacted greater by 30-foot high
boathouses.
7. The proposed height limitation amendments recognize existing administrative practices
regarding existing boathouses that were made nonconfonning in 1995 by the adoption
of the new Shoreline Master Program for the City of Port Angeles. It was not
intentional that .the reconstruction of existing boathouses should be contrary to the
Shoreline Master Program. The proposed amendments are to allow for regulations that
do not burden property, owners with unnecessary procedures and financial hardships for
existing boathouses, which fit into the unique physical setting of the Boat Haven
Marina.
8. Making every such substantial development permit a conditional use permit would
defeat the timely processing of most shoreline permits in Port Angeles and/or discourage
the use of conditions which protect valuable artifacts from damage or loss.
.
9. The proposed definition amendments recognize existing administrative practices
regarding the application of conditions on substantial development permits do not
follow the definition adopted in 1995 with the new Shoreline Master Program for the
City of Port Angeles. It was not intentional that the continuation of conditioning
substantial development permits should be contrary to the Shoreline Master Program.
The proposed amendments are to allow for regulations that do not burden property
owners with unnecessary procedures.
10. The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master
Program.
11. The maximum allowable area of covered moorage within the over-water portion of the
marina of 10 percent of the over-water area will limit the increase in new 3D-foot high
boathouses at the Boat Havc;n Marina. Prohibitions of covered moorage in the CBD
and on Ediz Hook will limit expansion of covered moorage along the Waterfront Trail
where there is a concentration of pedestrian activity. New marina plan approvals will
limit potential impacts from any other new covered moorage areas in Port Angeles. The
material and color design requirements will limit the visual impact of new boathouses
as they appear from distance viewpoints.
.
22
:'?;,Ji!<i_e!fi'.;' ~'_.,"',l.. ',c e ',l.t.:.': ~W-1;f'j','-~~;~::;:)!;'-:;-~~;>
Findings and Conclusions - June 6, 2000
Shoreline Master Program Amendment
Page 5
~
.
12. The proposed Shoreline Master Program amendments are in the public interest.
Adopted by the Port Angeles City Council at its meeting of June 6, 2000.
Mayor, City of Port Angeles
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk
.
.
23
.
.
.
24
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23. 2000
REVISION TO THE CITY'S SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - SMP
(Amendment) 00-01 - Shoreline Areas City-wide: To consider amendment to
the City's Shoreline Master Program amending Chapters 2 (Definitions) and 6B
(Boating Facilities) clarifying the conditional use definition and covered moorage
height limitation.
Planning Director Collins reviewed the Planning Department's staffreport and provided
further explanation as to why the City is considering a revision to the Shoreline Master
Program. The intent of the amendment to the wording regarding conditional use permit
conditions is to bring the law into compliance with what past practice has been.
In response to Commissioner Reed, Director Collins noted that the location of boathouse
structures is limited by the Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered Moorage Regulation
No. I which prohibits covered moorage between Cherry and Vine Streets and on Ediz
Hook.
In response to Commissioner Norton, Director Collins indicated that the proposed
increase in maximum height to 30' should be adequate to allow for larger vessels with
associated appurtenances that require the greater height. The previous height limitation
of 20' seems short sighted in retrospect although he believed that it may have been
consistent with other municipalities in the state at the time of adoption (1995).
The Planning Commission edited the recommended conditional use definition to add "is"
before "compatible" and "the" before "shoreline" in the first sentence.
There was considerable discussion regarding why the maximum height for structures is
measured from "extreme" high tide rather than the more defmable term "mean high high
water." As the term "mean higher high tide" is a known factor, it was suggested that that
term be used for determining maximum height.
Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
Ken Sweeney, Port of Port Angeles Environmental Manager, P.O. Box 1350, Port
Angeles, stated the Port's support of the proposed increase in height for boathouse
structures. The Port has hired a consultant to determine how the Boat Haven should be
redesigned for maximum use. Following presentation of the final report the Port may
reconfigure areas of the Boat Haven and restrict taller structures to be located only in
certain areas.
Steve Eikum, 1835 East Fifth Street, noted that given the maximum 10% density for
boathouses in the Boat Haven, if taller boathouses are plarmed, the number of boathouses
may actually be reduced because a taller boathouse equals approximately one and one-
half smaller boathouses in needed area.
There being no further comment, Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
25
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23. 2000
Following brief review discussion, Commissioner Reed moved to recommend the
City Council amend the City's Shoreline Master Program to revise the definition of .
conditional use with two editing changes to the staff recommended amendment and
to increase the maximum height of boathouse structures to 30 feet 1 above the mean
higher high tide level, citing the following findings ane conclusions:
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the February 23,2000, Staff Report for SMPA 00-
01, comments, and information presented during the public hearings, the Planning
Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the City Councils discussion and
deliberation, the City of Port Angeles City Council hereby finds:
1. The proposal is to amend the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program consistent with the
City's administrative practices of conditioning substantial development permits that are
not intended to be processed as conditional use permits and of allowing the height
limitation for covered moorage to go from 20 to 30 feet in certain circumstances and in
recognition of existing boathouses located at the Port of Port Angeles Boat Haven on
Marine Drive.
2. The proposed amendments would apply citywide and at the Port of Port Angeles Boat
Haven on Marine Drive.
3. The existing land uses in the City's shoreline and surrounding areas are as follows:
.
shoreline areas:
marine and heavy industrial, public parks and recreation (including
recreational boating), central business district commercial, and
governmental installations
surrounding areas: central business district commercial, open space (environmentally
sensitive marine bluffs), and residential (above the marine bluffs)
4. The SEP A Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on
February 16,2000.
5. Public notice was provided by legal notice published in the Peninsula Daily News on
December 24 and 29, 1999, and posted at City Hall on December 23, 1999.
6. Public hearings were scheduled for February 23, 2000, before the Planning Commission
and March 7, 2000, before the City Council.
7. A simple description of the amendments was distributed to the Department of Ecology,
the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.
The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe responded with the following comment:
.
"On the issue of Shoreline Master Program Amendment, we suggest the following
26
";-:'~~"i~}: 'i-l--i';'f,:~,?;'
'.:-'. ,-, "~)<i.~'~~':~~11:;~';:{-l~
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 2000
.
definition of Conditional Use:
Conditional Use - A us~6i the expansion of a use permitted on shorelines mu!
desi~ated as a 'Conditional Use' within the body of the Plan which, because of
certain characteristics requires a special degree of control to make it consistent
with the intent and provision of the Act and these regulations and compatible with
other uses permitted on shoreline. Conditional Use permits will require review by
the Washington State De.partment of Ecology. IdYj tlSC -.vhieh. reqtti:rcs 8. Other
substantial development permi~ to which 'conditions' certain construction
requirements are attached is considered to be 8. will not be considered a
conditional use ."
8.
The shoreline areas have been designated Open Space, Industrial, and Commercial and
zoned Public Buildings and Parks (PBP), Industrial Heavy (IH), Central Business District
(CBD), and several small areas of Industrial Light (IL) and Commercial Arterial (CA).
The Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives identified as being the most
relevant to the proposal were Growth Management Element Goal A, Policies Al and
AI7, Objective AI, Land Use Element Map Goal A, Open Space Goal I, Policies II and
12, Goal J, Conservation Element Goal A, Policies AI, A2, and A3, Goal B, Policies B2,
B3, B5, B6, B8, B9, BI7, BI9, and B2I, Objectives B2, B3, and B9, Goal D, Policies
DI, D4, D7, and D8, Objective DI, Economic Development Element Goal A, Policies
AI, A4, and AIO, Goal B and Policy Bl.
. 10. The Shoreline Master Program Goals, Policies, and Regulations identified as being the
most relevant to the proposal were Shoreline Use Element Goals 1,2, and 5-9, Economic
Development Element Goals 1-5, Circulation Element Goal 4, Conservation Element
Goals 3-7, Public Access Element Goals 1-3, Recreational Element Goals 1 and 2,
Historical/Cultural Element Goal 1, Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered Moorage
Regulations 1-5, and Definition Conditional Use.
9.
11. The Boat Haven Marina is a longstanding commercial and recreational boating facility in
the Port Angeles Harbor and provides safe harbor and ready access for marine
transportation in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
12. The 100+foot high marine bluffs are a unique characteristic open space which separates
the Boat Haven Marina from the nearest residential views located on top of the marine
bluffwith the intense marine and heavy industrial activities located at the base of the
bluff and north of Marine Drive.
13. There are a dozen existing boathouses in the Boat Haven Marina that exceed 20 feet in
height and in the view of pedestrians using the Waterfront Trail along the north side of
Marine Drive.
.
14. A January 1997 snow storm caused severe damage to approximately a dozen boathouses
which received permits to repair and/or reconstruct to new structural load standards, but,
in at least one case, the covered moorage height restriction would prevent reconstruction.
27
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23. 2000
15. The historical, archaeological, and cultural amenities found on the Port Angeles Harbor
shoreline because of the Lower Elwha Klallam tribal village sites once located here are
protected with nearly every substantial development permit through conditions which are
routinely applied.
.
16. A citizen shoreline advisory committee working with a consultant hired under a Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) grant prepared a completely new Shoreline Master Program
under the then new shoreline management guidelines just finished by the State
Department of Ecology following their review of twenty years of the Shoreline
Management Act implementation.
17. This second Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program was adopted on May 23, 1995, as
part of the City's effort to bring development regulations into compliance with the State's
Growth Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1994.
Conclusions:
Based on the information provided in the February 23,2000, Staff Report for SMP A 00-
01, comments, and information presented during the public hearings, the Planning
Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the. City Councils discussion and
deliberation, the City of Port Angeles City Council hereby concludes:
1. The unique characteristics of the marine bluff open space protects the residential views .
located on top of the marine bluff from the intense marine and heavy industrial activities
located at the base of the bluff.
2. The maintenance or installation of30-foot high boathouses below 100+foot high marine
bluffs will have no appreciable effect on residential views and make little difference to
views enjoyed along the Waterfront Trail in comparison to 20-foot high boathouses and
the multitude of large scale industrial facilities also located along the Waterfront Trail
and Marine Drive.
3. The dozen existing boathouses in the Boat Haven Marina that exceed 20 feet in height
will likely remain for a very long time, especially as nonconforming structures.
4. There have been no general public or other agency comments indicating there is minimal
environmental impacts on fish habitat and on Waterfront Trail views due to the existing
covered moorage and surrounding large scale industrial developments.
5. The proposal supports the existing and planned land use development ofthe City.
6. The housing of larger yachts should be allowed at the Boat Haven Marina, where little or
no impact is caused by larger boathouses, encouraging economic development in support
of the type of pleasure boats being built in Port Angeles by Admiral Marine. By allowing .
larger scale boathouses in Port Angeles Harbor, larger yachts can be housed sparing other
marinas where residential views may be impacted greater by 30-foot high boathouses.
28
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23. 1000
7. The proposed height limitation,amendmentsr~s~gpize existing administrative practices
regarding existing boathouses that were made ncmconforming in 1995 by the adoption of
the new Shoreline Master Program for the City of Port Angeles. It was not intentional.
that the reconstruction of existing boathouses should be contrary to the Shoreline Master
Program. The proposed amendments are to allow for regulations that do not burden
property owners with unnecessary procedures and financial hardships for existing
boathouses, which fit into the unique physical setting of the Boat Haven Marina.
8. Making every such substantial development permit a conditional use permit would defeat
the timely processing of most shoreline permits in Port Angeles and/or discourage the use
of conditions which protect valuable artifacts from damage or loss.
9. The proposed definition amendments recognize existing administrative practices
regarding the application of conditions on substantial development permits do not follow
the definition adopted in 1995 with the new Shoreline Master Program for the City of
Port Angeles. It was not intentional that the continuation of conditioning substantial
development permits should be contrary to the Shoreline Master Program. The proposed
amendments are to allow for regulations that do not burden property owners with
unnecessary procedures.
10. The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master
Program.
11. The maximum allowable area of covered moorage within the over-water portion of the
marina of 10 percent of the over-water area will limit the increase in new 30-foot high
boathouses at the Boat Haven Marina. Prohibitions of covered moorage in the CBD and
on Ediz Hook will limit expansion of covered moorage along the Waterfront Trail where
there is a concentration of pedestrian activity. New marina plan approvals will limit
potential impacts from any other new covered moorage areas in Port Angeles. The
material and color design requirements will limit the visual impact of new boathouses as
they appear from distance viewpoints.
12. The proposed Shoreline Master Program amendments are in the public interest.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Philpott and passed unanimously.
29
.
.
.
30
.
.
.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
FORTANGELES ·
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
February 23, 2000
Planning Commission
, PI~ Department~
FILE #:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
SMP Amendment 00-01
City of Port Angeles
Citywide
Citywide
Shoreline Master Program amendments addressing the fullowing two issues:
A. Definition of Conditional Use in the Shoreline Master Program
Chapter 2.
B. Height limitations for covered moorage in the Shoreline
Master Program Chapter 6.
BACKGROUND:
Proposed Amendments
A proposal to amend the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program consistent with the City's
administrative practices of conditioning substantial development permits that are not intended to be
processed as conditional use permits and of allowing the height limitation for covered moorage to go
from 20 to 30 feet in. certain circumstances and in recognition of existing boathouses located at the
Port of Port Angeles Boat Haven on Marine Drive.
Definition Conditional Use. A use or the expansion of a use permitted on shorelines and desiiOated
as a "Conditional Use" in the Shoreline Master Proaram which, because of certain characteristics.
requires a special degree of control to make it consistent with the intent and provision of the Act and
.these regulations and compatible with other uses permitted on shoreline. Conditional Use permits
reQJ.Iire review by the Washiniton State Department of Ecology. Any use wbi,h n,q12i1:es a Othm:
substantial development permits to which "conditions" are attached is are not to be considered to-be
a conditional use.
31
Febnwy 23,2000
Page 2
Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered Moorage Regulation No.3. The maximum height for.
covered moorage is 26 1Q feet above the extreme high tide level. Maximum allowable area of
covered moorage within the over-water portion of the marina is limited to 10 percent of the over- .
water area. .
Location and Existing Development
The proposed amendments would apply citywide and at the Port of Port Angeles Boat Haven on
Marine Drive.
The existing land uses in the City's shoreline and surrounding areas are as follows;
shoreline areas: marine and heavy industrial, public parks and recreation (including
recreational boating), central business district commercial, and
governmental installations
surrounding areas: central business district commercial, open space (environmentally
sensitive marine bluffs), and residential (above the marine bluffs)
DISCUSSION:
Environmental Review
The SEPAResponsible Official issued a Determination ofNon~Significance (DNS) on February 167
2000.
.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan establishes the long range goals and policies of the City. It is the basis upon
which City officials are to make land use decisions. Any project proposed in the City must be
consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. .
Designation
The shoreline areas have been designated Open Space, Industrial, and Commercial and zoned Public
Buildings and Parks (PBP), Industrial Heavy (IH), Central Business District (CBD), and several small
areas of.Industrial Light (II..) and Commercial Arterial (CA).
Goals, Policies, and Objectives
The Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Policies, and Objectives have been reviewed with regards to the
proposed application and the following policies appear to be the most relevant to the proposal.
Growth Management Element, Goal A. To manage growth in a responsible manner that is
beneficial to the community as a whole, is sensitive to the rights and needs 'of individuals and is .
consistent with the State of Washington's Growth Management Act.
32
.
.
.
P1amiDg Dcpartmc:m St81fReport
SMPAOO-Ol
Febnwy 23,2000
Page 3
Growth Management Element, Goal A, Policy No.1. In all its actions and to the extent consistent.
with the provisions of this comprehensive plan, the City shall strive to implement the following goals
of the State Growth Management Act:
a. Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and
services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
b. Reduce sprawl Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,
low-density development.
c.. Transportatio,n. Encourage efficient multimoda/ transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
d Housing. Encourage the avai/ahility of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population. Promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage
preservation of existing housing stock.
e. Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the region that is
consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity, especially for
unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing
insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the region's natural resources,
public services and public facilities. .
f. Property rights. Private property shall not be takenfor public use without just compensation
having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protectedfrom arbitrary and
discriminatory actions.
g. Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in
a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
h. Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries,
including productive . timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries.
i. Open space and recreation. Encourage the retention of open space and development of
recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks.
j. Environment Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including
air and water quality, and the availability of water.
Ie. Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to
reconcile conflicts.
I. Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development
is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally
established minimum standards.
33
P1lInning Dc:plIItmaJt Staff Report
SMP A ()().() 1
Fcbruuy 23,2000
Page 4
m. Historic preservation Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites and structures
that have historical or archaeological significance.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the stated goals of the Growth Management
Act. Of particular concern is balancing the goals of pennit~ open space and recreation,
economic development, and environment. Timely and fair processing of substantial .
development permits and recognition of existing boathouses and surrounding physical features
are the primaIy issues which can be resolved without compromising any of the GMA goals.
.
Growth Management Element, Goal A, Policy No. 17. All development regulations shall be
, promulgated with d,Je regard for private property rights in order to avoid regulatory takings or
violation of due process and to protect property rights of landowners from arbitrary and
discriminatory actions.
The City has promulgated regulations to proteetprivate property rights. The proposed
definition and height limitation amendments recognize existing administrative practices
regarding the application of conditions on,0substantial development permit~"and existing
boathouse's that were made nonconforming~in 1995 by the adoption of the t1ew Shoreline
Master Program for the City of Port Angeles. It was not intentional that the continuation of
conditioning substantial development permits and reconstruction of existing boathouses
should be contraIy to the Shoreline Master Program. The proposed amendments are to allow
for regulations that do not burden property owners with unnecessary procedures and financial
hardships for existing boathouses, which fit into the unique physical setting of the Boat Haven
Marina.
.
Growth Management Element, Goal A, Objective No. 1. The City wiN continue its efforts to comply
in a timely manner with the requirements of the State Growth Management Act.
It is expected that the City will be reviewing the whole Shoreline Master Program as required
under recent Growth Management Act legislation which mandates new WAC shoreline
regulations and new local regulatory compliance. However, this is an interim review due to
administrative concerns, which the City would like to address before a more comprehensive
review can be completed. In 1998, the State Legislature required the integration of shoreline
planning under the Shoreline Management Act with comprehensive (land use and
environmental) planning under the Growth Management Act. To a large extent, the City of
Port Angeles effort to revise its Shoreline Master Program in 1995 accomplished much of
what the 1998 GMA legislation mandates. Consequently, the subsequent review of the City's
Master Program over the next few years is not urgent and will be done as resources are
available. So, this administrative amendment is important now to resolve routine and ongoing
problems that the City must face right away to avoid unintentional bureaucratic red tape.
Land Use Element Map, Goal A. To guide current and future development within the City in a
manner that provides certainty to its citizens about future land use and the flexibility necessary to
meet the challenges and opportunities of the future.
The proposal supports the existing and planned land use development of the City.
.
34
.
.
.
Planning Departmeat StatJ'Report
SMPAOO-Ol
February 23,2000
Page 5
Land Use Element Open Space. Goal L To create open space for relief within the urban landscape.
to retain natural landscapes. to preserve fish and wildlife habitat. and to provide natural corridors
which connect wildlife habitats.
Land Use Element Open Space, Goal/, Policy No. 1. The City shouldfurther public interest by
designating open spaces to preserve unique or major physical features. such as marine shorelines.
bluffs. ravines, streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmentally sensitive areas deemed
of significant importance to the community.
Land Use Element Open Space, Goal/, Policy No.2. The City shall limit the use of and access to
,such natural areas ~o only that which does not degrade the significance of the area and which
protects the rights of property owners.
Land Use Element Open Space, Goal J. To encourage the development of parks and recreational
opportunitiesfor all residents of the City and to increase access to natural areas in a manner that
minimizes impact.
Conservation Element. Goal A. To create and maintain a community with a high quality of life
where the land is used in a manner that is compatible with the area's unique physical features, its
natural, historical, archaeological, and cultural amenities. and the overall environment;
Conservation Element, Goal A, Policy No. 1. The City should require all development. including
the location and design of all structures and open space areas. to be compatible with the :unique
physical features and natural amenities of the land and complement the environment in which it is
placed, while recognizing the rights of private ownership:',
Conservation Element. Goal A, Policy No.2. The City should promote compatibility between the
land and its use by regulating the intensity of the land use.
Conservation Element. Goal A, Policy No.3. The City should adopt development criteria which
promote the use of innovative design techniques to provide for the use of the land in a manner
compatible with any unique. physical features or valuable natural. historical. and/or cultural
amenities.
Conservation Element, Goal B. To protect and enhance the area's unique physical features, its
natural, historical. archaeological. and cultural amenities. and the overall environment.
Conservation Element. Goal B. Policy No. 2. The City should maintain and preserve its unique
physical features and natural amenities. such as creeks, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, ravines,
. bluffs, shorelines, and fish and wildlife habitats.
Conservation Element, Goal B. Policy No.3. The City should protect and enha"ce the
characteristics of its unique residential neighborhoods.
Conservation Element. Goal B, Policy No.5. The City shall establish minimum standards for
development of properties which contain or adjoin critical areas for the purpose of protecting such
areas and enhancing their natural functions.
35
PlaDning Departmeot Staff Report
SMPAQO.Ol
February 23,2000
Pqe6
Conservation Element, Goal B, Policy No.6. The City should regulate site design, preparation, and
development to avoid or minimize damage to wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.
.
Conservation Element, Goal B, Policy No.8. The City should preserve uniquely featured lands
which still exist in their natural states and which are notable for their aesthetic, scenic, historic, or
ecological features and should prohibit D19' private or public development which would destroy such
qualities, while recognizing the 'rights of private ownership.
Conservation Element, Goal B, Policy No.9. The City should promote public access to the
shoreline, while preserving a healthy shoreline environment.
Conservation Element, Goal B, Policy No. 17. The City should identify and preserve significant
public scenic'view corridors.
Conservation Element, Goal B, Policy No. 19. The City should give precedence to long-term
environmental impacts and benefits over short-term environmental impacts and benefits.
Conservation Element, Goal B, Policy No. 21. The City should coordinate its environmental
regulations with County, State, and Federal regulations to simplify the permitting process and to
reduce associated costs to the land user. .
Conservation Element, Goal B, Objective No.2. The City will adopt 'and enforce adequate
regulations designed to maintain and enhance water quality. .
Conservation Element, Goal B, Objective No.3. The City will identify and implement site specific
requirementsfor individual development proposals to mitigate any negative impacts created by the
development, particularly to an area identified as an environmentally sensitive area.
.
Conservation Element, Goal B, Objective No.9. The City will develop guidelines to evaluate new
development that occurs near scenic resources.
Conservation Element, Goal D. To preserve and enhance the City's shoreline, its natural landscape,
andjlora andfauna and to minimize conjlicts with present and planned uses in a manner consistent
with the State Shoreline Management Act.
Conservation Element, Goal D, Policy No. 1. Shoreline areas should be preserved for future
generations by restricting or Prohibiting development that would interfere with the shoreline ecology
or irretrievably damage shoreline resources.
Conservation Element, Goal D, Policy No.4. Where possible, aquatic habitats including shellfish
habitat, and important marine vegetation should be preserved and protected
Conservation Element, Goal D, Policy No.7. Adequate shoreline area for water-oriented
commercial and industrial development should be designated based on the Land Use Element.
Conservation Element, Goal D, Policy No.8. Shoreline uses and activities should be located to .
avoid environmentally sensitive and ecologically valuable areas and to insure the preservation and
protection of shoreline natural areas and resources.
36
i':i';~~fX:::~~~~\:':';:,d>;'f;~:i ~ ,,"{y :f(,;i:-~,:r~~~~::!%';';1;~tt:;,
PIaming Department StaffRcport February 23,2000
SMPA 00-0 1 Page 7
.
Conservation Element, Goal D, Objective No. 1. '/he City will develop a Shoreline Master Program
that is consistent with the Comprehe.ns;ve Plan and the Shoreline Management Act.
The unique characteristics of the marine bluff open space protects the residential views
located on top of the marine bluff from the intense marine and heavy industrial activities
located at the base of the bluff. The maintenance or installation of30 foot high boathouses
below 100+ foot high marine bluffs will have no appreciable effect on residential views and
make little difference to views enjoyed along the Waterfront Trail in comparison to 20 foot
high boathouses and the multitude of large scale industrial facilities also located along the
Watriont Trail and Mat.ne Drive. As noncoRforming structures there are a dozen existing
boathouses in.the Boat Haven Marina that exceed 20 feet in. height that will likely remain for
a very long tilne, especially as nonconforming structures.
The Boat Haven Marina is a longstanding commercial and recreational boating facility in the
Port Angeles Harbor and provides safe harbor and ready access for marine transportation in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. With the Admiral Marine shipbuilding business located on Port
Angeles Harbor, the manufacture oflarge recreational ships and the housing oflarger yachts
should be encouraged at the Boat Haven Marina where little or no impact is caused by larger
boathouses. By allowing larger scale boathouses in Port Angeles Harbor, larger yachts can
be housed sparing other marinas where residential views may be impacted greater by 30 foot
high boathouses.
.
The historical, archaeological, and cultural amenities found on the Port Angeles Harbor
shoreline because of the Lower Elwha Klallam tribal village sites once located here are
protected with nearly every substantial development permit through conditions which are
routinely applied. . Making every such substantial development permit a conditional use permit
would defeat the timely processmg of most shoreline permits in Port Angeles and/or
. discourage the use of conditions which protect valuable artifacts from damage or loss. The
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe has commented in support of a proposed amendment to the
definition of conditional use.
Economic Development Element, Goal A. To create and maintain a balanced and stable local
economy with full employment and emphasis on strengthening the community's traditional natural
resource related industries as well as diversifying the overall economic base.
Economic Development Element, Goal A, Policy No.1. The City of Port Angeles should remain a
major economic center on the North Olympic Peninsula, meeting regional and local needs.
Economic Development Element, Goal A, Policy No.4. The City should promote the diversification
of the community's economic base by encouraging the location, retention, and expansion of both
timber and non-timber related businesses. This could include various types of manufacturing
businesses such as value-added natural resource related products, computer related products, and
technical devices and components and other businesses such as research and development,
retirement, tourism, retail trade, marine, and ecology related enterprises.
.
Economic Development Element, Goal A, Policy No. 10. The City shall encourage inter-
jurisdictional discussion and cooperation with other governmental agencies to foster the economic
development of the region.
37
P1auniDg DepartmaIt Staff'Report
SMPAoo..ol
February 23,2000
Page 8
Economic Development Element, Goal B. To have a healthy local economy that co-exists with the
community's high quality of life through the protection, enhancement, and use of the community's .
natural, historical, and cultural amenities.
Economic Development Element, Goal B, Policy No.1. The City should promote the Tl!gion's
quality of environment and available natural resources as factors in attracting and re.taining
business, industry, and individual enterprises.
The Boat Haven Marina is a longstanding commercial and recreational boating facility in the
Port Angeles Harbor and provides safe harbor and ready access for marine transportation in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. With the Admiral Marine shipbuilding business located on Port
Angeles Harbor, the manufacture oflarge recreational ships and the housing oflarger yachts
should be encouraged at the Boat Haven Marina As nonconforming structures there are a
dozen existing boathouses in the Boat Haven Marina that exceed 20 feet in height that will
likely remain for a very long time, especially as nonconforming structures. The maximum
allowable area of covered moorage within the over-water portion of the marina of 10 percent
of the over-water area will limit the increase in new 30 foot high boathouses at the Boat
Haven Marina;
The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and the preceding
goals, policies, and objectives in particular.
Shoreline Master Program
Goals, Policies, and Regulations
.
The Shoreline Master Program's Goals, Policies, and Regulations have been reviewed with regards
to the proposed application and the following policies appear to be the most relevant to the proposal.
Shoreline Use Element Goal 1. Utilize Port Angeles HarborlEdiz Hook shorelines to maximize
water-oriented industrial, mixed commercial, educational, cultural, and recreational uses.
Shoreline Use Element Goal 2. Promote a range of water -oriented industrial and marina uses in
the Harbor area generally west of Cherry Street (exknded) and along appropriate sections of Ediz
Hook.
Shoreline Use Element Goal 5. Establish and implement policies and regulations for shoreline use
consistent with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, as amended
Shoreline Use Element Goal 6. Ensure that proposed shoreline uses are located and developed in
a manner that will maintain or improve the health, safety and welfare of the public.
Shoreline Use Element Goal 7. Ensure that activities and facilities are located on the shorelines
in such a manner as to retain or improve the qualiI:Y of the environment.
See comments regarding Comp Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Conservation .
Element Goals.
38
P1annioa DeputmaJ1 Staff Report
SMPA 00-01
""'1'~< ;; '~~""~;';1r:?'F~:!;~n<~.'?',}._,
Febnwy 23,2000
Page ,
.
Shoreline Use Element Goal 8. Ensure that P1'O]XJSed shoreline uses do not infringe upon the rights
of others or upon the rights of private ownership.
See comments regarding Growth Management Element, Goal A, Policy No. .17.
Shoreline Use Element Goal 9. Encourage shoreline uses which enhance their specific areas IN'
employ innovative features for purposes consistent with this program.
Economic Development Element Goal 1. Pori Angeles' shorelines are a major economic resource
of the City and the stale. Ensure that the needs of industrial, commercial, recreational and visitor's
services-based enterprises are encouraged within the directives of the Shoreline Management Act
(SMA).
Economic Development Element Goal 2. Enhance Port Angeles' unique setting, location and
conditions to support manufacturing, shipping, timber-related activities, recreational boating, and
visitor service activities.
Economic Development Element Goal 3. Recognize current economic activity. (e.g. tourisrw.
shipping, marinas, manufacturing, etc.) which is consistent with the objectives of the SMP and
provide for environmentally sensitive new development.
Economic Development Element Goal 4. Ensure healthy, orderly economic growth by allowing
those economic activities which will be an asset to the local economy.
. Economic Development Element Goal 5. Develop, as ail economic asset, the recreation industry
along shorelines in a manner which will enhance the public enjoyment of shorelines.
Circulation Element Goal 4. Encourage marine transportation facilities on appropriate shorelines.
The Boat Haven Marina is a longstanding commercial and recreational boating facility in the
Port Angeles Harbor and provides safe harbor and ready access for marine transportation ia
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. With the Admiral Marine shipbuilding business located on Pod
Angeles Harbor, the manufacture of large recreational ships and the housing of larger yachts
should be encouraged at the Boat Haven Marina where little or no impact is caused by larp
boathouses. By allowing larger scale boathouses in Port Angeles Harbor, larger yachts C8Il
be housed sparing other marinas where residential views may be impacted greater by 30 foot
high boathouses.
Conservation Element Goal 3. Ensure that utilization of a resource takes place with the minim",.
adverse impact to natural systems and quality of the shoreline environment.
Conservation Element Goal 4. Encourage the restoration or enhancement of shoreline resources
.
Conservation Element Goal 5. Preserve the scenic aesthetic quality of shoreline areas and vistas
as feasible.
Conservation Element Goal 6. Protect water quality.
39
PIlIDIIing DeputmaIt StaffRcport
SMP A ()().() 1
. Febnuuy23.2000
Pqe 10
Conservation Element Goal 7. Protect marine bluffs.
See comments regarding Comp Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Conservation .
Element Goals. .
Public Access Element Goal J. Provide. protect and enhance a public shoreline access system
which is both physical and visual and which increases the amount and diversity of public access.
Ensure access for elderly and disabled persons.
Puhlic Access Element Goal 2. Enhance the City's Waterfront/Discovery Trail with site
improvements. Orient new facilities to taa advantage of it.
Public Access Element Goal 3. Connect the City's Waterfront/Discovery trail to other recreational.
civic and commercial activities.
Reaeational Element Goal J. Provide for a variety of active and passive reaeational opportunities.
Recreational Element- Goal 2. Build on existing City assets and efforts related to recreation and
public access.
See comments regarding Comp Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Conservation
Element Goals.
HistoricaVCultural Element Goal 1. Recognize and enhance Ediz Hook and other lands within
shorelines jurisdiction as an important cultural resource for the Lower E/wha S'K/a//am tribe.
Protect resources there and promote cultural activities and features.
.
See comments regarding Comp Plan Land Use Element Open Space and Conservation
Element Goals.
Shoreline Use Boating Facilities 90vered Moorage Regulation No. J. Covered moorage is
prohibited between Cherry Street (extended) and Vine Street (extended) and on the Ediz Hook
Shoreline.
Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered Moorage Regulation No.2. Marina developers are
required to provide a detailed plan for covered moorage development before permits are granted
Such a plan must indicate: (a) covered moorage location, size and general design; (b) impact on
shoreline views in the marina and from adjacent private and public properties; and (c) that the
stroctures will be built to conform to the City building and fire codes, withstand stresses from storms
andweather or damage by fire, and that exterior wall and roof coverings shall be of noncombustible
or fire-retardant-treated material and so certified or labeled
Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered Moorage Regulation No.3. The maximum height jor
covered moorage is 20 feet above the extreme high tide level. Maximum allowable area of covered
moorage within the over-water portion of the marina is limited to J 0 percent of the over-water area.
.
40
.
.
.
. ;'",~.'ti):',"-" '/;~:y,,:: ,'~
,; ~""''"~!c~;'t?'}~I~i4~r,,}}'':::'
Fcbmuy 23,2000
Page 11
PJuaiDg J:>cputmem Staff'Report
SMPA 00-01
Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered Moorage Regulation No.4. All covered moorage at a
specific marina shall be of similar and/or compatible design. materials, color, length and height
(unless they exceed the present height limits); and shall be constructed in contiguous groups or
modules as part of the overall project.
Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered Moorage Regulation No.5. All covered moorage shall
be constructed of nonreflective neutral material and colors. .
The maximum allowable area of covered moorage within the over-water portion of the marina
oflO percent of the over-water area will limit the increase in new 30 foot high boathouses at
the Boat Hav~ Marina. Prolubitions of covered moorage in the CBDand on Ediz Hook will
limit expansion of covered moorage along the Waterfront Trail where there is a concentration
of pedestrian activity. New marina plan approvals will limit potential impacts from any other
new covered moorage areas in Port Angeles. The material and color design requirements will
limit the visual impact of new boathouses as they appear from distance viewpoints.
The proposed height limitation amendments recognize existing administrative practices
regarding existing boathouses that were made nonconforming in .1995 by the adoption of the
new Shoreline Master Program for the City of Port Angeles. It was not intentional that the
reconstruction of existing boathouses should be contrary to the Shoreline Master.Program.
The proposed amendments are to allow for regulations that do not burden property owners
with unnecessary procedures and financial hardships for existing boathouses, which fit into
the unique physical setting of the Boat Haven Marina.
Definition Conditional. Use. A use or the expansion of a use permitted,on shorelines which. because
of certain characteristics requires a special degree of control to make'itconsistentwith die intent
and provisions of the Act and these regulations and compatible .with other. uses permitted on
shorelines. Any use which requires a substantial development permit to which "conditions" are
attached is considered to be a conditional use.
The Lower Elwha KlaIlam Tnbe has commented in support of a proposed amendment to the
definition of conditional use. The proposed definition amendments recognize existing
administrative practices regarding the application of conditions on substantial development
pennits do not follow the definition adopted in 1995 with the new Shoreline Master Program
for the City of Port Angeles. It was not intentional that the continuation of conditioning
substantial development permits should be contrary to the Shoreline Master Program. The
proposed amendments are to allow for regulations that do not burden property owners with
unnecessary procedures.
The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program and the pl'eceding
goals, policies, and regulations, except as proposed for amendment.
ANALYSIS:
City Departments and Other Agencies Comments
Because of the administrative nature of the proposed Shoreline Master Program amendments, the
City has received little comment. A simple description of the amendments was distributed to the
41
Planning Dc:partmcnt Staff'Repoit
SMPA 00-01
Febnwy 23,2000
Page 12
Department of Ecology, the Washington Department ofFish and Wlldlife, and the Lower Elwha
Klallam Tribe. The Lower Elwha K1allam Tribe.responded with the following comment:
"On the issue of Shoreline Masterplan Amendment, we suggest the following definition of
Conditional Use:
Conditional Use - A use or the expansion of a use permitted on shorelines awl
desiillated as a 'Conditional Use' within the bocly of the Plan which, because of
certain characteristics requires a special degree of Control to make it consistent with
the intent and provision of the Act and these regulations and compatible with other
;
uses permitted on shoreline. Conditional Use permits will reQJlire review by the
Washiniton State Department of EcoloKY. An, use which reqaires A Qthm:
substantial development permitl to which 'Gonditi01l5' certain construction
reqJJirements are attached is coMidered to be a will not be considered a conditional
use."
.
There has been some limited discussion with the Department of Ecology area representative, but
DOE is waiting for an expanded description of the proposed amendments, which is presented in this
staff report. The Planning Commission may wish to continue its review until DOE can comment, but
no action is anticipated on City Council adoption of the proposed amendments for another month or
two following any testimony at the public hearings which are scheduled for February 23, 2000, before
the Planning Commission and March 7, 2000, before the City Council.
Due to the lengthy time required for public hearing notice on Shoreline Master Program amendments
and the slow development of the proposed amendments, there is some disconnect between the .
scheduled hearing dates and the nature of the proposal. There are two alternative courses of action
which could be taken with regard to changing the height limitation for .covered moorage. The first
proposal as described in the public notice published on December 24, 1999, and clarified in a second
publication on December 29, 1999, would amend the covered moorage regulations to allow for
nonconfonning structures to be reconstructed to the same bulk requirements of size and height legally
established as of January 1, 2000. The second approach would be to simply amend the 20 foot height
limitation for covered moorage facilities to be 30 feet instead of20 feet high, encouraging economic
development in support of the type of pleasure boats being built in Port Angeles by Admiral Marine.
Due to the unique physical features of the l00+foot high marine bluffs surroun~g those areas of the
Port Angeles Harbor that allow for covered moorage, particularly the Boat Haven Marina, there is
little or no perceived impact to residential views. There have been no general public or other agency
comments indicating there is minimal environmental impacts on fish habitat! and Watemont Trail
views due to the existing covered moorage and surrounding large scale industrial developments.
Planning Department Analysis
Issue: Change the "conditional use" definition in Chapter 2 Definitions and the covered moorage
height limitations in Chapter 6B Boating Facilities.
Summary: When adopted in 1995, the Shoreline Master Program defined conditional use as any
shoreline permit upon which conditions were made and restricted the height of covered moorage
under boating facilities to 20 feet above the extreme high tide. The City routinely conditions .
substantial development permits such as requiring archaeological/cultural assessments for projects
42
.
.
.
.. ..,., ,.,.;',~ ~":'-"?I'J."t?'r.,_~,,:!):;~~,,>:;i>:;:~'\'''i
PlaImiDg ))cpartmIiIIl Staff Report February 23,2000
SMPA 00-01 Page 13
that disturb native soil in the Port Angeles Harbor area and does not intend for permits that are not
classified as "shoreline conditional uses" to be subject to the shoreline conditional use permit process
requiring final State approval. The January 1997 snow stonn caused severe damage to approximately
a dozen boathouses which received pennits to repair and!or reconstruct to new structural load
standards, but, in at least one case, the covered moorage height restriction would prevent
reconstruction. It is expected that the City will be reviewing the whole Shoreline Master Program
as required under recent Growth Management Act legislation which mandates new WAC shoreline
regulations and new local regulatory compliance. However, this is an interim review due to
administrative cOncerns, which the City would like to address before a more comprehensive review
can be completed.
Background! Analysis:
Through a Coastal Zone Management (CZM) grant, the outdated Port Angeles Shoreline Master
Program was thoroughly rewritten as part of the City's effort to bring development regulations into
compliance with the State's Growth Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted
in 1994. The original Shoreline Master Program adopted in the late 1970's was simply a copy of the
urban shoreline sections of Clallam County's Shoreline Master Program. With the new City
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations being made consistent with the Comp Plan, the
archaic references to County nomenclature and officials was clearly inadequate as a workable set of
shoreline development regulations. To that end, a citizen shoreline advisory committee working with
a consultant hired under the CZM grant prepared a completely new Shoreline Master Program under
the then new shoreline management guidelines just finished by- the State Department of Ecology
following their review of twenty years of the Shoreline Management Act implementation. The result
was an updated, GMA,_compliant, Port Angeles (not Clallam County) Shoreline Master Program.
In 1998, the State Legislature required the integration of shoreline planning under the Shoreline
Management Act with comprehensive (land use and environmental) planning under the Growth
Management Act. To a large extent, the City of Port Angeles effort to revise its Shoreline Master
Program in 1995 accomplished much of what the 1998 GMA legislation mandates. Consequently,
the subsequent review of the City's Master Program over the next few years is not urgent and will
be done as resources are available. So, this administrative amendment is important now to resolve
routine and ongoing problems that the City must face right away to avoid unintentional bureaucratic
red tape, which is in conflict with the City's adopted Statement of Values. These changes are being
proposed, therefore, to maintain the status quo and keep the shoreline regulations from becoming
self-defeating.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of
SMP A 00-01 to the City Council based on the following fmdings and conclusions.
Findings
Based on the information provided in the February 23, 2000, Staff Report for SMPA 00-01,
comments, and information presented during the public hearing, and the Planning Commission's
discussion and deliberation, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:
43
PIanDiDg I>epartmcM Staff'Report
SMPA ()()'ol
Fcbnwy 23.2000
Page 14
1. The proposal is to amendment the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program consistent with
the administrative practice of conditioning substantial development permits that are not .
intended to be processed as conditional use permits and to revise the height limitation for .
covered moorage to go from 20 to 30 feet in certain circumstances and in'recognitipn of
existing boathouses located at the Port of Port Angeles Boat Haven on Marine Drive.
2. The proposed amendments would apply citywide and at the Port of Port Angeles Boat Haven
on Marine Drive.
3. The existing land uses in the City's shoreline and surrounding areas are as follows:
shoreline areas: marine and heavy industrial, public parks and recreation (including
recreational boating), central business district commercial, and
governmental installations
surrounding areas: central business district commercial, open space (environmentally
sensitive marine bluffs), and residential (above the marine bluffs)
4. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on
February 16, 2000.
5. Public notice was provided by legal notice published in the Peninsula Daily News on
December 24 and 29, 1999, and posted at City Hall on December 23, 1999. .
6.
Public hearings were scheduled for February 23, 2000, before the Planning Commission and
. March 7, 2000, before the City Council. .
.
7. A simple description of the amendments was distributed to the Department of Ecology, the
Washington Department ofFish and Wlldlife, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. The
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe responded with the following comment:
"On the issue of Shoreline Masterplan Amendment; we suggest the following
definition of Conditional Use:
Conditional Use - A use or the expansion of a use permitted on shorelines mKl
desi~nated as a 'Conditional Use' within the bo<ly of the Plan which, because of
certain characteristics requires a special degree of control to make it consistent with
the intent and provision of the Act and these regulations and compatible with other
uses permitted on shoreline. Conditional Use permits will req.uire review by the
Washin~on State Dt;>artment of Ecoloi)'_ An} \1se which IequUes A ~
substantial development permita to which 'conditions'certain construction
requirements are attached is considered to he. A will not be considered a conditional
use."
8. The shoreline areas have been designated Open Space, Industrial, and Commercial an4 zoned
Public Buildings and Parks (PBP), Industrial Heavy (llI), Central Business District (CBD), .
and several small areas of Industrial Light (IL) and Commercial Arterial (CA).
44
.
.
.
'''',i'~'!;-"<;:0,*r~!iYf<tJ:~t "~r,t: ""1. ~:~)':;;~~~'i':~'!'?:~'%::";~'~?
PlmDiDg Deputmad StafrReport . February 23.2000
SMPAoo.ol Pap 15
9.
The Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives identified as being the most relevant
to the proposal were Growth ~ement EleJ11.ent. Goal A, Policies Al and A17, Objective
AI, Land Use Element Map GOal A, Open Space Goal 1, Policies 11 and 12, Goal J,
Conservation Element Goal A, Policies AI, A2, and AJ, Goal B, Policies B2, B3, B5, B6,
B8, B9, B17, B19, and B21, Objectives B2, B3, and B9, Goal D, Policies 01, 04, D7, and
08, ObjectiveDl, Economic Development Element Goal A, Policies AI, A4, and AI0, Goal
B and Policy B 1.
10. The Shoreline Master Program Goals, Policies, and Regulations identified as being the most
relevant to the proposal were Shoreline Use Element Goals 1, 2, and 5-9, Economic
Development Element Goals 1-5, Circulation Element Goal 4, Conservation Element Goals
3-7, Public' Access Element Goals 1-3, Recreational Element Goals 1 and 2,
Historical/Cultural Element Goal 1, Shoreline Use Boating Facilities Covered Moorage
Regulations 1-5, and Definition Conditional Use.
11. The Boat Haven Marina is a longstanding commercial and recreational boating facility in the
Port Angeles Harbor and provides safe harbor and ready access for marine transportation in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
12. The 100+ foot high marine bluffs are a unique characteristic open space which sesparates the
Boat Haven Marina from the nearest residential views located on top of the marine bluff with
the intense marine and heavy industrial activities located at the base of the bluff and north of
Marine Drive.
13. There are a dozen existing boathouses in the Boat Haven Marina that exceed 20 feet in height
and in the view of pedestrians using the Waterfront Trail along the. north side of Marine
Drive.
14. A January 1997 snow storm caused severe damage to approximately a dozen boathouses
which received permits to repair and/or reconstruct to new structural load standards, but, in
at least one case, the covered moorage height restriction would prevent reconstruction.
15. The historical, archaeological, and cultural amenities found on the Port Angeles Harbor
shoreline because of the Lower Elwha Klallam tribal village sites once located here are
protected with nearly every substantial development permit through conditions which are
routinely applied.
16. A citizen shoreline advisory committee working with a consultant hired under a Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) grant prepared a completely new Shoreline Master Program under the
then new shoreline management guidelines just finished by the. State Department of Ecology
following their review of twenty years of the Shoreline Management Act implementation.
17. This second Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program was adopted on May 23, 1995, as part
of the City's effort to bring development regulations into compliance with the State's Growth
Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1994.
45
Pluming J)epartmed Staft'Report
SMPA 00-01
February 23,2000
Page 16
Conclusions
Based on' the information provided in the February 23, 2000, Staff Report for SMPA 00-01, .
comments, and information presented during the public hearing, and the Planning'Commission's
discussion and deliberation, and the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning
Commission hereby concludes the following:
1. The unique characteristics of the marine bluff open space protects the residential views
located on top of the marine' bluff from the intense marine and' heavy industrial activities
located at the base of the bluff.
;
2. The maintenance or installation of 30 foot high boathouses below 100+ foot high marine
bluffS will have no appreciable effect on residential views and make little difference to views
enjoyed along the Waterfront' Trail' in comparison to 20 foot high' boathouses and the
multitude of large scale industrial facilities also located along the Waterfront Trail and Marine
Drive.
3. The dozen existing boathouses in the Boat Haven Marina that exceed 20 feet in height will
likely remain for a very long time, especially as nonconforming structures.
4. There have been no general public or other agency comments indicating there is minimal
environmental impacts on fish habitat and on Watemont Trail views due to the existing
covered moorage and surrounding large scale industrial developments. ' .
5.
The proposal' supports the existing and planned land use development -of the' City.
.
6. The housing oflarger yachts should be allowed at the Boat Haven Marina, where little or no
impact is caused by larger boathouses, encouraging econonuc development in support of the
type of pleasure boats being built in Port Angeles by Admiral Marine. By allowing larger
scale boathouses in Port Angeles Harbor, larger yachts can be housed sparing other marinas
where residential views may be impacted greater by 30 foot high boathouses.
7. The proposed height limitation amendments reco~e existing administrative practices
regarding existing boathouses that were made nonconforming in 1995 'by the adoption of the
new Shoreline Master Program for the City of Port Angeles. It was not intentional that the
reconstruction of existing boathouses should be contrary to the Shoreline Master Program.
The proposed amendments are to allow for regulations that do not burden property owners
with unnecessary procedures and financial hardships for existing boathouses, which fit into
the unique physical setting of the Boat Haven Marina.
8. Making every such substantial development pennit a conditional use pennit would defeat the
timely processing of most shoreline pennits in Port Angeles and/or discourage the use of
conditions which protect valuable artifacts from damage or loss.
.
46
.
.
.
PIlIIIIIing Department StaffRepoct
SMPA 00.0 I
';;~~~~1~~'..~;~~l~,\'!.~~l~}~~,..,T1;~;~5~.~~t~:
FcIJrury 23.2000
Page 17
9.
The proposed definition amendments recognize existing administrative practices regarding
the application of conditions ~n~bstantial devel()Prnent permits do not follow the definition
adopted in 1995 with the new'SftoreJine Master Pitiir'am for the City of Port Angeles. It was .
not intentional that the continuation of conditioning substantial development permits should
be contrary to the Shoreline Master Program. The proposed amendments are to allow for
regulations that do not burden property owners with unnecessary procedures. .
10. The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program.
11. The maximum allowable area of covered moorage within the over-water portion of the'marina
ofl0 percent pfthe over-water area will limit the increase in new 30 foot high boathouses at
the Boat Haven Marina. ProhIbitions of covered moorage in the CBD and on Ediz Hook will
limit expansion of covered moorage along the Waterfront Trail where there is a concentration
of pedestrian activity. New marina plan approvals will limit potential impacts from any other
new covered moorage areas in Port Angeles. The material and color design requirements will
limit the visual impact of new boathouses as they appear from distance viewpoints.
12.. The proposed Shoreline Master Program amendments are in the public interest.
This action constitutes a recommendation to the City Council.
SMPAfOO.Ol
47
.
.
.
48
lD ill Ell Elill1Jil -lilJDill CDUJlCJl
2851 LOWER ELWHA ROAD
PORT ANGELES, WA 98363
(360) 452-8471
FAX (360) 452-3428
00 ~ 00 ~ 0 Wi rn r;'\j
" ---,Inl
. JAN 27 2lDI !Wi
l ~
PORT ANGElES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
January 24, 2000
Sue Roberds
City of Port Angeles Planning Department
321 East 5th
Port Angeles, W A 98362
Subject:
~ Shoreline Substantial Development Variance for Ying, 11034
Marine Drive #46
~ Shoreline Masterplan Amendment
Dear Ms. Roberds,
Because reconstruction of a boathouse in the Port Angeles harbor will not involve
disturbance of native soils above the historic high tide elevation, the Tribe has no
requirement for cultural resource monitoring on the Shoreline Substantial
Development Variance for Ying, 11034 Marine Drive #46.
On the issue of Shoreline Masterplan Amendment we suggest the following
definition of Conditional Use:
Conditional Use - A use or the expansion of a use permitted on shorelines
and desic-nated :l:3 a ''ClIlldirional Use" within the bodv of the Pla.n which,
because of certain characteristics requires a special degree of control to make
it consistent with the intent and provision of the Act and these regulations
and compatible with other uses permitted on shoreline. Conditional Use
nermits will r('Ollin~ revie\\- bv the \\"ashington Stat.e Denartment of Ecoloey.
":'\.11:; -:'1(;(; \';hid: ;'~:;1U:l"~':- ;; Orh('I' substantial development permit;i to which
"concliricm:.: c('riain C(Jn~rn.ldion reqUin'lllents are attached i:: conciclcrccl ro he
f.t will not he c()n~~jd('n'd ;~ conditional use.
With changes accepted the text would read:
Conditional Use - A use or the expansion of a use permitted on shorelin~s
and designated as a "Conditional Use" within the body of the Plan which,
because of certain characteristics r~quires a special degree. of control to make it
consistent with the intent andprov:ision of the Act and t~ese regulations and .
compatible with other uses permY~~d on shoreline. Conditional Use permit,s
will require review by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Other
substantial development permits to. which certain construction requirements
are attached will not be considered. a conditional use.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Shoreline Substantial Development
Variance for Ying and the proposed Shoreline Masterplan Amendnient.
SCiJJ /
Carol BrJwn .
Community Development
cc. LEKT Tribal Council
LEKT Cultural Resources
LEKT Environmental Coordinator
.
.
50
.
.
.
"
'.:'-.~,,;~;~:;./-r;: j-)~':_ -::.: ;
,-;
STATE OF WASHING'TON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. Box 47775 · Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 · (360) 407-6300
February 29, 2000
00 ~OOmDWrn ill
MAR - 3 2000
PORT ANGELES
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Brad Collins, Planning Director
City of Port Angeles Planning Department
321 East Fifth Street
Port Angeles, W A 98362
Dear Mr. Collins:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance to amend the City's
Shoreline master Program conditional use definition and covered moorage height limitation provisions
(File No. 896) located within shoreline areas city-wide. We reviewed the environmental checklist and
have the following comments:
The subject SEP A determination is in support of a proposed amendment to the City of Port Angeles
Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
Unfortunately, the SEPA documentation was incomplete. The SEPA submittal did not include a copy of
the actual SMP amendments. It is, Therefore, not possible to provide specific comments. A copy of the
SMP amendments should be provided to Ecology as soon as possible.
The City should make an appropriate adjustment to the due date for written comments. There should be
adequate time provided after receipt of the amendments for review prior to the expiration of the public
comment period.
Shoreline master programs require Ecology approval prior to taking effect. The city is reminded to
review WAC 173-26-110 to determine submittal requirements for the Ecology review process. Randy
Davis will be the lead planner for the Ecology review process. Randy can be reached at (360) 407-0242.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please call Mr. Randy Davis
(Shorelands Planner) at (360) 407-0242 or with any other questions regarding this proposal Ms. Karl
Rokstad (SEPA Coordinator) at (360) 407-6787.
Abbe White
SWRO Administration
AW: (00-1154)
.r.
cc: Randy Davis, SWRO/SEA
Kari Rokstad, SWRO/SEA
~
C51
STATE OF WASHINGTON
.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW · PO Box 48300 · Olympia, Washington 98504-8300 · (360) 753-2200
March 16, 2000
m
m@rnD W ~"rn1
MAR 2 0 20)) ~
The Honorable Larry Doyle
Mayor, City of Port Angeles
321 East Fifth
Pose Office Box i 150
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
RT ANGELES
DEPARTMENT
Dear Mayor Doyle:
Thank you for sending us the proposed amendments to the City of Port Angeles Shoreline Master
Program. We appreciate the City postponing the adoption until the Department of Community, Trade,
and Economic Development had an opportunity for review.
,J"
In response to your transmittal we received on March 7, 2000, we concur with staff recommendations for
adoption of the proposed minor amendments.
The proposed revision of height liinitation for covered moorage from 20 to 30 feet is within the height
limitation requirements ofRCW 90.58.320, which il1dicates a restriction of35 feet.. We commend the
City for evaluating potential view impacts along the, Waterfront Trail and considering unique
circumstances such as the marine bluffs adjacent to Port Angeles' shorelines.
.
As you know the Department of Ecology (Ecology) is in the process of updating its Shoreline
Management Act Guidelines. We recommend postponing any major revisions to your shoreline master
program until the new guidelines have been finalizoo. Ecology expects to have these adopted in late
summer 2000.
Conf!ratulations to you and your staff for the work c.ompletp,n ! f YO!' l1l'!ve :in:' 'l1JP.s;'::0flS 0r ':0nt;'~:-!s
about this letter or any other growth management issue, please call me at (360) 753-2951. We extend our
continued support to you and the City of Port Angeles in achieving the goals of growth management.
Si."cerel~
rJ:[; Nowak
Regional Planner
Growth Management Program
MN:lw
cc:
Bradley J. Collins, AICP, Planning Director, City of Port Angeles
Andy Meyer, AICP, Planning Director, Clallam County
.
52
~""
\)
.
.
.
.,; '~s:n_f'~.~yl~~:'::.<',;{t~~}'j~-' .
,;:+,
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW · PO Box 48300 · Olympia, Washington 98504-8300 · (360) 753-2200
Thursday, March 16, 2000
Sue Roberds
City of Port Angeles
321 E Fifth
Port Angeles ,WA 98362
Re: Draft Shoreline Master Program Amendment
Dear Ms. Roberds:
Thank you for sending this department the Draft Shoreline Master Program Amendment for City of Port
Angeles. .
As you know, the goals and policies of each approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP) are an element
of the local comprehensive plan and must be consistent with the rest of the plan. The regulations and
standards identified in your SMP are considered to be development regulations under the Growth
Management Act.
The Department of Ecology maintains the authority to approve Adopted Shoreline Master Programs and
any proposed changes to this program before they go into effect. Once adopted, please send a copy of
the final Shoreline Master Program to Ecology's regional office which provides services for your area:
~"
~,53
Department of Ecology:
Nothwest Regional Office, 3190 160th Ave SE, Bellevue WA 98008-5452
Southwest Regional Office, PO Box 47775, Lacey WA 9854-7775
Central Regional Office, 106 S. 6th, Yakima WA 98902-3387
Eastern Regional Office, N 4601 Monroe,Suit 100; Spokane WA 99205-1295
As a result of recent legislative changes, the Department of Ecology is in the process of revising their
guidelines pertaining to the intergration ot the Shoreline Management Act with the Growth Management
Act. Once these revisions are permenently adopted, you may be required to amend your SMP to reflect
any changes required under the new rules within twenty-four months (RCW 90.58.070).
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 753-2951.
SinCerelY. . ~ / //~
y1tfl:~
Michael Nowak
Growth Management Planner
Growth Management Services
Enclosure (agency list)
cc: Department of Ecology
54
.
.
.
.
.
.
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
DATE:
June 6, 2000
To:
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Brad Collins, Planning Director ~
Municipal Code Amendment MCA 00-01 - Animal Husbandry
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Summary: The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code are intended to resolve issues in the
community and between neighbors regarding how animals are kept and allow for reasonable
enforcement of zoning regulations in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed
amendments would eliminate overly broad enforcement problems for noncommercial animal
husbandry.
Recommendation: Approve Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 citing 12 findings and 8
conclusions as recommended bv the Plannine: Commission.
Background / Analysis:
From time to time the City has received complaints about animals being kept in residential areas.
One complaint in 1999 concerned chickens being kept in the RS-7 Single Family Residential Zone.
Enforcement posed several problems. The Zoning Code lacked some definitions, and enforcement
was found to be overly broad in eliminating most animal husbandry uses that involved keeping
animals other than two or fewer dogs and cats, private stables, and house pets. It was determined
that the prohibition of all but a few animals was neither what was intended nor what could be
consistently enforced.
There are legitimate reasons for regulating animal husbandry within urban areas. The close
proximity of animals and their care and feeding to human dwelling units can cause problems for
public health and safety. Noise and odors as well as sanitation concerns cannot be addressed well
in higher density residential areas. Nonetheless, as outlying areas are annexed into the city usually
at the lowest density residential zoning, commercial farming and animal husbandry may be included
as legally nonconforming uses. The proposed amendments would eliminate overly broad
enforcement problems for noncommercial animal husbandry and private gardening.
The intent of the proposed amendments is to reconcile zoning regulations with more up-to-date
community practices involved with the keeping of animals in urban areas. It recognizes that
enforcement requires a more clear cut delineation between animals that are house pets and those that
are not. Due to the popularity of pets, the number of dogs and cats classified as a kennel increases
from three to four before it becomes an enforcement issue. It also makes a distinction between the
G:\CNCLPKl\PLANNING\OOO606d. wpd
-,
1\
\-'
55
Municipal Code Amendment 00-0 I - Animal Husbandry
May 16, 2000
Page 2
lowest density residential zone, which is located primarily at the edge of the city/urban area, arid .
other residential zones for the purpose of allowing noncommercial animal husbandry as an accessory
use similar to currently allowed private stables (although keeping cows was eliminated as a private
stable accessory use). In the future as the City's urban growth areas are annexed, a new zone with
lower density than RS-9 such as RS-12 with minimum lot $izes of 12,000 square feet could become~
a more appropriate zone for noncommercial animal husbandry. At this time RS-9 represents the
lowest density residential zone in the City of Port Angeles.
The proposal would amend a number of sections of the Zoning Code. The amendments would make
the following five changes for keeping animals in the City of Port Angeles:
1. House pets as specifically defined are exempt from regulations and allowed outright,
subject to other public health and safety and animal ordinances.
2. Up to three dogs and cats, instead of only two, may be kept outdoors without being
subject to the zoning regulations governing kennels.
3. Noncommercial animal husbandry as specifically defmed is permitted as an accessory
use in the RS-9 Single Family Residential Zone and not permitted in any other zone.
4. Commercial animal husbandry is conditionally permitted in limited commercial and
industrial zones as kennel and commercial animal husbandry uses.
5. Cows are eliminated as part of a private stable accessory use in the RS-9 Zone.
Ordinance
Findings and Conclusions
Planning Commission April 26, 2000, Minutes Excerpt
Planning Department April 26, 2000, Staff Report
.
5 6 G:\CNCLPKlIPLANNING\000606d.wpd
, ;,""~,;~-"'~~:"::,: :).~':(";';~4;:! ~j:;,:t:w~~,'r~,:.~:~:~',>
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, amending the
Zoning Codes animal husbandry regulations by defining and exempting
"house pets", by increasing from two (2) to three (3) the number of dogs
and cats allowed to be kept outdoors without being subject to the zoning
regulations governing kennels, by defining and permitting
"noncommercial animal husbandry" as an accessory use in the RS9 single
family residential zone and prohibiting it in other zones, by conditionally
permitting "commercial animal husbandry" in limited commercial and
industrial zones, and by eliminating cows as part of a private stable
accessory use in the RS9 zone, and amending Ordinance 1709 as amended
and Chapters 17.08, 17.11, and 17.34 of the Port Angeles Municipal
Code.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
as follows:
Section 1. Ordinance 1709 as amended and Chapter 17.08 of the Port Angeles Municipal
e
Code are hereby amended by amending PAMC 17.08.010, 17.08.035, 17.08.045, 17.08.060, and
17.08.095 to read as follows:
ei
17.08.010 - "A"
A. Accessory Building or Use - one which is subordinate and incidental to and serves
a principal building or principal use and which is located on the same zoning lot as the principal
building or principal use served. (Ord. 3042 ~3 (part) 1/28/00; Ord. 2921 ~ 1, 6/28/96; Ord. 2861
~l (part), 3/17/95; Ord. 2652 ~1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 ~1 (part), 12/22170)
B. Accessory Residential Unit - a dwelling unit which is incidental to a detached
single family residence, is subordinate in space (i.e., fifty percent or less space than the single family
residential use), and is located on the same zoning lot as the single family residence. An accessory
residential unit is served by water and electrical service that is separate from the primary residential
service and has a separate address. (Ord. 3042 ~3 (part) 1/28/00; Ord. 2861 ~ 1 (part), 3/17/95)
C. Adult Family Home - a one-family dwelling of a person or persons who are
providing personal care, room and board to more than one (1) but not more than six (6) adults who
are not related by blood or marriage to the person or persons providing the services and who are
licensed by the State of Washington pursuant to Chapter 18.48 and Chapter 70.128 RCW (Adult
Family Home regulations). (Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2861 ~l (part), 3/17/95; Ord. 2652
~1 (part), 9/27/91)
D. Alley - a public right of way which provides service access to abutting property.
(Ord. 2861 ~1 (part), 3/17/95; Ord. 2652 ~1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 ~1 (part), 12/22170)
- 1 -
57
--.
E. Amendment - a change in language of the zoning text which is an official Pail[
these Zoning Regulations. (Ord. 2861 ~1 (part), 3/17/95) ..
~ Animal Husbandly. Commercial- the care and raising of animals. particularly farm
animals. for agricultural or other commercial pu(poses. provided that this shall" not include
noncommercial animal husbandly. private horse stables. up to three dogs and cats which are not
house pets. or house pets.
.G.. Animal Husbandly. Noncommercial - the care and raising of animals for
noncommercial pUl:poses. provided that this shall not include private horse stables. kennels. or house
~
r:H. Apartment - a room, or a suite of two or more rooms in a multiple dwelling,
occupied or suitable for occupancy as a dwelling unit for one family.
frL. Assisted Living Facility or Boarding Home - A residential facility that. provides
domiciliary services to three or more persons of the age 65 or more, or less than age 65 who by
reason of infirmity require domiciliary care and who do not require the more intensive care provided
by a nursing home, and that is licensed by the State as a "Boarding Home" pursuant to chapter 18.20
RCW. (Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2861 ~1 (part), 3/17/95; Ord. 2652 ~ 1 (part), 9/27/91;
Ord. 1709 ~ 1 (part), 12/22/70)
17.08.035 - "F"
A. Family - one person or two or more legally related persons living together, or not
more than six unrelated persons living together as a single, nonprofit, housekeeping unit; provided
that there shall not be more than four unrelated persons living together with legally related persons
as a single, nonprofit, housekeeping unit. (Ord. 2652 91 (part), 9/27/91) .
B. Family Day-Care Home - a family day-care home regularly provides day-
during part of the 24-hour day to 12 or fewer children, incidental to a primary residential use. (Ord.
2652 ~1 (part), 9/27/91)
c... Farming. Commercial - the planting and cultivating of crops for agricultural or
other commercial pUl:poses. provided that this shall not include private gardening.
e;u.. Fence - that which is built, constructed, or grown, or composed of parts joined
together of material in some definite manner in which the prime purpose is to separate and divide,
partition, enclose, or screen a parcel or parcels ofland. (Ord. 2652 ~ 1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709
~1 (part) 12/22/70)
B:-E. Fuel yard or bulk plant - that portion of a property where flammable. or
combustible liquids are received by tank vessel or tank vehicle and are stored or blended in bulk for
the purpose of distributing such liquids by tank vessel, tank vehicle, portable tank or container for
subsequent resale and not to the consuming public. (Ord. 2999 ~2 (part), 9/11/98)
17.08.045 - "H"
A. Hedge - the special application of shrubs or other plants that have been planted
close together so that they form a thicket and an unbroken line, acting as a space boundary or
creating a visual screen. An individual tree cannot bea hedge by itself. (Ord. 2954 ~ 1,3/28/97)
B. Height - total distance in feet from average ground elevation at perimeter walls
to top of sign or structure, except that television antennae, roof mounted mechanical equipment, and
other appurtenances are exempt from height requirements. (Ord. 2954 ~ 1, 3/28/97; Ord. 2742 ~ 1,
1/29/93; Ord. 2652 ~l (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 170991 (part), 12/22/70) .
- 2-
58
j":~.t;;~':r?t2:Jt\~1,,~";r3":"J',',,:,, t :Itti0C',;:r:tt~~~?'ift:f?,\{:jl
. - , , '
.
C. Home Occupation - is an occupation or business activity which results in a product
or service, is conducted in whole or in part in the dwelling unit, and is clearly incidental and
subordinate to the residential use of the property. (Ord. 2954 ~1, 3/28/97; Ord. 2861 91 (part),
3/17/95; Ord. 2652 ~1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 226591 (part), 9/19/83; Ord. 210391, 10/18/80; Ord.
170991 (part), 12/22/70)
D. Hospital - an institution specializing in giving clinical, temporary and emergency
services of a medical or surgical nature to human patients and licensed by Washington State ,Law.
(Ord. 2954 ~ 1,3/28/97; Ord. 2652 ~ 1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 ~ 1 (part), 12/22/70)
E.. Hospital, Mental- (Including treatment of alcoholics) - an institution licensed by
Washington State Agencies under provisions of law to offer facilities, care, and treatment for cases
of mental and nervous disorders and alcoholics. (Ord. 2954 91, 3/28/97; Ord. 2652 91 (part),
9/27/91; Ord. 170991 (part), 12/22/70)
~ House Pets - domestic animals such as dOGS, cats, fish. birds. rodents. and re.ptiles.
which sletW and are primarily housed in a dwelling unit together with their owners.
.
17.08.060 - "K"
A. Kennel- a place where thtee (J) four (4) or more dogs or cats, four W months old
or older, or any combination of ~ dogs and cats, are kept, whether by ~ owners of the dogs and
cats or by persons providing facilities and care, whether for compensation or not:..,. pt2rovided that
this the number of dogs and cats counted shall not include house pets. (Ord. 2861 91 (part),
3/17/95; Ord. 2652 91 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 170991 (part), 12/22/70)
B. Kitchen - a room or space which is constructed or equipped to facilitate the
washing, cooking, and storing of food; kitchen faci~ities include plumbing for sinks and electrical
wiring for ovens and stoves. (Ord. 2861 91 (part),3/17/95)
.'
17.08.095 - "S"
A. Service Station - an establishment which provides for the servicing of motor
vehicles and operations incidental thereto, limited to the retail sale of petroleum
products and automobile accessories; automobile washing (not including auto laundry); waxing and
polishing of automobiles; tire changing and repair (not including recapping); battery service,
charging, and replacement (not including repair and rebuilding); radiator cleaning and flushing (not
including steam cleaning and repair); installation of accessories; and the following operations if
conducted wholly within a building: lubrication of motor vehicles, brake servicing, wheel
balancing, tire testing, and replacement of carburetors, coils, condensers, fan belts, wiring, water
, hoses, and similar parts. (Ord. 2652 91 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 91 (part), 12/22/70)
B. Setback - the required minimum distance between any lot line and any
structure or building. (Ord. 2666 91 (part), 1/17/92)
C. Sign - Any letters, figures, design symbol, trademark, or device intended
to attract attention to any activity, service, place, subject, person, firm, corporation, public
performance, article, machine, or merchandise, and including display surfaces and
supporting structures thereof. (Ord. 3007 95 (part), 1/15/99)
D. Sign, Advertising - a sign which directs attention to a busiriess,
commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than upon the
premises on which such sign is located or to which it is affixed. (Ord. 3007 95 (part),
1/15/99; Ord. 2666 91 (part), 1/17/92; Ord. 1709 91 (part), 12/22170)
E. Sign, Area - the area of a sign shall be the sum of each display surface
- 3 -
59
--.
including both sides of a double-faced sign, as determined by circumscribing the exterior .
limits on the mass of each display erected on one sign structure with a circle, triangle, or
quadrangle connecting all extreme points. Where a sign is composed. of two or more
individual letters mounted directly on a wall, the total display surface, including its
background, shall be considered one sign for purposes of calculating. sign area. The
structure supporting a sign is not included in determining the area of the sign, unless the
structure is designed in a way to form an integral part of the display. (Ord. 3007 g5 (part),
1/15/99; Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97)
F. Sign, Attached - a sign or billboard, lighted or unlighted, directly attached
to, supported by, and no more than 2 feet distance from, a building. (Ord. 3007 g5 (part),
1/15/99; Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2666 91 (part), 1/17/92; Ord. 1709 gl (part),
12/22170)
G. Sign, Billboard - an outdoor advertising display, structure or sign, over 250
square feet in area, attached or detached, lighted or unlighted. (Ord. 3007 g5 (part), 1/15/99;
Ord. 2948 g5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2666 gl (part), 1/17/92; Ord. 1709 gl (part), 12/22170)
H. Sign, Business - a sign which directs attention to a business or profession
conducted, or to a commodity, service, or entertainment sold or offered, upon the premises
on which such sign is located or to which it is affixed. (Ord. 3007 g5 (part), 1/15/99; Ord.
2948 g5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2666 91 (part), 1/17/92; Ord. 170991 (part), 12/22170)
I. Sign, Detached - a sign or billboard, lighted or unlighted, which is
separated from and not a part of a building. A sign or billboard on the top of and more than
two feet in distance from a building shall be considered a detached sign. (Ord. 3007 95
(part), 1/15/99; Ord. 294895 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2666 91 (part), 1/17/92; Ord. 170991
(part), 12/22170) .
J. Sign, Flashing - a sign which is illwninated by artificial light which is not
maintained stationary or constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use. .
For the purpose of this Zoning Code, a revolving illuminated sign shall also be considered
a flashing sign. (Ord. 3007 ~5 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 95 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2666 91
(part), 1/17/92; Ord. 1709 91 (part), 12/22170)
K. Sign, Official Traffic, Directional, or Warning - a sign that is erected by
a public authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. (Ord. 3007 95
(part), 1/15/99; Ord. 294895 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 266691 (part), 1/17/92; Ord. 170991
(part), 12/22170)
L. Sign, Temporary - a sign constructed of cloth, canvas, cardboard,
wallboard, or other Iightweight.material, intended to be displayed for a limited period of
time, not to exceed thirty (30) days within a single calendar year, typically advertising a one-
time event, unless otherwise specified. (Ord. 3007 95 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 95 (part),
2/14/97; Ord. 266691 (part), 1/17/92; Ord. 1709 ~1 (part), 12/22170)
M. Single Family Residence - one detached dwelling on an individual lot for
occupancy by one family. (Ord. 3007 95 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 95 (part), 2/14/97; Ord.
2796 g5, 2/11/94)
N. Stable, Private Horse - a detached accessory building in which only the
horses And c.ows owned by the occupants of the premises are kept, and in which no horses
and cows are kept for hire, remuneration, or sale. (Ord. 3007 95 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948
95 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2796 ~5, 2/11/94; Ord. 2652 91 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 170991
(part), 12/22170)
O. Stand - a structure for the display and sale of products, with no space for
customers within the structure itself. (Ord. 3007 95 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 95 (part),
2/14/97; Ord. 2796 95,2/11/94; Ord. 2652 91 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 91 (part),
12/22170) .
-4-
60
""'<:i;L:i~;;\;.!~>l.~?;!j,if.<;",.. ':1".j ,~~r~j~~~~;r~~'Y~~,~f~f;rh
P. Story - the spa,ce between theJ!1oor and the ceiling above said floor. A
basement shall be considered a story when more than half of the basement height is above
the finished lot grade. (Ord. 3007 ~5 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord.
2796 ~5, 2/11/94; Ord. 2652 ~ 1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 ~ 1 (part), 12/22170)
Q. Street - a public right-of-way which affords a primary means of access to
abutting property. (Ord. 3007 ~5 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2796
~5, 2/11/94; Ord. 2652 ~1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 ~1 (part), 12/22170)
R. Street Right-of-Way Line - the boundary line between a street and abutting
property. (Ord. 3007 ~5 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2796 ~5,
2/11/94; Ord. 2652 ~ 1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 ~ 1 (part), 12/22170)
S. Structure - anything constructed in the ground, or anything erected which
requires location on the ground or water, or is attached to something having location on or
in the ground or water, butnot including fences or walls used as fences six feet or less in
height. (Ord. 3007 ~5 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2796 ~5, 2/11/94;
Ord. 2652 ~1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 ~1 (part), 12/22170)
T. Structural Alteration - any change, other than incidental repairs, which
would prolong the life of the supporting members of a building, such as bearing walls,
columns, beams, or girders. (Ord. 3007 ~5 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97;
Ord. 2796 ~5, 2/11/94; Ord. 2652 ~ 1 (part), 9/27/91; Ord. 1709 ~ 1 (part), 12/22170)
U. Subordinate - less important than and secondary to a primary object,
usually in these Zoning Regulations referring to an accessory use. (Ord. 3007 ~5 (part),
1/15/99; Ord. 2948 ~5 (part), 2/14/97; Ord. 2921 ~2, 6/28/96; Ord. 2861 ~1 (part), 3/17/95)
V. Supermarket - a grocery store on a site larger than one acre and with
multiple retail departments such as drugs, photo, video, deli, flowers, seafood, bakery, etc.
(Ord. 3007 ~5 (part), 1/15/99; Ord. 2948 ~5 (part),'2/14/97; Ord. 2861 ~1 (part), 3/17/95)
.
.
Section 2. Ordinance 1709 as amended and Chapter 17.11 of the Port Angeles
Municipal Code are hereby amended by amending P AMC 17.11.030 to read as follows:
17.11.030 AccessOl)' Uses.
A.
B.
k
ff:.
ftE..
frD.
.
Garages and carports.
Greenhouses, gazebos, storage sheds, and similar accessory structures.
Noncommercial animal husbandry. provided that:
L Hoofed animals are housed no closer than 100 feet from any
property line.
2.. A minimum of 1 acre per hoofed animal is maintained.
.l. A minimum 5-foot high fence is installed on property lines.
~ Other animals are housed no closer than 25 feet from 3QY property
line.
Swimming pools and cabanas.
Private television satellite reception dishes.
Private ~ stables, provided that:
1. Stables are constructed no closer than 100 feet from any property
line.
2. A minimum area of 1 acre per horse 01 ~ow is maintained.
- 5 -
61
~
3. A minimum of 5-foot high fence is installed on property lines. .
ffi.. Other accessory uses deteimined by the Planning Director . to be
compatible with the intent of this Chapter. (Ord. 2921 ~4t 6/28/96; Ord. 2861 ~ 1 (part)t
3/17/95; Ord. 2385 ~2 (part)t 5/28/86; Ord. 1709 ~1 (part)t 12/22/70)
Section 3. Ordinance 1709 as amended and Chapter 17.34 of the Port Angeles
Municipal Code are hereby amended by amending PAMC 17.34.020 to read as follows:
17.34.020 Permitted Uses.
A. Automobile bodYt fender, laundry, paint shops and wrecking yards.
B. Bakeriest wholesale.
C. Battery rebuildt tire repair & recapping.
D. Boiler works.
E. Book, newspaper & magazine printing & publishing.
F. Bottling plantst creameries.
G. Cabinet and carpenter shops.
H. City pound.
I. Draying, freight & trucking yards and terminals.
J. Dry cleaning: clothes, carpetst rugst laundries.
K. Night club, pool hallt dance hall, boxing arenat penny arcade, shooting
gallery or similar amusement enterprise.
L. Railroad yard or roundhouse.
M. Sawmillst paper mills, pulp mills.
N. Ship building, storage, repair, boat havens, marinas.
o. Storage yards; building materials, tractors, trucks, boats, equipment.
P. Transportation or freight terminal.
Q. Truck, trailer, motorcycle, repairing, overhaulingt rental, sales.
R. Utility buildings and structures.
S. Veterinary 01 pc.t shop bospital clinics. offices. and kennel~ and hatc.hc.ry.
T. Warehousingt distributing plants.
U. Wood products manufacture.
V. Manufacturing, processingt packing, storage of:
I. alcohol
2. brick, tile or terra-cotta
3. brooms, brushes
4. celluloid or similar cellulose materials
5. clotht cord or rope
6. concrete
7. electrical products and appliances
8. food and food products
9. kelp reduction
10. lumber
11. machinery
12. paper and pulp
.
.
-6-
62
.
13. prefabrjcated buildings\
14. signs, ali types
15. salt works
16. vegetable or other food oil. (Ord. 3042 ~3 (part) 1/28/00 Ord. 2861
~ 1 (part), 3/17/95; Ord. 2668 ~6 (Part), 1/17/92; Ord. 1709 ~ I (part), 12/22/70)
Section 4 - Severability. If any provisions of this Ordinance, or its application to
any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or application
of the provisions of the Ordinance to other persons or circumstances, is not affected.
.
Section 5 - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five days after the
date of publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of
said Council held on the
day of
,2000.
MAYOR
.
ATTEST:
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
By Summary
A:I2IJOO.IO.ord. wpd
.1
- 7 -
63
.
.
.
64
.
.
.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT-
MeA 00-01 - ANIMAL HUSBANDRY:
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the Planning Department's Staff Report for MeA 00-
01 dated April 26, 2000, including all information in the public record file, comments and
testimony presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion and
deliberation, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:.
1. The applicant City of Port Angeles proposed a Municipal Code Amendment to
change the City's zoning regulations regarding animal husbandry.
2. The application proposes to amend P AMC 17.08 by adding the following definitions:
Animal Husbandry, Commercial - the care and raising of animals, particularly
farm animals, for agricuItural or other commercial purposes, provided that this
shall not include noncommercial animal husbandry, private horse stables, up to
three dogs and cats which are not house pets, or house pets.
Animal Husbandry, Noncommercial - the care and raising of animals for
noncommercial purposes, provided that this shall not include private horse stables,
kennels, or house pets.
Farming, Commercial- the planting and cultivating of crops for agricultural or
other commercial purposes, provided that this shall not include private gardening.
House Pets - domestic animals such as dogs, cats, fish, birds, rodents, and
reptiles, which sleep and are primarily housed in a dwelling unit together with
their owner. .
3. The application proposes to amend PAMC 17.08 by revising the following
definitions:
Kennel - a place where th~ (J) four (4) or more dogs or cats, four .Ml months old
or older, or any combination of md! dogs and cats, are kept, whether by th!:.
owners of the dogs and cats or by persons providing facilities and care, whether
for compensation or not,,:... Pp.rovided that this the number of docs and cats counted
shall not include house pets.
Stable, Private Horse - a detached accessory building in which only the horses tmtl
COWS' owned by the occupants of the premises are kept, and in which no horses tmtl
eows are kept for hire, remuneration, or sale.
65
Findings and Conclusions
MCA 99-01
Page 2
4. The application proposes to amend PAMC 17.11.030 by adding the following
accessory use:
'.
C. Noncommercial animal husbandry.
5. The application proposes to amend PAMC 17.11.030 by revising the following,
accessory use:
EIl.. Private horse stables, provided that:
1. Stables are constructed no closer than 1 {)() feet to any property line.
2. A minimum area of 1 acre per horse Dr cow is maintained.
3. A minimum tJf5-foot highfence is installed on property line~
6. The application proposes to amend PAMC 17.34.020 by revising the following
permitted use:
S. Veterinary or I'ct mop fto8pital clinics. offices. and kennell8ftd hat~hay.
7. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are most relevant to the proposed
amendments:
Land Use Element Goal 'C" To have a community of viable districts and
neighborhoods with a variety of residential opportunities for personal interaction,
fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages, characteristics and
interests.
.
Land Use Element Policy 'Cl" Residential land should be developed on the district
and neighborhood concept. Although such districts may be composed primarily of
residential uses of a uniform density, a healthy, viable district should be composed
of residential uses of varying densities which. may be augmented by subordinate and
compatible uses. Single family and multi-family homes, parks and open-spaces,
schools, churches, day care and residential services, home occupations, and district
shopping areas are all legitimate components of district development and
enhancement. A neighborhood should be primarily composed of low, medium, or
high density housing.
Conservation Element Policy ~2" The City should promote compatibility between
the land and its use by regulating the intensity of the land use.
Conservation Element Policy '7l3 n The City should protect and enhance the
characteristics of its unique residential neighborhoods.
8.
Since the first Port Angeles Zoning Code in 1930, allowances have been made for .
keeping animals as accessory and conditional uses.
66
.
.
.
~ y.- - '" ~ <,
:;.:' '-:'~:J j~~::t~~' i~_
Findings and Com:lusiofU
MCA 99-01
Pllge J
.
9.
From time to time the City has received complaints about animals.being kept in
residential areas; one complaint in 1999 concerned chickens being kept in the RS-7
Single Family Residential Zone.
10. The intent of the proposed amendments is to reconcile zoning regulations with more
up-to-date community practices involved with the keeping of animals in urban areas.
11. A Detennination ofNonSignificance was issued for this proposal on April 20, 2000.
12. The City received no written public comments on this proposed Municipal Code
Amendment MCA 00-01.
Conclusions:
Based on the information provided in the Planning Department Staff Report for MCA 00-01
dated April 26, 2000, including all information in the public record file, comments and
testimony presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion and
deliberation, and the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission
hereby concludes that:
1.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and. policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan including but not limited to Land Use Element Goal C and
Policy Cl and Conservation Element Policies A2 and B3.
2. Generally agricultura1land uses are not outright permitted uses in urban areas, unlike
in rural areas.
3. There are legitimate reasons for regulating animal husbandry within urban areas. The
close proximity of animals and their care and feeding to human dwelling units can
cause problems for public health and safety. Noise and odors as well as sanitation
concerns cannot be addressed well in higher density residential areas.
4. The current zoning regulations regarding how animals may be kept if applied
consistently would prohibit all residentially zoned property owners from keeping
more than two dogs or cats outdoors and all 9ther animals outdoors, except for
private stables in the RS-9 Zone.
5. The proposed amendments would eliminate overly broad enforcement problems for
noncommercial animal husbandry and private gardening.
6.
The proposed amendments resolve issues in the community and between neighbors
regarding how animals are kept and allow for reasonable enforcement of zoning
regulations in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
67
Findings and Conclusions
MCA 99-01
Page -I
7.
..
The proposed animal husbandry regulation amen~ents will make the following five
changes for keeping animals in the City of Port Angeles:
a. House pets as specifically defined are exempt from regulations and allowed
outright, subject to other public health and safety and animal ordinances.
b. Up to three dogs and cats, instead of only two, may be kept outdoors without
being subject to the zoning regulations governing kennels. .:.
c. Noncommercial animal husbandry as specifically defined is'permitted as an
accessory use in the RS-9 Single Family Residential Zone and not permitted
in any other zone.
d. Commercial animal husbandry is conditionally permitted in limited
commercial and industrial zones as kennel and commercial animal husbandry
uses.
e. Cows are eliminated as part of a private stable accessory use in the RS-9
Zone.
The proposed amendments are in the public use and interest.
.
8.
Adopted by the Port Angeles City Council at its meeting of June 6, 2000.
Mayor, City of Port Angeles
.
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk
C:\MyFiles\FORMS\F&canimal
68
.
'."/,"'-;"i"""<"
FORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. s. A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~:... ,
Date:
June 6, 2000
To:
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
From:
Brad Collins, Planning Director .~
Subject:
Missing Planning Commission 4/26/00 Minutes Excerpt on Animal Husbandry
Attached are the Planning Commission 4/26/00 Minutes excerpt on animal husbandry. They were
inadvertently left out of the June 6th CC packet and are copied from the May 1 ~ CC packet at which time
you conducted the public hearing on the proposed Ordinance. I will be at the June 6th meeting if you have
any questions.
r
Planning Commission Minutes - April 26, 20qO
Page I I
'J
~
~
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - MCA 00-01 - ANIMAL
HUSBANDRY. City wide: Consideration of adoption of regulations
regarding animal husbandry within the City limits.
Planning Director Collins reviewed the Planning Department's staff report recommending
approval of regulations regarding animal hlfSbaJ:ldry within the City limits ati~ responded to
questions as to the intent of the definition of l1,.ouse pets versus outdoor p~ts. Mr. Collins
responded that house pets are identified as those pets that are housed priIhanly within the
dwelling unit. There was discussion regarding where and under what conditions hoofed animals
would be permitted.
Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
Glynda Schaad, 219 Hawthorne Place, asked how many chickens would be allowed in
residential areas. Mr. Collins answered that chickens would not be permitted in the Residential
Single Family (RS-7) zone. In the Residential Single Family (RS-9) zone, chickens could be
maintained as long as the use remains at least twenty-five feet (25') from a property line.
There being no further testimony, Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
i
Discussion ensued on the question of whether it makes sense to limit the number of dogs and .
cats but not chickens and ducks. Commissioner Schramm suggested that it would make more
sense to control animals through an animal control ordinance not through the zoning ordinance.
Several changes in the proposed language were made: 1) under the RS-9 accessory use for
noncommercial animal husbandry, the word "kept" was changed to "housed"; and 2) the
amendment description was changed for house pets to be subject to "animal ordinances" instead
of "animal cruelty laws."
Commissioner Nutter moved to recommend approval of the Municipal Code Amendment
as amended citing the following findings and conclusions:
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the Planning Department Staff Report for MCA 00-01
dated April 26, 2000, including all information in the public record file, comments and
testimony presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion and
deliberation, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1.
The applicant City of Port Angeles proposed a Municipal Code Amendment to change
the City's zoning regulations regarding animal husbandry.
2.
The application proposes to amend PAMC 17.08 by adding the following definitions:
)
Animal Husbandry, Commercial - the care and raising of animals, particularly farm
animals, for agricultural or other commercial purposes, provided that this shall not bf; I
include noncommercial animal husbandry, private horse stables, up to three dogS~
~g..v
~
Planning Commission Minutes - April 26, 2000
Page 12
J
,;
cats which are not house pets, or house pets.
~
i.:._\
Animal Husbandry, Noncommercial - the care and razsmg of animals for
noncommercial purposes, provided that this shall not include private horse stables,
kennels, or house pets.
it,. Farming, Commercial - the planting and cultivating of crops for agricultural or other
commercial purposes, provided that this shall not include private gardening.
House Pets - domestic animals such as dogs, cats, fish, birds, rodents, and reptiles,
which sleep and are primarily housed in a dwelling unit together with their owner.
3. The application proposes to amend P AMC 17.08 by revising the following definitions:
Kennel- a place where tlllet (3) four (4J or more dogs or cats, four Ml. months old
or older, or any combination of such dogs and cats, are kept, whether by the owners
of the dogs and cats or by persons providing facilities and care, whether for
compensation or not:.. P]l.rovided that tI* the number of dogs and cats counted shall
not include house pets.
Stable, Private Horse - a detached accessory building in l1!hich only the horses tmd
C't)Wj' owned by the occupants of the premises are kept, and in which no horses and Cl'H'S'
are kept for hire, remuneration, or sale.
4. The application proposes to amend P AMC 17.11.030 by adding the following accessory
use:
C. Noncommercial animal husbandry.
5. . The application proposes to amend PAMC 17.11.030 by revising the -following,
accessory use:
ED. Private horse stables, provided that:
1. Stables are constructed no closer than 100 feet to any property line.
2. A minimum area of 1 acre per horse (JI COrll is maintained.
3. A minimum of 5-foot high fence is installed on property line~.
6. The application proposes to amend PAMC 17.34.020 by revising the following
permitted use:
S. Veterinary Of pet shot' hospital clinics. offices. and kennel~ and hatchery.
7.
The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are most relevant to the proposed
amendments:
Land Use Element Goal "C" To have a community of viable districts and
neighborhoods with a variety of residential opportunities for personal interaction,
.
.
~
)
I
)
,-
Planning Commission Minutes - April 26, 2000
Page 13
fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages, characteristics and interests.
";:
Land Use Element Policy "Cl" Residential land should be developed on the district
and neighborhood concept. Although such districts may _ be composed primarily of
residential uses of a uniform density, a healthy, viable district should be composed of
residential uses of varying densities which may be augmented by subordinate and
'compatible uses. Single family and multi-family homes,:parks and open-spaces, schools,
churches, day care and residential services, home occupations, and district shopping
areas are all legitimate components of district development and enhancement. A
neighborhood should be primarily composed of low, medium, or high density housing.
Conservation Element Policy '~2" The City should promote compatibility between the
land and its use by regulating the intensity of the land use.
Conservation Element Policy "B3" The City should protect and enhance the
characteristics of its unique residential neighborhoods.
~-~
8.
Since the first Port Angeles Zoning Code in 1930, allowances have been made for
keeping animals as accessory and conditional uses.
9.
From time to time the City has received complaints about animals being kept in
residential areas; one complaint in 1999 concerned chickens being kept in the RS-7
Single Family Residential Zone.
10. The intent of the proposed amendments is to reconcile. zoning regulations with more up-
to-date community practices involved with the keeping of animals in urban areas.
11. A Determination of Non Significance was issued for this proposal on April 20, 2000.
12. The City received no written public comments on this proposed Municipal Code
Amendment MCA 00-01.
Conclusions:
Based on the information provided in the Planning Department Staff Report for MCA 00-01
dated April 26, 2000, including all information in the public record file, comments and
testimony presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion and
deliberation, and the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission
hereby concludes that:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan including but not limited to Land Use Element Goal C and
Policy C 1 and Conservation Element Policies A2 and B3.
2. Generally agricultural land uses are not outright permitted uses in urban areas, unlike
in rural areas. b'6..7
~,
"g.Lf
~
..
I-
Planning Commission Minutes - April 26. 2000
Page 14
J
3.
There are legitimate reasons for regulating animal husbandry within urban areas. .. The
close proximity of animals and their care and feeding to human dwelling units can cause
problems for public health and safety. Noise and odors as well as sanitation concerns
cannot be addressed well in higher density residential areas.
.,;-~---,:-',~.~
~'~21
4.
The current zoning regulations regarding how animals may be kept if applied
",':consistently would prohibit all residentially zoned property owners from keeping more
,than two dogs or cats outdoors and all other animals outdoors, except for private stables
in the RS-9 Zone. .
it;1
5. The proposed amendments would eliminate overly broad enforcement problems for
noncommercial animal husbandry and private gardening.
6. The proposed amendments resolve issues in the community and between neighbors
regarding how animals are kept and allow for reasonable enforcement of zoning
regulations in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
7. The proposed animal husbandry regulation amendments will make the following five
changes for keeping animals in the City of Port Angeles:
a. House pets as specifically defined are exempt from regulations and allowed
outright, subject to other public health and safety and animal ordinances.
b. Up to three dogs and cats, insteacl of only two, may be kept outdoors without
being subject to the zoning regulations governing kennels.
c. Noncommercial animal husbandry as specifically defined is permitted as an
accessory use in the RS-9 Single Family Residential Zone and not permitted in
any other zone.
d. Commercial animal husbandry is conditionally permitted in limited commercial
and industrial zones as kennel and commercial animal husbandry uses.
e. Cows are eliminated as part of a private stable accessory use in the RS-9 Zone.
8. The proposed amendments are in the public use and interest.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Schramm and passed unanimously.
.
.
.
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ST AFF RE ORT
DATE:
April 26, 2000
TO:
Planning Commission
Brad Collins, PlaDning Director ~
FROM:
RE:
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - MCA 00-01
APPLICANT:
City of Port Angeles
LOCATION:
City-wide
PROPOSAL:
To amend the City's zoning regulations regarding animal husbandry.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a
recommendation of approval for MCA 00-01 to the City Council based on the findings and
conclusions in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
From time to time the City has received complaints about animals being kept in residential
areas. One complaint in 1999 concerned chickens being kept in the RS-7 Single Family
Residential Zone. Enforcement posed several problems. The Zoning Code lacked some
definitions, and enforcement was found to be overly broad in eliminating most animal husbandry
uses that involved. keeping animals other than two or fewer dogs and cats, private stables, and house
pets. It was determined that the prohibitio~ of all but a few animals was neither what was intended
nor what could be consistently enforced.
69
Animal Husbandry MeA 00-01
April 26, 2000
Page 2
.
There are legitimate reasons for regulating animal husbandry within urban areas. The
close proximity of animals and their care and feeding to human dwelling units can cause problems
for public health and safety. Noise and odors as well as sanitation concerns cannot be addressed
well in higher density residential areas. Nonetheless, as outlying areas are annexed into the city
usually at the lowest density residential zoning, commercial farming and animal husbandry may be
included as legally nonconforming uses. The proposed amendments would eliminate overly broad
enforcement problems for noncommercial animal husbandry and private gardening.
The intent of the proposed amendments is to reconcile zoning regulations with more up-to-
date community practices involved with the keeping of animals in urban areas. It recognizes
that enforcement requires a more clear cut delineation between animals that are house pets and
those that are not. Due to the popularity of pets, the number of dogs and cats classified as a kennel
increases from three to four before it becomes an enforcement issue. It also makes a distinction
between the lowest density residential zone, which is located primarily at the edge of the city/urban
area, and other residential zones for the purpose of allowing noncommercial animal husbandry as an
accessory use similar to currently allowed private stables (although keepingco:):%s was eliminated as
a private stable accessory use ).'.-"
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
.
The entire Comprehensive Plan was reviewed, and the following Comprehensive Plan policies
are most relevant to the proposed amendments:
Land Use Element Goal "c" To have a community of viable districts and neighborhoods
with a variety of residential opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and
enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages, characteristics and interests.
Land Use Element Policy "Cl" Residential land should be developed on the district and
neighborhood concept. Although such districts may be composed primarily of residential
uses of a uniform density, a healthy, viable district should be composed of residential uses
of varying densities which may be augmented by subordinate and compatible uses. Single
family and multi-family homes, parks and open-spaces, schools, churches, day care and
residential services, home occupations, and district shopping areas are all legitimate
components of district development and enhancement. A neighborhood should be primarily
composed of low, medium, or high density housing.
Conservation Element Policy ''A2'' The City should promote compatibility between the
land and its use by regulating the intensity of the land use.
Conservation Element Policy "B3" The City should protect and enhance the
characteristics of its unique residential neighborhoods.
.
70
.
.
.
':~':':;~~,;~f~:::;~7if.10~:;5~~!lfYhhr ,'\ "1,{r,;'f~:';ff~r~sy~"it8;~;1;:~~~!!f\
Animal Husbandry MeA 00-01
April 26, 2000
Page 3
Generally agricultural land uses are not outright permitted uses in urban areas, unlike in
rural areas. Since the first Port Angeles Zoning Code in 1930, allowances have been made for
keeping animals as accessory and conditional uses. However, the primary purpose of residential
zones has remained the protection of residential uses over other land uses, particularly those which
may not be compatible with residential uses. The proposed amendments recognize that the lowest
density residential zone (RS-9) at the edge of the City is the urban area most in transition from rural
to urban and where animal husbandry may need to be accommodated as a subordinate use to
permitted uses. Accordingly, limited provisions similar to those contained in the 1970 Zoning Code
have been drafted to include different types of animal husbandry in practice today, where previously
only horses and cows were accommodated.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
A Determination of NonSignificance was issued for thi~ proposal on April 12, 2000. This
SEP A action constitutes the final decisioll of the lead agency and satisfies the requirements of the
State EnvironmeIlt~1 PolicY Act... As a regulatory change, the proposal is a nonproject SEPA review.
Approval of any pctiticular new 'animal husbandry use at a specific location would require a project
SEP A review.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
See Attachment B for the proposed amendments to Title 17 Zoning Code.
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
There were no comments or objections from other departments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no written public comments or objections.
PlANNING DEP ARTMENT ANALYSIS
The current zoning regulations regarding how animals may be kept if applied consistently
would prohibit all residentially zoned property owners from keeping more than two dogs or
cats outdoors and all other animals outdoors, except for private stables in the RS-9 Zone.
Only animal husbandry in the IL Zone with an approved conditional use permit would allow for any
other animals kept outdoors. Neither the intent of the regulations nor the community practices in
keeping animals conform with this strict interpretation of the Zoning Code. Zoning Code
enforcement requires community acceptance of the regulations and consistent, practical application
71
Animal Husbandry MeA 00-01
April 26, 2000
Page 4
of the regulations. When regulation is overly broad, it makes enforcement difficult at best.
Therefore, the zoning regulations should be amended to allow for reasonable enforcement in the
protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
The proposed animal husbandry regulation amendments will make the following five
changesC for keeping animals in the City of Port Angeles:
1. House pets as specifically defined are exempt from regulations and allowed
outright, subject to other public health and safety and animal cruelty laws.
2. Up to three dogs and cats, instead of only two, may be kept outdoors without
being subject to the zoning regulations governing kennels.
3. Noncommercial animal husbandry as specifically defined is permitted as an
accessory use in the RS-9 Single Family Residential Zone and not permitted. in
any other zone.
4. Commercial animal husbandry is conditionally permitted in limited commercial
andindustrialzones as kennel and commercial animal husbandry uses.
5. Cows are eliminated as part of a private stable accessory use ~n the RS-9 Zone.
These changes conform better to current community practices and will enable a more consistent
enforcement of complaints throughout the City of Port Angeles.
TDriveIPlanning/MCA 00-0 I
72
.
.
.
e
e.
e
DATE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I,f';" l"kr<: .-. 'T\;~;;D8q:?F'!'J,;':-';'
FORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
June 6, 2000
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Brad Collins, Planning Director ~
Steward Street Vacation Petition - STV 00-0 I
Summary: On May 1,2000, the City received a valid petition requesting a vacation of that
portion of"H" Street north of Tenth Street and south of the Park View Villas development. The
abutting properties are Lot 11, Block 305, and Lot 20, Block 306, Townsite of Port Angeles. The
abutting property owners are John and Stasia Steward and the Port Angeles School District No.
121. The attached Resolution sets a hearing date for the petition on Wednesday July 5, 2000.
Recommendation:
July 5, 2000.
Approve the Resolution setting a public hearing for STY 00-01 on
Back~round I Analysis:
The Steward street vacation petition is scheduled to be considered by the Real Estate
Committee on June 6, 2000, and by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on June 14,
2000. .
Attachments: Resolution for STY 00-01
Steward's Street Vacation Petition
Map of the Subject Area
G:\CNCLPK1\PLANNING\000606B.WPD
L; 73
RESOLUTION NO.
._~:c-:.-d
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles,
Washington, setting a hearing date for a petition to vacate a portion-of
H Street abutting Lot 11, Block 305 and Lot 20, Block 306, Port
Angeles, Washington.
WHEREAS, a petition is on file with the City of Port Angeles to vacate a portion ofH
treet north of West 10th Street; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds of the
roperty abutting upon the right-of-way to be vacated;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Port
geles as follows:
Section 1. The petition to vacate the above-described City right-of-way shall be heard
nd determined by the City Council in the Council Chambers, 321 East Fifth Street, at Council's
egular 7:00 p.m. meeting on July 5,2000, which is not more than sixty (60) days nor less than
wenty (20) days hereafter.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give twenty (20) days notice of the
endency of the petition and the time and place of the hearing in accordance with the provisions of
CW 35.79.020.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said
ouncil held on the _ day of
,2000.
MAYOR
ecky 1. Upton, City Clerk
PROVED AS TO FORM:
raig D. Knutson, City Attorney
A:\R2000.05. wpcI
74
-1-
! .,:':.;(:",i;...;.,.....
.
GllY OF PORT ANGELES IDJ IJ & ~ 0 WI ~ In) i
STREET VACATION PETITION Ul1 MAY - , 2000 tV.
TO:
n,e City Council of the City of Pan Angeles, Washington-
PORT ANGELES
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
Come now the undersigned petitioners and pursuant to Chapter 35.79 RCW respectfully shl)w:
. 4
I. The undersigned petitioners request that the following described portion of ~
Street/Alley in the City of Port Angeles be vacated pursuant to Chapter 35.79 RCW (legal/ydescribe the
property requested for vacation below.( Cl
~;- ~t-;-\.'oru c~ "t\ ..:s.~c:.-t ~-H-~t'\:l LoT \\, ~L 30~-
CU'\c:\ LeT ~OJ ~L 30 ~
2. Each of the undersigned petitioners is the owner of an interest in real estate abutting on the above
described area.
3. L persons own property abutting on said area.
4. The names and addresses of property owners abutting on said areas are as follows:
Name Ad~g
1?ov-l A nq?Je'\ ~(1~ 1)1~C~ ~
\,!
--.')o\'" t'\ -;. ~-\n ~\.CL Si-eL.UCU-c\
.2.l..ltLf:.4-tr) 7J.. ~Oy-ll\tltJt'Je\wA ~2
\J
LL.L~3 L). \O+\k. )~\""T ~k-"J \1\~~1..2
.
5. The undersigned petitioners constitute more tbaD two thirds of the owners of said abutting
propeny.
WHEREFORE, the petitioners ask that proceedings be commenced hereon for the vacation
of said area of said "'\+" Street/Alley in the manner prescribed in Chapter 35.79 RCW.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~
~t.eCL ~ _
Addres.~
fhonc
V',tjS7'-3r7S
q(7:2(!~)
eX/v k. /j'~ ..:sr
I-j( -1. g 6'), /06h
.ileNO. ,o.,T\j on -02-
0'
Dale Received -6 '..2./00
,/ . ? / ....-it
Heanng\s) Dale ~/;.t.f <:f- ~PO
75
CITY OF PORT ANGELES. 321 East Fifth Street, P.O. Box 1150, Pan Angeles. WA 98362 (360)417-4750
I J
-~~I- ~- ;fi:j~
. fM" R - T T T - n - T
TtH.18 IT-'
I 1 - l' I I I I '306 I
I? ~ E3 ~ K J, I I I I I
~fCJLl ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ U'~ 128
r?f ~ W-Tl T r; h'i[;"P,: T -:l
I L-i I L-l-~ I \ f~Ll-_~IL,1 \
I } smw'alINm~s)Sj L~' I J~ I LJ..-l ,
r-p
tH$S I 1~ -tl+4.9P27.a1'
16-'
W 10TH
[J.~
II.
2+411_ _ 2.
rpn~ '1 ETIq;m"t
I~ ~-? r'c,1I1-1 r-Il n-'I _I~I I
I Il L I-.-J L --311 I I I ~ I I ',I I \ I
L~ . - L-3 L1 L__J L--:L-.-l
~l~Ll~l~ 17 8~[;J
~, P274P
I.... 22e
~
5 8 1;:88 1+.18 ;+88- H,u H85 i:.s., 6' 2-#-.14
1:.: n ~ T T T ~ r1'-;I~
Ir-,~--'I~ :1: Irr-l I ~~~I-~ I: ~I;-: I
RIM'
7. 6 7.l
W 11TH
P275P
.JM
,.
,
1- -li-I-ILj-'-1
IQL OICK I I I I If5i
I I I I I Ir'\, 'I I
- 1_ ~IA/~I_'6J L/;UI_,~~I-;;
I rrell ~i-8ll~6r0=r-I-J -1--:-
~ I L I' II I
I l \I 11 IlL -, I I L 1- - J I
I L J.u ~ --11-8., LI-J I I
2+49
,.~-r~-or:Jr70 I,+n-r 12+8 1
~l I rl~ ~
I L I I I ~~t-I ~I I _~ I
L ~ r+-, ~\TII I I L-i [ I i ,:-
I )-, ,}-t-;J~~_t,,~-'t-J_~
r:-r:-I-.-I--:T. -'-,le I-J -1-:-
I r - ~ r ,- l r- -11 1,- l r I ~ - l I r
I I I I I I I I . (,.,1 I I I
.
.
.
DATE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
'1;\: or~ :'j" t:'1
FORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
June 6, 2000
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilitie~J----
Agreement With WSDOT to Provide Right of Way Services
Summary:
Every three years the City needs to update the agreement with Washingtpn State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) for right of way services. The services provided by WSDOT
are for Appraisal Review and Relocation Assistance for State and/or Federal Aid projects.
These services are a part of the City's Right of Way Procedures.
Recommendation:
Approve the Agreement extension with WSDOT for an additional three years and
authorize the Mayor to sign.
Back2round I Analysis: In 1994 the City of Port Angeles signed a three year agreement with the
Washington State Department of Transportation to provide certain Right of Way services that the
City does not provide. In 1997 we extended that agreement for an additional three years. These
services were mainly Appraisal Review and Right of Way Relocation. In 1994 and 1997 the City
had staff members that were designated for the Appraisal and Negotiations of Right of Way. Over
the years the City has not kept up its certification because of the limited amount of Right of Way the
City purchases utilizing State and/or Federal funds. The cost to benefit ratio to keep up the
certifications for the limited amount of work we do is prohibitive. In accordance with our updated
1999 Right of Way Procedures we continue to utilize WSDOT expertise for Appraisal Review and
Relocation Assistance and utilize consultants for our appraisals and right of way negotiations. There
are no costs associated with the Agreement unless we utilize the services provided.
Attach: Amendment 2
File: C:\ WlNN1\Profiles\Kridout\Desktop\ WP\PROPMGM1\ WSDOT AqAgrnt. wpd
-)77
-
...
78
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Sid Morrison
Secretary of Transportation
May 9, 2000
City of Port Angeles
321 East Fifth Street
P.O. Box 1150
Port Angeles, W A 98362-1150
RE: Agreement for Aid, GCA-I0258
Acquisition of Public Lands
Termination Date: 7/19/2000
Transportation Building
P.O. Box 47300
Olympia, WA 98504-7300
.
This will serve as Amendment No.2 To Agreement No. GCA- 10258, dated 7/19/94,
between the Department of Transportation and the City of Port Angeles. The termination
date of said Agreement will be extended for an additional three years as follows:
"This agreement shall terminate 9 years from the date of execution hereof
unless otherwise terminated or unless extended in writing, by agreement of
both parties."
Please sign, dated, and return all copies ofthis Amendment to our office. We will furnish
one original for your records after concurrence by the Department of Transportation. .
en right
Assistant Director
Local Agency Projects
CONCURRENCE:
CONCURRENCE:
~'"
''J~
GW03
City of Port Angeles
By:
Typed Name:
Title:
Date:
State of Washington
Department of Transportation
By:
Typed N8}P.e: Joachim Pestinger, SRlW A
Title: Director, Real Estate Services
Date:
.
The Law Firinof
. Platt 'IrwiIl:Taylor;
I
i
S. :Brooke Taylor
Bart G. IlWin
, Gary R. Colley
. Stephen E.Oliver
. StephenC. Moriarty'
David H. Neupert'
403'. South Peabody
Port Angeles, Washington 98362'
(360) 457~3327
Fax (360}452-501O .
e-mail: lawpa@tenfolWard.com
Sequim Office
54) N5th Ave., Suite 200
Sequim, Washington 98382
(360) 681-5000
Frank B. Platt
Stanley A. Taylor
. RETIRED.
Please address all mail to the
Port Angeles office
. June 5, 2000
~Upton'
.. ;q C;tyCI~~k
City of PorrAngeles
323 East Fifth Street
PorfAngeles, W A98362
Fo1. m...........OO ,m. . DWm........ ..~....
\J1) : JUN ~ 52000 l~J
CIlYOF PORT ANGELES
CITY CLERK
Re:. Maverick nevei~pment; QpenRecord Appeal Hearin2:
Dear Ms. Upto'n:
I
I
)', . ~ ., '
Iappeared on behalf of Maverick Development before the City Council last
, - ,. "'_ "0. ' " ~'.' ..'
month. 1\t that time, I asked to. have my clIent' s.opeh recordappealhearing continued
until June 6,2000 before the <)tyCouncil..lntherileantime,the tity.Planning
. Commission voted to reconsider, Maverick Devel()pment' s5application for a'parking .
variance., The PhmnJng Commission Wjll reconsider th.~ application, at itsregular meeting,
ofJuny14,20pO.: " ..'
I
, .
, Iwishto hay~ the~ppe;11h~aringstric~en'from theCity Council ageqda of June 6;
,2000. Dependingonthe decision of the Planning Commission, we may wish to reset the
, matter for appeaIatafut~re date. Please con~actIl1eifyou have anyquestions~egarding
this matter. . ,
. Sincerely,
Tht: Law Firm of .,
PCATTIRWIN TAYLOR'
· Vv<-- ~ ....
David H. Neupert
DHN/tla
cc: Maverick Development
Craig Knutson, City Attorney
.
.
.
DATE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
June 6, 2000
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Brad Collins, Plaiming Director ~
Maverick Development Parking Variance PKV 00-01 Appeal
Summary: Parts of Aggie's Motel have remained vacant for sometime. Maverick Development
has proposed converting the motel units into 29 senior condominium units and require a parking
variance to complete the conversion. The Planning Commission has a number of concerns that were
not satisfied by the applicants nor by the Planning Department's recommended conditions of approval.
Maverick Development has appealed the Planning Commission's denial, which would either terminate
the project or require a new parking variance application if the denial is not overturned by the City
Council. The project has been delayed for several months awaiting approval of a parking variance. On
a 4-3 vote at its May 24th meeting, the Planning Commission approved reconsideration ofPKV 00-01
but only through a public hearing process, which has been scheduled for June 14,2000. The applicant
is yet to provide its new proposal to the City.
Recommendation: The Planning Department recommends the City Council continue the appeal
hearing to its meeting of June 19, 2000. Alternatively, the City Council could consider conditions
of approval that attempt to address the reasons for the Planning Commission's denial ofPKV 00-01
or uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny if the City Council does not find conditions
which would besatisfactorv for approval of Maverick Development PKV 00-01.
Background / Analysis:
Maverick Development proposes to redevelop the old Aggies Motel property on the southwest
comer of Front and Albert Streets. Maverick began their conversion of the 56 existing motel rooms
into 29 condominium units without a building permit or project review by City staff. When Maverick
presented the conversion project to the Planning Department for review, we noted the parking
requirements for condo units (two per unit). Maverick Development then submitted a parking variance
application. Maverick Development's parking variance (PKV 00-01) originally scheduled for the
February 23 Planning Commission meeting was not decided until April 26, 2000, when the Planning
Commission denied PKV 00-01 for a number of reasons, principally because Maverick Development
was unable to guarantee that each unit will have a parking space in the future and because handicap,
visitors, and delivery parking spaces were.not provided.
The Planning Department conditions would require that each unit must have a parking space, which
could be accomplished by providing off-site parking spaces such as those leased from Bob Lovell or
by reducing the number of condominiums to the maximum number of on-site parking spaces (that is,
27 condo units and parking spaces). The staff reasoned that with one parking space per condo unit,
alternate modes of transportation such as hired vehicle service, would not be necessary. . Handicap
parking spaces are required by ADA and City ordinance without conditions.
G:\CNCLPKl\PLANNING\000606E.WPD
~9
Maverick Development PKV 00-0 I Appeal
May 16, 2000
Page 2
It should be noted that the previous property owner First Federal Savings and Loan was informed
about the problem with segregating the parking on the southeast comer of Front and Albert Streets from .
the motel and the restaurant across Albert Street. Even with this potential problem, First Federal sold
the properties separately after no buyer could be found for the whole site. The motel office building
and parking lot across Albert Street are still for sale.
On April 27, 2000, an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial was filed by Maverick
Development. Their principal appeal argument is that the Planning Commission did not give them a
chance to respond to the directions given for a decision after the close of the public hearing on April
12, 2000. Because the public hearing was closed when the Planning Commission met on April 26,
2000, to make a decision on PKV 00-01, there was no opportunity for Maverick Development to
present revisions to their proposal. However, they had provided the Planning Department with their
revised proposal, which was included to some degree in the findings and conclusions for denial that
were presented to the Planning Commission on April 26, 2000. Maverick Development also was given
the opportunity to answer direct questions from the Planning Commissioners about their revised
proposal. The public record does reflect that the Planning Commissioners had an understanding of
Maverick's revised proposal, but the majority were not convinced that the revised proposal provided
enough assurance that the off-street parking needs would be met.
The City Council is hearing this appeal on a closed record, meaning that parties with standing in the
appeal will be given the opportunity to present persuasive arguments but cannot provide new testimony
that adds to the factual record. The public record includes the Planning Department Staff Report
recommendation for approval of PKV 00-01 with conditions that require that the project provide
parking spaces at a ratio of one parking space per residential unit based on an occupancy restricted to
senior residents. A finding that the proposal does not include any provisions for alternative modes of
transportation was removed by the Planning Commission. .
The consequence ofa City Council decision on PKV 00-01 to uphold the Planning Commission's
denial ofthe proposed parking variance could be further appeal by the applicant to Superior Court, new
application for a revised parking variance, or abandonment of the project. The consequences of a City
Council decision on PKV 00-01 to approve Maverick Development's appeal would allow the project
to proceed with a building permit consistent with conditions as determined by the City Council.
After conducting the closed record appeal hearing, the City Council will have three options:
1. Deny Maverick Development's appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial
of PKV 00-01, citing the Planning Commission's. findings and conclusions.
2. Approve Maverick Development's appeal and PKV 00-01, citing the conditions,
findings, and conclusions in the original Planning Department Staff Report.
3. Request that staff modify either the Planning Commission's or the Planning
Department's conditions, findings, and conclusions in support of denial or approval of
PKV 00-01 .
The City Attorney and the Planning Director will be at the appeal hearing to answer any questions the
City Council may have.
Attachments:
A. Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of February 23, March 22, April 12, and April 26, 2000
B. The Planning Department Staff Reports of March 22 and April 12, 2000.
C. Maverick Development's appeal letter and subsequent off-site parking lease arrangement and hired vehicle service
agreement.
.
80 G:\CNCLPKT\PLANNlNG\000606E.WPD
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 1000
Page 4
"~J~~~iMt!::lt~ii?~~~'~,
PARKING VARIANCE - PKV 00-01 - MAVERICK DEVELOPMENT,
116 North Albert Street: Request for a reduction of the required 58 off-
street parking spaces to 29 in association with a senior residential
condominium development located in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone.
(Continue to March 22, 2000.)
Planning Director Collins noted !hatduring review of the application for a parking variance
it was discovered that the subject residential development is not in compliance with the
density requirements for such a development in the Commercial Arterial zone. It will take
some time to resolve the issue. The item should be continued to the March 22nd regular
meeting to allow staff to work through the issue with the applicant.
Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Philpott moved to continue the hearing to March 22, 2000, 7 p.m., City
Council Chambers. The motion was seconded by Commissioner King and passed
unanimously.
81
.
.
.
82
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 22, 2000
Page 9
PARKING VARIANCE - PKV 00-01 - MAVERICK DEVELOPMENT. 116
North Albert Street: Request for a reduction in the required parking spaces from 58
spaces to 29 spaces in the Commercial Arterial zone. (This item is continued from
February 23,2000.)
There was no one present for this issue. Chair Hewins indicated the item could be continued to the
April 26 meeting as with the previous agenda item. Planning Director Collins noted that if this
item is continued to April 26, 2000, it will cause a delay in a building permit process. Director
Collins noted that in this instance the applicant has already been delayed due to the staff earlier
in the process. City staff have been working on a solution to specific issues with the proposed
development in order to facilitate the development as proposed. Commissioner Nutter noted that
as the applicant did not show up for the hearing, the fair thing to do would be to continue the
application to a future meeting that is not so full. Staff indicated the April 12 meeting agenda is
full.
Chair Hewins opened the public hearing. Continued discussion took place following which
Commissioner Craver moved to continue the application to the April 12, 2000, meeting due
to the absence of a representative for the application and the delay thus far in the process.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner King and passed 4 to 3 with Commissioners
Nutter, Hewins, and Norton voting against the motion as they would prefer to put the issue
on the April 26, 2000 agenda due to the April 12 meeting being full.
83
.
.
.
84
Planning Commission Meeting - April/2. 2000
Page 14
Senior Planner David Sawyer reviewed the Planning Department's report recommending
approval of the reduction in parking as requested based on the occupancy of the residential
units as senior apartments, 55 years of age or older and restricted by Conditions, Covenants
and Conditions (CCR's). A comparative field survey was done in February of parking lot
usage at the comparative Highland Commons apartments which indicated that approximately
22% of the lot was occupied.
Commissioner Nutter noted that Highland Commons apartments provide a van for residential
transportation needs. She didn't therefore feel it is a comparative senior apartment
development as there is no van service proposed for the subject development.
.
Mr. Sawyer responded to Commissioner Schramm that he did not know the average age of
residents ofthe comparative apartment units (Highland Commons) but the facility is listed
as housing residents 55 or older. Only one parking field survey was done.
Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
Chris Brotherton, 116 N. Albert Street, is the project construction manager for the subject
development. He apologized that no one was in attendance at the previous meeting. A
representative had been scheduled to appear but had not. He stated that the applicants are
asking for 27 spaces not 29 spaces as stated in the application. They are not planning to
provide a van but noted that there is a bus stop on Front Street directly across the street from
the site.
Mr. Brotherton responded to Commissioner Craver that because the units will be sold as
condominiums, two units can simply be sold without parking. It can be written in the
purchase agreement that no parking space will be available for two units.
In response to Commissioner Schramm, Mr. Brotherton stated that two spaces will be
provided for handicapped residents. Two of the 27 spaces are approximately 14 feet wide
which is adequate for handicap requirements.
.
Commissioner Nutter asked about visitor parking and the number of bedrooms in each unit.
Mr. Brotherton answered that no visitor parking has been planned for but there is parking on
the street. There are five two bedroom units in the structure.
Commissioner Nutter was concerned that although there is a bus stop across the street from
the site, there will be no bus service on weekends. Mr. Brothertonresponded that perhaps
others within the building would offer to assist or family members would help.
85
Planning Commission Meeting - April 12. 2000
Page 15
Mr. Brotherton corrected the error in the original application that requested a reduction in .
the size of the parking stalls which would result in 29 spaces. The spaces cannotbe reduced
due to the concrete support posts under the building.
Planner Sawyer stated that during a site visit with the City Engineer it was detennined that
the current configuration could be retained although some obstructions would have to be
removed.
Mr. Brotherton responded to Commissioner Schramm that the pool room will eventually be
converted to a waiting/mail room. A portion of one of the proposed 27 spaces will be
created by.that conversion as well. No consideration. has been. given to obtaining any
property in the area for additional parking. It is not economically feasible based on what has
been invested in the site to date. He is not aware of the mechanisms that maybe in place to
restrict the structure to senior condominiums but he believes papelWork exists. He believes
that as a retirement community there is a need in Port Angeles for this type of use.
There being no further testimony, Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Shramm expressed some real concerns about decreasing parking spaces in the
area as Front and First Street are notorious for. a shortage of parking and obstructions of
intersections because of on-street parking. When the subject property was. placed for sale,
the owners, First Federal Savings and Loan, knew that the three sites that made up the ..
original Aggie's development were historically tied together and that the property located
on the northeast comer of Albert and Front Street was needed to meet parking needs. It is
not appropriate to allow 27 parking spaces for 29 unit. Such a reduction would encourage
an encroachment on the neighborhood that is not necessary.
Commissioner Norton agreed with Commissioner Schramm that it doesn't seem to make
much sense to sell 29 units with only 27 parking spaces without some assurances from the
proponent that have not as yet been offered. In response to Commissioner Norton, Mr.
Brotherton verified that the units will be individually sold. He does not think that the end
result will be 29 units with 29 vehicles based on his beliefthat seniors don't all drive. The
spaces will be numbered for a specific apartment unit. They will simply not allow for two
of the units to park on-site.
Commissioner Schramm reiterated that he did not feel that without provisions for visitor
parking, delivery service vehicles, or adequate parking alternatives for the residents the
Commission would be encouraging an unnecessary encroachment onto the adjacent rights-
of-way and neighboring areas.
Commissioner Craver noted that the site is within walking distance to many services and is
close to the Downtown area. Commissipner Nutter did not feel that without any provisions
for a van or other alternative fonn oftransportation that a reduction is warranted.
Commissioner Norton suggested that the developer be directed to rethink the proposal and
offer alternatives to support parking for the residential use.
.
86
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 12, 2000
Page 16
Commissioner Nutter moved to. deny the parking variance as proposed. Discussion occurred
regarding whether the correct motion was to deny or to direct staff to bring back findings and
conclusions in support of denial. Commissioner Nutter moved to have staff bring back
findings and conclusions for denial to the next meeting. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Schramm. The motion passed 4 .. 3 with Commissioners Philpott,
Hewins, and Craver voting in the negative.
The Commissioners directed staff to include findings regarding impact to the neighborhood
due to the lack of off street parking, lack of handicap parking and delivery service vehicles,
inadequate number of spaces for the number of units, grocery too far away for seniors, and
the lack of guarantee that the housing unit will remain in the same configuration in the
future.
Mr. Sawyer noted that this is a motion to bring back findings and conclusions for denial for
consideration at the April 26, 2000, meeting, and is not a denial of the application. The
project may be denied or yet be approved at the next meeting.
87
.
.
.
88
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26. 2000
OLD BUSINESS:
PARKING VARIANCE - PKV 00-01- MA VERICKDEVELOPMENT. 316 North
Albert: A request for reduction of required parking from 58 spaces to 27 spaces for a
multi family development in the Commercial Arterial zone. (Action continued from the
April 12, 2000 meeting.)
Chair Hewins noted that staff provided findings and conclusions in s~pport of denial of the
parking variance application as requested by the Commission following the April 12, 2000,
public hearing.
Commissioner Nutter moved for reconsideration ofthe motion made at the April 12, 2000,
meeting for denial of the parking variance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
King. Following discussion it was confirmed that the current motion for reconsideration
was because there appeared to be confusion as to the intent of the original motion. The
motion for reconsideration. passed 7 - o.
Commissioner Nutter asked the applicant's representative, Chris Brotherton, how the proposed
limousine service would be provided. Would residents pay for the service themselves and is
there a limit to the service? Mr. Brotherton responded that the transportation service will be
provided by the association and would be available during business hours and for special events.
The service is similar to what is provided privately for residents at the established senior
apartments known as Highland Commons II. In response to Ms. Nutter's question as to
alternative solutions in the event the limousine service is unavailable or does not work out, Mr.
Brotherton responded that if such a situation arises, a van will be purchased and a driver will
be hired by the association. The owners prefer to hire an outside service due to the liability
involved and because a needed parking space would have to be reserved for a private van.
Residents would be picked up in a waiting area'in the drive through of the building out of the
weather.
Commissioner King asked for clarification that the service would be freely provided to the
residents at no additional cost. Mr. Brotherton responded that the intent is to provide the service
through the association to all residents. He confirmed that the Royal Manor Condominium
Association will be, an association legally filed with the state for operation of the senior
apartments. Each owner of a unit will be a member of the association and will have a say in the
operation of the apartments. He responded that it is not intended to lease the units in the event
they are not sold.
Commissioner Craver noted that the proposed off-site parking lease agreement with a
neighboring business operator appears to be open ended as there is no specified term in the
agreement. Mr. Brotherton.responded that the business owner Mr. Bob Lovell has a 30 year
lease on the subject property. He owns the building but leases the property. The..parking
agreement wording is intended to provide two additional parking spaces for as long as Mr.
Lovell'leases the neighboring property. Should the ownership change, the lease may be
terminated.
89
Planning Commission Minutes - April 26, 2000
Page 3
Commissioner Nutter did not see that even with the agreements from the limousine service and
the neighboring property owner for two additional spaces there is a certainty that if the .
association decides there is no need for transportation service they can't vote it out. She
recognized that an effort has been made to meet the Commission's concern that an adequate
provision be made for off-street parking for the life of the apartment use. The requested parking
variance is a significant reduction of the required parking spaces with no real assurance that
parking can be provided off-site or otherwise provided.
Commissioner Craver remained concerned about the wording of the lease. The lease is open
ended. It may be that it could be revised such that if the neighboring property were to be sold
or released the new operator would be required to honor the previous agreement. Mr.
Brotherton noted that he is not an attorney and therefore not qualified to respond to the wording
of lease agreements.
Chair Hewins indicated that there were no further questions of the applicant and thanked the
applicant for his participation.
Commissioner Schramm's main concern was that the requested variance would allow a
reduction of 45% from the Municipal Code's parking requirements. He reviewed the parking
variance standards as set forth in the Municipal Code and stated that this application does not
meet the specifications for granting a variance. The location of the property is such that
overflow parking would result in vehicles parking on Front and Albert Streets where such
congestion would add to the existing congestion in the area and impose additional traffic .
hazards that are not necessary nor acceptable. There are still no provisions for service deliveries
or visitor parking except on the street.
Commissioner Philpott stated that the applicants have made a real effort to address the
Commission's concerns. He was comfortable with the proposed lease agreement and limousine
. . .
service provIsion.
Commissioner Nutter pointed out that the submitted parking agreement with Mr. Lovell could
be ended at a date in the near future when Mr. Lovell is able to sell the business. The apartment
use is intended to be there for a very long time. Surrounding properties and businesses will be
negatively impacted as overflow parking will occur on surrounding streets. She did not believe
that the submitted agreements support such a significant reduction in an on-going private
apartment use. Reggie's Limousine Service may not even be in operation for a lengthy time or
could be sold, and the agreement would therefore be invalid.
Commissioner Craver concurred that the submitted agreements go toward an effort to provide
parking.
Commissioner Nutter moved to deny Parking Variance PKV 00-01 based on the following
findings and conclusions:
.
90
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 26, 2000
Page 4
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the April 12, 2000, Staff Report for PKV 00-01 (including
all ofits attachments), comments and information presented during the public hearing, and the
Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, the City of Port Angeles Planning
Commission hereby finds that:
1. The applicant, Maverick Development/Prime Financial, applied for a parking variance
on January 20,2000. The application was determined to be complete on January 26,
2000. The application is identified as Attachment B to the April 12, 2000, Planning
Department Staff Report for PKV 00-01.
2. As a variance, the application is exempt from SEP A requirements.
3. In accordance with legal requirements of the City of Port Angeles and the State of
Washington, the notice of application and subsequent hearing process was advertised
in the Peninsula Daily News' legal section on January 26, 2000.
4.
Based on senior occupancy, the applicant's submittal requested a reduction in the
number of required parking spaces from 58 to 29 spaces. During the applicant's
testimony at the April.12, 2000, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant indicated
their request is for a reduction from 58 to 27 spaces. The requested 27 spaces will
provide less than one space for each of the projectis proposed 29 units.
5. The site is located at 116 N. Albert Street on the southwest comer of Albert Street and
Front Street.
6. The project is the conversion of a part of the former Aggies Motel and Restaurant
complex into residential units. The vacant restaurant building is across the alley to the
south of the site and the former office and additional parking area is across Albert Street
to the east. To the north across Front Street is a separate operating motel and adjacent
to the west is a single family residence.
7. The City's Parking Ordinance requires two spaces for each multi-family or apartment
unit.
8. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows only 27 parking spaces. The spaces are
located on the ground floor, both under the units and in an interior courtyard. Because
of the location of some support structures for the building, the design of the on-site
parking is somewhat restricted.
9. The site plan as submitted does not show anyon-site visitor or delivery parking.
10.
The site plan as submitted does not identify any handicap spaces for residents or
visitors.
91
Planning Commission Minutes - April 26. 2000
Page 5
11.
The applicant submitted a portion ofthe project's CC&Rs which states "It is intended
by declarant that the Condominium qualify as housing that is intended and operated for
occupancy by persons fifty-five (55) years of age or older, as authorized by and in
compliance with 42 USC 3607(b)(2)(C) [Article 1 1.8.37]."
.
12. The site and surrounding properties are located in the Commercial [C] designation of
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and are zoned Commercial, Arterial [CA].
13. The use ofthe site as an apartment building is a permitted use in the CA zone.
14. The density of the project is consistent with a recent Planning Department Interpretation
regarding the conversion of existing hotel/motel facilities to residential units.
15. Two similar reductions have been approved for senior housing projects. The approvals,
for Highland Commons I and IT located on Melody Circle, permitted the same ratio of
one space per unit as the current request. Highland Commons I has been in operation
for approximately three years and Highland Commons IT for 2 years.
16. Both Highland Commons I and II were required to provide a dedicated van service for
use by the residents.
17.
A field check of Highland Commons I and IT in February, 2000, showed the parking lot
for Highland Commons I was 22% full with an occupancy level for the units at 90%.
Highland Commons IT's parking lot was also 22% full with an occupancy rate of 72%.
.
18. The Public Works Department has indicated new concrete sidewalk and driveway
, approaches will be required prior to occupancy. Additionally, if access is taken offthe
alley, City standard improvements to the alley along with the removal of the existing
bollards would also be required. No other City departments noted any specific
requirements.
19. No comments were received from the public regarding this application. The public
comment period ran from January 21,2000 to February 10,2000.
Conclusions:
Based on the information provided in the April 12, 2000, Staff Report for PKV 00-01, including
all of its attachments, comments and information presented during the public hearing, the
Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed fmdings, the City of
Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes that:
A.
Due to the lack of handicapped facilities, visitors and delivery spaces, and alternative
transportation provisions, the proposed project as submitted will have an adverse impact
on the surrounding uses and the public's safety and general welfare from increased off-
site parking in the area.
.
92
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 26. 2000
Page 6
B.
The variance as proposed ..will create inc.r~.~ed congestion or traffic hazards along
adjacent streets and alleys; .. ..
C. The variance as proposed is inconsistent with the intent of the Off-Street Parking
Ordinance.
D. The proposal does not meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
E. The proposed off-site parking lease does not guarantee that each unit will have a parking
space in the future.
Commissioner Schramm seconded the motion which passed 6 - 1 with Commissioner
Philpott voting in the negative.
Commissioner Philpott stated that his dissenting vote was because the applicant did an adequate
job in providing alternative transportation for residents by the submitted agreement with
Reggie's Limousine Service and the parking lease arrangement with a neighboring property
owner.
93
.
.
.
94
.
FORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U.S. A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
DATE:
March 22, 2000
TO: a~ng Commission
FROM:~Vid Sawyer, Senior Planner
.:0;.
FILE #:
PKV 00-01
APPLICANT:
Maverick Development
OWNER:
Prime Financial
LOCATION:
116 N. Albert Street
PROPOSAL:
Reduce required parking for a senior housing project
. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Parking Variance PKV 00-01
subject to the conditions, findings, and conclusions listed in Attachment A.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a reduction in the number of required parking spaces
from 58 to 29 spaces~ The requested 29 spaces will provide one space for each
of the project's proposed 29 units. The applicant's submittal is attached as
Attachment B.
The site is located at 116 N. Albert Street on the southwest corner of Albert Street
and Front Street. The project is the conversion of a part of the former Aggies
Motel and Restaurant complex into residential units. The vacant restaurant
building is across the alley to the south of the site and the former office and
additional parking area is across Albert Street to the east. To the north across
Front Street is a separate operating motel and adjacent to the west is a single
family residence. Photographs of the site are attached as Attachment C.
.
The City's Parking Ordinance requires two spaces for each multi-family or
apartment unit. Although the applicant's request is for one space per unit (29),
the site plan submitted by the applicant shows only 27 parking spaces. The
spaces are located on the ground floor, both under the units and in an interior
courtyard. Because of the location of some support structures for the building, the
design of the onsite parking is somewhat restricted. It is anticipated that some
95
Planning Department Staff Report
PKV 00-01 - Maverick Development
March 22, 2000
Page 2
reconfiguration will be made to provide the 29 spaces as requested.
Other than the parking requirement, the project as conditioned is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Parking Ordinances. The site and
surrounding properties are located in the Commercial [C] designation of the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and are zoned Commercial, Arterial [CA].
The use of the site as an apartment building is a permitted use in.the CA zone and
the density of the project is consistent with a recent Planning Department
Interpretation regarding the conversion of existing hotel/motel facilities to
residential units.
The City's Parking Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to vary the
number of parking space'required by a use. There are four conclusions the
Commission must make to approve a parking variance, these conclusions are
included along with related Comprehensive Plan policies in Attachment D. In
short, the Commission, must conclude that the specific use being considered will
be adequately served by the reduced number of parking spaces.
Two similar reductions have been approved for senior housing projects. The
approvals, for Highland Commons I and II located on Melody Circle, permitted the
same ratio of one space per unit as the current request. Highland Commons I has
been in operation for approximately three years and Highland Commons II for 2
years.
Based on an analysis of the Highland Commons projects, the requested reduction,
at the same one space per unit ratio, appears adequate to meet the need
generated by the proposed project. A field check of these facilities in February,
2000, showed the parking lot for Highland Commons I was 22% full with an
occupancy level for the units at 90%. Highland Commons II's parking lot was also
22% full with an occupancy rate of 72%.
The Public Works Department has indicated new concrete sidewalk and driveway
approaches will be required prior to occupancy. Additionally, if access is taken
off the alley, City standard improvements to the alley along with the removal of the
existing bollards would also be required. No other City departments noted any
specific requirements.
No comments were received from the public regarding this application. The public
comment period ran from January 21, 2000 to February'10, 2000.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (SEPA) REVIEW
A parking variance is exempt from SEPA requireme",ts.
PKV0001.PC1
96
.
.
.
'~\:'\~~,',?i:~W}t::<~?/~:>~, j; '~;Z::;0:;~::~{-':~~f~'~t;~t,?~?~!:-;~tj-~
.
~ORr.ANGE~!~S
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
DATE:
April 12, 2000
TO:
PKV 00-01
FROM~ '
FILE #:
APPLICANT:
Maverick Development
OWNER:
Prime Financial
LOCATION:
116 N. Albert Street
PROPOSAL:
Reduce required parking for a senior housing project
. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Parking Variance PKV 00-01
subject to the conditions, findings, and conclusions listed in Attachment A.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from
58 to 29 spaces. The requested 29 spaces will provide one space for each of the
project's proposed 29 units. The applicant's submittal is attached as Attachment B.
The site is located at 116 N. Albert Street on the southwest corner of Albert Street and
Front Street. The project is the conversion of a part of the former Aggies Motel and
Restaurant complex into senior only residential condominium units. The vacant
restaurant building is across the alley to the south of the site and the former office and
additional parking area is across Albert Street to the east. To the north across Front
Street is a separate operating motel and adjacent to the west is a single family
residence. Photographs of the site are attached as Attachment C.
.
The City's Parking Ordinance requires two spaces for each multi-family or apartment
unit. Although the applicant's request is for one space per unit (29), the site plan
submitted by the applicant shows only 27 parking spaces. The spaces are located on
the ground floor, both under the units and in an interior courtyard. Because of the
location of some support structures for the building, the design of the onsite parking is
somewhat restricted. It is anticipated that some reconfiguration will be made to
provide the 29 spaces as requested.
97
Planning Department StafIReport
PKV 00-01 - Maverick Development
April 12, 2000
Page 2
Other than the parking requirement, the project as conditioned is consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Parking Ordinances. The site and .
surrounding properties are located in the Commercial [C] designation of the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and are zoned Commercial, Arterial [CA]. The
use of the site as a multi-family residential building is a permitted use in the CA zone
and the density of the project is consistent with a recent Planning Department
Interpretation regarding the conversion of existing hotel/motel facilities to residential
units.
The City's Parking Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to vary the number
of parking space required by a use. There are four conclusions the Commission
must make to approve a parking variance, these conclusions are included along with
related Comprehensive Plan policies in Attachment D. In short, the Commission, must
conclude that the specific use being considered will.be adequately served by the
reduced number of parking spaces.
)
The applicant)(s this. request based on the fact the occupancy of the units will be
limited to senior residents. The applicant has submitted a portion of the project's
CC&Rs which states "It is intended by declarant that the Condominium qualify as
housing that is intended and operated for occupancy by persons fifty-five (55) years of
age or older, as authorized by and in compliance with 42 USC 3607(b)(2)(C) [Article 1
1.8.37]." Although, this statement is included in the recorded CC&Rs, staff
recommends additional assurance which guarantees the senior limitation is a
requirement, not just an "intent" and cannot be removed without City approval.
Two similar reductions have been approved for senior housing projects. The
approvals, for Highland Commons I and II located on Melody Circle, permitted the
same ratio of one space per unit as the current request. Highland Commons I has
been in operation for approximately three years and Highland Commons II for 2 years.
.
Based on an analysis of the Highland Commons projects, the requested reduction, at
the same one space per unit ratio, appears adequate to meet the need generated
by the proposed project. A field check of these facilities in February, 2000, showed
the parking lot for Highland Commons I was 22% full with an occupancy level for the
units at 90%. Highland Commons II's parking lot was also 22% full with an occupancy
rate of 72%.
The Public Works Department has indicated new concrete sidewalk and driveway
approaches will be required prior to occupancy. Additionally, if access is taken off
the alley, City standard improvements to the alley along with the removal of the
existing bollards would also be required. No other City departments noted any specific
requirements.
No comments were received from the public regarding this application. The public
comment period ran from January 21,2000 to February 10, 2000.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (SEPA) REVIEW
.
A parking variance is exempt from SEPA requirements.
PKV0001.PC1
98
.
.
.
,. 'i;}';'~I:?l~~:;~l1jSr:jY~;%t,:;M'~i'~::>~::::~:",;_ ',:}r:il"':~~}:;~~~;;~4tRJ;~.~.:~t:J-';-
Conditiori!~))f Approval,
Findings, and Conclusions
For PKV 00'01
Conditions of Approval
1. Approval is for the project as submitted by the applicant and identified as
Attachment B to the March 22, 2000, Planning Department Staff Report
for PKV 00-01 and as hereby conditioned.
2 The project shall provide parking spaces at a ratio of one parking space
per residential unit.
3. The size of the parking spaces, lot design, and improvements shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
4. The project shall include'curb, gutter, sidewalk, and alley improvements
as required by the City Engineer.
5. Occupancy of the individual units shall be restricted to senior residents.
Evidence of such restriction shall be approved by the Planning
Department.
6.
All conditions of approval shall be complied with consistent with City
Ordinances prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Findings
Based on the information provided in the March 22, 2000 Staff Report for PKV
00-01 (including all of its attachments), comments and information presented
during the public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and
deliberation, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1. The applicant, Maverick Development/Prime Financial, applied for a
parking variance on January 20, 2000. The application was determined to
be complete on January 26, 2000. The application is identified as
Attachment B to the March 22, 2000, Planning Department Staff Report
for PKV 00-01.
2. As a variance. the application is exempt from SEPA requirements.
3. In accordance with legal requirements of the City of Port Angeles and the
State of Washington, the notice of application and subsequent hearing
process was advertised in the Peninsula Daily News' legal section on
January 26,2000.
4.
The applicant is requesting a reduction in the number of required parking
ATTACHMENT A
Page 1 of 3
99
spaces from tlv to 29 spaces. The requested 29 sJ.-c:tces will provide one
space for each of the project's proposed 29 units.
5.
The site is located at 116 N. Albert Street on the southwest corner of
Albert Street and Front Street.
.
6. The project is the conversion of a part of the former Aggies Motel and
Restaurant complex into residential units. The vacant restaurant building
is across the alley to the south of the site and the former office and
additional parking.area is across Albert Street to the east. To the north
across Front Street is a separate operating motel and adjacent to the west
is a single family residence.
7. The City's Parking Ordinance requires two spaces for each multi-family or
apartment unit.
8. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows only 27 parking spaces.
The spaces are located on the ground floor, both under the units and in
an interior courtyard. Because ofthe location of some support structures
for the building, the design of the onsite parking is somewhat restricted.
9. Other than the parking requirement, the project as conditioned is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Parking
Ordinances.
10. The site and surrounding properties are located in the Commercial [C]
designation of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and are zoned .
Commercial, Arterial [CA].
11. The use of the site as an apartment building is a permitted use in the CA
zone.
12. The density of the project is consistent with a recent Planning Department
Interpretation regarding the conversion of existing hotel/motel facilities to
residential units.
13. Two similar reductions have been approved for senior housing projects.
The approvals, for Highland Commons I and" located on Melody Circle,
permitted the same ratio of one space per unit as the current request.
Highland Commons I has been in operation for approximately three years
and Highland Commons" for 2 years.
14. A field check of these facilities in February, 2000, showed the parking lot
for Highland Commons I was 22% full with an occupancy level for the
units at 90%. Highland Commons II's parking lot was also 22% full with
an occupancy rate of 72%.
15. The Public Works Department has indicated new concrete sidewalk and
driveway approaches will be required prior to occupancy. Additionally, if .
100
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2 of 3
.
.
.
access is takb., off the alle}('City standard improve.. .ents to the alley
along with the removal of the existing bollards would also be required. No
other City departments noted any specific requirements.
16.
i:~:,:r' :"J,,:~,~-;':i',~ 'f:
No comments were received from tne'public regarding this application.
The public comment period ran from January 21, 2000 to February 10,
2000.
Conclusions
Based on the information provided in the March 22, 2000 Staff Report for PKV
00-01, including all of its attachments, comments and information presented
during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and
deliberation, and the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning
Commission hereby concludes that:
A. . Because of the location of some support structures for the building, the
design of the onsite parking is somewhat restricted;
B. Based on an analysis of the previously approved Highland Commons
senior housing projects, the requested reduction, at the same one space
per unit ratio, is adequate to meet the need generated by the proposed
project;
C. As conditioned, the variance is not detrimental to surrounding properties;
D.
As conditioned, the variance will not create increased congestion or traffic
hazards along adjacent streets and alleys;
E. As conditioned, the variance is consistent with the intent of the Off-Street
Parking Ordinance, the zoning district in which the site is located, and the
Comprehensive Plan."
PKV0001.PC1
ATTACHMENT A
Page 3 of 31 0 1
.
.
.
102
.
.
.
'.:.,.':,"
Conditions of Approval,
Findings, and Conclusions
For PKV 00-01
Conditions of Approval
1. Approval is for the project as submitted by the applicant and identified as
Attachment B to the April 12, 2000, Planning Department Staff Report for
PKV 00-01 and as hereby conditioned.
2 The project shall provide parking spaces at a ratio of one parking space
per residential unit.
3. The size of the parking spaces, lot design, and improvements shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
4. The project shall include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and alley improvements
as required by the City Engineer.
5. Occupancy of the individual units shall be restricted to senior residents
and such limitation shall not be removed without City approval. Evidence
of such restriction shall be approved by the Planning Department.
6.
All conditions of approval shall be complied with consistent with City
Ordinances prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Findings
Based on the information provided in the April 12, 2000 Staff Report for PKV 00-
01 (including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during
the public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation,
the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1. The applicant, Maverick Development/Prime Financial, applied for a
parking variance on January 20, 2000. The application was determined to
be complete on January 26, 2000. The application is identified as
Attachment B to the April 12, 2000, Planning Department Staff Report for
PKV 00-01.
2. As a variance, the application is exempt from SEPA requirements.
3. In accordance with legal requirements of the City of Port Angeles and the
State of Washington, the notice of application and subsequent hearing
process was advertised in the Peninsula Daily News' legal section on
January 26, 2000.
4.
Based on senior occupancy, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the
A TT ACHM~~~ ~1 03
number of reCf....red parking spaces from 58 to 29 sl-'ctces. The requested
29 spaces will provide one space for each of the project's proposed 29
units.
5. The site is located at 116 N. Albert Street on the southwest corner of .
Albert Street and Front Street.
6. The project is the conversion of a part of the former Aggies Motel and
Restaurant complex into residential units. The vacant restaurant building
is across the alley to the south of the site and the former office and
additional parking area is across Albert Street to the east. To the north
across Front Street is a separate operating motel and adjacent to the west
is a single family residence.
7. The City's Parking Ordinance requires two spaces for each multi-family or
apartment unit.
8. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows only 27 parking spaces.
The spaces are located on the ground floor, both under the units and in
an interior courtyard. Because of the location of some support structures
for the building, the design of the onsite parking is somewhat restricted.
9. Other than the parking requirement, the project as conditioned is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Parking
Ordinances.
10. The site and surrounding properties are located in the Commercial [C] .
designation of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and are zoned
Commercial, Arterial [CA].
11. The use of the site as an apartment building is a permitted use in the CA
zone.
12. The density of the project is consistent with a recent Planning Department
Interpretation regarding the conversion of existing hotel/motel facilities to
residential units.
13. Two similar reductions have been approved for senior housing projects.
The approvals, for Highland Commons I and II located on Melody Circle,
permitted the same ratio of one space per unit as the current request.
Highland Commons I has been in operation for approximately three years
and Highland Commons II for 2 years.
14. A field check of these facilities in February, 2000, showed the parking lot
for Highland Commons I was 22% full with an occupancy level for the
units at 90%. Highland Commons II's parking lot was also 22% full with
an occupancy rate of 72%.
15. The Public Works Department has indicated new concrete sidewalk and .
driveway approaches will be required prior to occupancy. Additionally, if
A TT ACHMENT A
104 Page 2 of 3
.
.
.
access is takb.. off the alley;c;ity standard improve".ents to the alley
along with the removal of the existing bollards would also be required. No
other City departments noted any specific requirements.
16. No comments were received from the public regarding this application.
The public comment period ran from January 21,2000 to February 10,
2000.
Conclusions
Based on the information provided in the April 12, 2000 Staff Report for PKV 00-
01, including all of its attachments, comments and information presented during
the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and
the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby
concludes that:
A. Because of the location of some support structures for the building, the
design of the onsite parking is somewhat restricted;
B. Based on an analysis of the previously approved Highland Commons
senior housing projects, the requested reduction, at the same one space
per unit ratio, is adequate to meet the need generated by the proposed_
project;
C. As conditioned, the variance is not detrimental to surrounding properties;
D.
As conditioned, the variance will not create increased congestion or traffic
hazards along adjacent streets and alleys;
E. As conditioned, the variance is consistent with the intent of the Off-Street
Parking Ordinance, the zoning district in which the site is located, and the
Comprehensive Plan."
PKV0001.PC1
ATTACHM~~~~1 05
~c 21 99 01:4511'
12/28/1999 19:29
.). ~ f-
5382399812
P:f .l. Lauro
(209~
~34-142S
,..1
Tt<: CB
PAGE 81
)
FEE: $/7"):~
ellY (f ~ PlImS
AAUfATl<1 RlIW<<IN;' VARIMCE
PlDSE ~ ALl INST1UTJCHi BEfQRf CCNPlETlNG litiS FORM '-'
1. .U'I'L1~ ----:r~ '>'\ tz:.. - t ">i'~IIIlYTllE FIllIIE (~... )'13,\ -ila.s-~
~ --~-----'" __..:. .~"'\~a~.~t'nl.~
PROP t1N1t' :b_rf\\\-~d\ ~~'t: ..-~_ ,__,_ PIllE l~o~ \ :!>~'l- ~ 5" ~ S-
. .1\ \.. 'k\ ,~\-~~""'i-J ~ 't. .,~~ft+~..~k0. \() A- t\'i a~~
2 . Sl1lEEl] ADDRESS '" . \ . I . .
LEf'L le'CRIP'flm " ~c... ~ ~ ~ ~ . _
i :, . ,
J. .PIlllPEiih ~CJlINi (Q....../ R... J .. PI1IlPERI'i SIZE
~. BUII.DII<<; SIZE s~.(t. . ~ER OF STCIUES ---Y-- YEAR BUILT
6. US!. OF! lIfE PII>PEKlY ~~""'14L f\.tl.....~ Co t\ tin -.: r.. ;\0._ c; ,
1..__. __'J .....L...-
i. ~ \.:~ ~ t'T/.)..e_/L ./).fI.v~,AI'.AA.1)l)
I
1. ~si[CS OF SUIUOH>INC PROPERTIES
1 .
t. ~ ~.~ t:~.~~~~I~'of':~~:. :~,\t'~~'::~1.1 .
9.~, I~ 01' CJII)J~'" ,~.1~88 IN QUEsTICW{J~~.lI;>v\ ~~ ~-::c..
f./,p~.--j-~ ..
101 :-''lMBER ~OF SPACES I BY ORI)INArCE ~.lS81 \. -S;<?
i
I
11. ~ Fat A RElII:1'lc.l TO PR(WJDE ('~9
i
12. JUSTIFhnOl RIl VARIANCE ~ PSJUIHEMEHr
I , '
! ~L6~ ~~.." '^ ~.
!
~~.. ~...J...~":::-t
.
SPACES.
1
-.-
l CEmF'( tha~ all of ~he above stat.elllents are true to the ben of JIIf
knowJed,r, land, adlJ\owledge that willful IftbrepTes~ntatiQn i.nfi ~i=
",ill tenn~te the pel1llit.
; Si~1lJRE-L...._
DAT! OF S)Q{A'J\JRE
liJ~s ("
.
106
ATTACHMENT B
Page 1 of 4
Attachment to: City of Port Angeles
For: Royal Manor Condominimns
Owner: Royal Manor Condominium Association .
.
;\
1. Property Owne r: Prime Financial, Inc. and Royal Manor Condominium
Association of Port Angeles
of. r /II
Address: Prime Financial-~ W. Kettleman Lane(Suite N-I), Lod~ CA 95242
Royal Manor Condo Association- ) 16 N. Albert St., Port Angeles, W A 98362
2. Street Address:
116 N. Albert St., Port Angeles, Washington, 98362
Legal Description:
.
Lots 1 and 2 of Block 20, ofthe Norman ~ Smith's Subdivision ofthe Townsite
of Port Angeles, as per plat thercofrecoroed as file no. CL-38386, Volume K ofDt:eds,
page 1, in the office of the County Recorder of Clallam County, State of Washington.
7. Characteristic of Surrounding Properties: To the SOUTH of the building
(across theallcy) is another vacant building which was formerly a botel;to the NORTH
of the building, across the street is the Riviera Hotel~ to the WEST of the building is a .
single family residence (currently for sale)~ and to the EAST of the building is what was
once an office space (registration area for the hotel).
9. Requirement or Ordinance NO. 1588 t IN QUESTION: (1) Number of spaces per
unit~ and (2) size requirements for each space
11. Request for a reduction number of spaces from 2 per unit - to one space per unit; and
waiver of the size requirement for each space from 8'6" in width to 8' in width.
This will the developer and the association to accommodate 29 parking spaces one for
each unit.
12. Justification for Variance from Requirements:
All of the parking spaces are confined to the boundaries of the building itself
The spaces are located on the ground floor of the building, covered by the second floor
of the structure. The center portion of the ingress and egress is an open air area.
a. The boundaries of each parking space and the number of parking
spaces available arc limited by the support structures (posts and beams)ofthe building.
.
b. The boundaries of each parking space and the number of parking
spaces available are limited by the "no parking" restrictions on all streets adjoining the
property.
. ATTACHME~:r..B
pl~ 1i4
Attadunent to: City of Port Angeles Application fur Parking Variance
For: Royal Manor Condominiums
Owner: Royal Manor CondomiIUum Association
)
.
c. In many Senior Adult condominium complexes the condominiums arc
occupied by residents who do not own a car or at most own only one car. We anticipate
the same situation here.
d. The size of the current spaces, eight.feet wide, was in compliance with
the code section that was in affect at the time the original structure was erected. Since
this a refurbishing of an existing structure, rather than new construction or enlargement,
previous parking requirements should apply to this situation.
e. The 6" variation should not be of major consequence since the parking
is not for public but private use only. by owner occupants.
f Denial of the variance will necessitate the purchase of additional
property thus raising the price of oCcupancy for.each senior adult tenant;.the portion of
the population which can least afford higher costs.
g. The variance will allow the Association to extend to each Senior Adult
owner. a covered, well lighted parking area that provides protection from the elements
and is situated within the confines of the complex. Denial of the variance will:
(i) place the residents of the facility in a less protected, more
wlnerable situation when parking their vehicles on land adjacent to the
facility;
(ii) expose the residents to the elements and the problems attendant
with wet pavement (increasing the possibility of personal injury)
(Hi) increase security concerns and costs for the Association.
.
In light of the reasons stated above, and in special consideration of value to be
received by the city thl'ough the rehabilitation oftbis vacant property; from (a) increased
property taxes; and (b) the removal of the blight, of a vacant building on one of the main
thoroughfares of town~ we believe the granting of this variance is in the best interest of
the city. its citizens and the future residents of Royal Manor Condominiums.
Date Signed: December 22, 1999
o. ~ esident- Royal Manor Condominium
Association; Presidenl- Prime
Financial, Inc, ( developer o/the
facility)
108
.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 3 of 4
1 r
I i
. I
I
I "
I !'
I
i
I
.
.
IT.
II
i
i I
, I
, I
!
.
.
II
. I
I I
I I
!
i i
! I
. I
IJ.
I i
II
~ I
II
I .
I I
I !
II
; I
i I
II
II
Ii
II...
, I
I ,
i I
I I
I-I
I ~
I I
I I
, I
I I
I I
!1-
~ ;
!
'u
tfi--:- j
-orJ I I
I 0< i-,...-!--=-.
f x !.~-l~.=;;-, .
....~~~.=~~======~ i~
I x
I
r'.
j
r .....,._.-w-~..-
,.
~
i
I
! x
!
C:===~======:::I
I X
"
I x
I
_..J======:::I
C:=--l
I
! X
I
!'
I x
I
i
c-==d=======>>
- i
i x
I
?I
I x
i
,
_ l.....=====>
~-- I
i )(
I .
I
~
. ...... l..~..,~ 1
... '".. ....,....! !
.. ,. .. 4 .. ,. ,. =.~ ~ 1
, .......,,1..';>>1....
ii X
I
I
. "1
la.L.:
.,
..
I I
h
i I, t
I "'0", 1r I
I I, I ~ X
I, I X
r )( II ~ I
I " ! I
II i
I, I I
'I I
'I I, ,
!J
; !~
I
'='
,,:)
o
~,
Sl
rr
I :1
I :'
t :1
I 'I
I :1
I :
"'"
r:-'L ~-_~-:...-_-_~ -_-_ -_ -__
,~
o
w
U
<
Il.
en
C)
z
2
IX:
<
c.
f/)
w
b
z
w.
o
x
---1 I
I ! . i
I 1 ~
I i I
l ~l~~~Jt_...1 . .,~
II .~ , I
1- ....1 ;.
I
1
l., ..,
.1
!
I
I
! -
". ''-~101 -.. ....
l""J
,.
I
t.
)(
. ....1
~aL .
!!
t'
~___uu_ ~
i "T~~---~ 1"
D _
- ..1~;-::T--11
---'==r.~E5f1
- - -, . :',-:::-~L, ........
-'.'., ....-..
I
!x I
I ~
g\ x I.,..
. .. .~, .._~.....- .:f. 1
I .t.-=--- I I.
= = =1= = \,L,,-_, , . !
. ....__..~.!L_n_.___4..__.... '''"1''' .
.. - I X I
I <>
I :.
-mb-r_..L,
--='=='E*$' ·
.. - I . l .". 'h ~
.........r............ ........ I
IX ~
!t "
I x _____.. i...,
"'1.&,-u I
r-
!
I
np1ll
I
I
I
I
i .
1\..
l~
x
x
~
~
€"- -_ -_-_ -_::..._-_-_-_-_-_-_""'1
'3
r
I
I
x!'
1
i
I
..
j ..l;
::.>
1
I
i
I
I
I
~
,
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ..
i ,................. i
I .
L.........
.~:~....... u-; .0. ....._ ~.....___._
. i
I
i
~
q
I .
I I
I I
ATTACHMENTOBgl
~a91
--.;.---...
1
.,
~
--,-",
.
'Looking we~f~9ward the site
.
IntefiorcotJft}fard'.'9fo"l.lod'. floof"'parking area
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 1 of 1
110
.
.
.
Compreh '15 hIe; Plan aA8
&horefina Ma8ter--Pr~ram ~oals and Policies
Related to PK,t;OO-01
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map's
Commercial [C] designation. The Land Use Map designates only one industrial
category, thus providing maximum flexibility to the City's Zoning Ordinance in regulating
the types of industrial uses and their permitted locations.
The following is a listing of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies that relate to the
proposed project. Approval of the application has been conditioned to insure
compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically the goals and policies
listed below.
Land Use Element Goal 0, Policy No. 1- "The City should encourage new and
existing commercial developments and:businesses which are consistent with the
goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan." .
Transportation Element Goal B, Policy No. 14 - "Off-street parking should be
sufficient and accessible within business and residential areas to ensure that the
traffic flow of the street is not impaired."
PARKING ORDINANCE
Section 14.40.160 PAMC indicates that parking variances may be approved as long as
the purpose of the parking ordinance is met. The Planning Commission may impose
conditions deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the purpose. The Ordinance
does not have an explicit purpose statement, however, it is reasonable to assume the
purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that each development provides adequate off-
street parking to meet the parking demand created by the use. When adopting the
ordinance, the City determined the listed requirements for the various uses are
necessary to meet the demand generated by such uses. Substantial weight should be
given to those standards. The Planning Commission should not approve a variance
unless they are convinced that the parking demand for the applicant's use is adequately
met. The Parking Ordinance also states "No variance shall be granted by the
Planning Commission unless the Commission finds:
1. The variance is not detrimental to surrounding properties;
2. The parking provided is sufficient to meet the parking needed by the
use(s);
3. The variance will not create increased congestion or traffic hazards along
adjacent streets and alleys;
4. The variance is consistent with the intent of the Off-Street Parking
. Ordinance, the zoning district in which the site is located, and the
Comprehensive Plan."
PKVOOO1.PC1
ATTACHMENT D
Page 1 0111
.
.
.
112
.
.
.
Mneriell llneIOP_1It
116 N. Alhc:rt Sr
l'url/\Ilgclc.. W ^. 98J61
Clllllam Gllunlry
Phone 457.9293
Fax 457.9301
fD)rn@rn~w~
Wi APR 28m
Port Angeles City Counsel
I
~!i:.
j! I
ul
I
April 27, 2000
Dear Members,
PORT ANGELES
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
....
As one of the principles of Maverick Development J am requesting an audience before the
City Counsel to appeal the Planning Commissions decisrori to deny our request for a parking
variance. Our company believes an ~iustice has occurred in the process in which our intent and
information was not clearly demonstrated to the Planning Commission; Our company believes that
extremely important information, which would allow a logical and correct decision, has been.
overlooked by the commission. We have in our opinion an.~wered and fulfilled any concerns of the
conclusions drawn from the April 12th meeting. When we went before the commission on the
27th of April the commission did not evaluate our new information and did not aJJow us to speak
to explain the information. They in turn voted on the variance without doing the required
diligence in evaluating OUT reasoning for the request.
We believe our project meets an important aspect ofthe needs of Port Angeles, senior
housing. OUf project allows seniors to live in very clean, affordable and safe housing. The
property is close to all the dowtown benefits that exist in the city of Port Angeles. Our residents
will be close to shopping, entertainment and the city, state and federal governmental offices in
which they conduct most of their affairs. In addition, our prime location gives seniors the freedom
to live close to their doctors.
Our project has the support of the community, many City erriployees~ and the Chamber of
ColIllrierce. They see the benefit of senior housing designed to meet their budgets and desired
lifestyle. We request the decision of the planning connnision to be overturned for the benefit of
the community which so desperately wants this project to succeed. Based on the findings of the
City Planner there are other projects that are using less than 25% of their parking. We are offering
more than enough parking to the occupants. The meeting held on April 12th has identified no
citizens that are against the project or have any concern with any traffic congestion or olf street
parking issues. We have the support of our neighbors and community. We are confident that all
concerns raised by the planning Commission have been dealt with in a way to create no qualifieEt
Teason to deny our vaTiance.
In sununation, we want to submit to the cOWb-el in person the benefit of our proj~t for
the community. We believe the infonnatkln ovel.'looked by the Planning Commission would be
important in order thr the counsel to detennine the value of supporting afforduble housing for our
senior citizens.
Sincerely,
f;lii 11d--
113
.
.
.
114
.
.
.
Apr 20 00 01:42a
Maverick Development
p.l
(209) 334-3234
ill ~@~OW_~_,;
I
LEASE AGREEMENT i APR 2 Q 2000 ,:~,
PORT ANGELES j
PLANNING DEPARTMENT .
This Lease made this 20th day of April, by and between' "_.__.~
roo ( .r. r (~ ~ Lvt:.t'1 (Lessor) and Prime
Financial Corporation/Royal Manor Condominium Association (Lessee).
1. Premises: Lessor does hereby Lease to Lessee those certain premises
commonly known as parking spaces.
2. Rent: Lessee agrees to pay Lessor $15.00 per month per space for two
spaces located at the north side of the building closest to the west
,-
comer.
3. Term: Term of this lease shall be for A I,,~ AIr1 t!J/ "~Ar
t'
cormnencing at said time Lessee receives Certificate of Occupancy and
shall terminate on the &~(()~~ ~"'~J,,,~ ()~~ ./ . If Lessee has
, '.. ~~;'A,ttI&/(.
possession of parking spaces for a portion of a month, rent shall be
prorated for the number of days of Lessee's possession during that
month.
/~i L ~d
Lessor
c4~. CL.~~..c.
Prime Financial CorporationIRoyal Manor (Lessee)
(See attached addendum)
1.15
rD) rn 00 rn 0 \II ~'i ! ,-
IJl) APR 2 0 2000 ; L~
'.
PORT ANGELES
PlANNING DEPARTME!!L.__..
-Reggie's ~iJnousine-
360-457-3706
Service Application
:u . e lei )
Name...lf.@..:fR...!.....I!f.4.!:!!..c:.~'S,....(~~!.:y..Phone._~U::..?.,?..?.d..
Address...........t(!~.~.(......~......!J1.~..~&r~..?.!:::............~.{5i:.......1t.~ ~.s
Proposed ltineraJy.........L'Q.......f?f.!?.!d~.~~.........~::te.f.!~.SFQe:t!:-:~~........
7b.....~...,J1i1.~.Il4......$..&.J..:I......l~~iJ:t.L~.~........~!:s........K.>.s..l <:Iou c '-
CC.....I.?I.tl.!/!..~.~."'-::t.::.......~.1:!......~..:.!1.~t7"..f..........~~J:~<4.,,<~
- P8ssengers.l(A...Names..J.?c.J';t.......i?c.3.l.s!.~~.(......~:f..............
....R(;lv.<[LL....J4:t.JIJ~.........................................................._..._....................
(- \
minors only. consenting adult (y)(n) name:
ETA- What time do you wish to arrive?...~..........AirJine...........................Flight N......................
How much luggage?-Large.... ......... .Medium.............Small....... ......... Weight.. ....... .......
-.
.
Favorite MusiclBevemge................................... ...... ............................................. ..........................
Circle If: -Gift Certificate - Senior Citizen - VIP Member _
Service Options: (pltUlSe circle)
-PhotoslVideo - Movie enroute - Balloons - Flowers - Candy - Cards - Fruit Basket - Ice Bucket.
-Hors D~oeu-vres-StemwarelTmnblers - Fuzzy Slippers - (small~ medi~ large)
!l'liIR" . - - ..
~ 17a.fDn..Desi~Driver)( . ,~.oW/!er-
001601652723 ~9/oo
Office at 1818 West Lauridsen Blvd-across tiom the Fairchild International Airport
Member Limousine Assoc~tion ofWa.qhington /J./'/ ~ ./P --._~
Somerestr:ictionsapply ~ .Y~~-t....
MAiling Address: ~,,,,"C M.weP..t #?/dO
Reggie's Limo !k/;"''l ,.c;~~e;AI '.
1818 W. Lauridsen Blvd. #12
Port Angeles, Wash. 98363
s'7'Q.ttr W1t.c.u) ee'>/V00 ~ ,Jdi\..f ~-'~.'s', ~ - 9-
.
--. 70
116-
. r
.. #
I
.
.
.
DATE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
- -----
',":~:~~~\1~~'~i~~~~ir~i~~~i;i~::1~'~~~"*~'~~0~'~'
"."",,','--,,_.;
FORTANl!ti~~S
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
MAY 30, 2000
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL C:-j l ~
Timothy J. Smith, Economic Development Dire~'-7'9' J
City / EDC Contract Year 2000
Summary: Consistent with the 2000 City Budget, staff has prepared the attached contract with
Clallam County EDC for the provision of services during the year 2000. The contract provides for
the City's contribution to typical county-wide economic development services.
Recommendation: City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached contract with the
Clallam County Economic Development Council for 2000.
Backeround / Analvsis: Consistent with the proposed 2000 City Budget, staff has prepared the
attached contract with Clallam County EDC for the provision of economic development services.
The agreement outlines terms, conditions, services, products and delivery time frames, and has been
developed consistent with the 2000 Work Plan for the City Economic Development Program, Port
Angeles Works!
The contract for 2000 is similar to previous annual agreements to include typical services found in
earlier contracts. Highlights of the agreement include a Core Business Recruitment and Assistance
Program, and maintenance of the Industrial Property and Infrastructure Inventory.
The contract amount for the year 2000 is $20,000. Although the contract amount in past years has
ranged as high as $35,000, the higher valued contract periods reflected a greater level of contacted
tasks which were pertinent to Port Angeles-specific economic development tasks, as opposed to those
tasks which are applicable to the regional efforts performed by the EDC.
"
"17
May 8, 2000
Becky 1. Upton
City Clerk
P.O. Box 1150
Port Angeles, W A 98362
..................
:~
A/
CLALLAM COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
[D) m @ lH W m ~I
lJl] MAY I 0 2000 ~ i
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
CITY CLERK
Re: Agreement: City of Port Angeles and the ClaIIam County EDC
Dear Ms. Upton:
Enclosed for your attention is the Agreement between the City of Port Angeles and the
Clallam County Economic Development Council. President Jack Waud and Vice
President Bill Peach have signed the Agreement on behalf of the EDC.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/. ~-\ ' . '. 70'.+;ff;. /J
l\./,\R.t i itibl. 1t!{el!iJtf'i
Rhonda Matlock
Operations Manager
rmatlock@clallam.org
/rsm
Enel.
118
P.O. BOX ]085 . ]02 E. FRONT' PORT ANGELES, WA 98362-0204
PHONE: 360.457.7793 . FAX: 360.452-96]8' WEB: www.ccedc.org' E-MAIL: ccedc@c1allam.org
.
.
.
.
.
.
AGREEMENt
TIllS AGREEMENT is entered into this _ day of
. 2000, by and between
the City of Port Angeles, Washington, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and the
Clallam County Economic Development Council, Inc., a non-profit corporation, hereinafter called
"Contractor" .
WHEREAS, the City is a municipal corporation of the State of Washington authorized to
contract for economic development services; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for economic development activities to be performed
that will enhance the.economy and employment opportunities in the City of Port Angeles; and,
WHEREAS, the City has need of research and assistance in regards to these and other aspects
of its operations;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above representations and the mutual covenants
and agreements herein, it is agreed by the parties as follows:
1. PERFORMANCE BY THE CONTRACTOR.
A. General Goals.
The Contractor shall use its capabilities to promote and enhance economic development and
employment opportunities in the City in accordance with the mission and goals established
by the Contractor's Board of Directors as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". The
Contractor shall use its resources to jointly market the facilities and capabilities of the City
to ,new and existing businesses' with the goals of increasing City revenues and general
employment opportunities for City residents.
- 1 -
119
120
B.
Core Business Recruitment and Assistance Program.
.
(1) The Contractor shall work cooperatively with the City in the development and
implementation of the Port Angeles Works Program and shall serve as a general economic
development research and reference service for the City. In this capacity the Contractor shall
perform such functions as conducting ongoing basic market research, identification of target
markets, provision of generic regional marketing and recruitment services aimed at target
markets, participating with the City in the process of resp~>nding to inquiries, site selection
consultation, and case management, regarding new industries or other commercial ventures
which seek information concerning the facilities and resources managed by the City or which
may involve properties and/or infrastructure within the Port Angeles Urban Growth Area
(UGA).
(2) The Contractor shall, upon request, and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner
provide effective industrial marketing guidance to City staff and provide services in the
development and execution of programs aimed at better planning, utilization, promotion, and
advertisement of community services, facilities, infrastructure, and property.
(3) The Contractor shall maintain and enhance working relations with existing businesses to
assist them with start-up and expansion needs, technical assistance, access to business
counseling and financing resources including aid and assistance to at-risk businesses.
.
(4) The Contractor shall assist the City in preparing replies to inquires received by the City
or the Contractor regarding City facilities and resources or which may involveproperties and/or
infrastructure within the Port Angeles Urban Growth Area (UGA) relative to economic
development retention and growth opportunities.
(5) The Contractor shall assist the City in applying for and administering econonuc
development related - grants, including any potential to support the development of
infrastructure or to leverage the Port Angeles Works Program.
(6) The Contractor shall maintain a community profile specific to the greater Port Angeles
area, which highlights demographic and development data customarily of interest to
industriaVcommercial developers.
(7) The Contractor shall work with the City in the maintenance and periodic update of the
Commercial and Industrial Property and Infrastructure Database.
(8) The Contractor shall work with the City to research, identify, and implement the addition
of new development incentive programs or packages as may be applicable to Port Angeles
economic development efforts.
.
- 2 -
.
.
.
C.
1"_, ..-t
. ..
1 _. t . _... _ _ _. 4 _ .1__
Prospect Management.
The Contractor will be responsible for client services for industrial and business retention,
expansion and/or relocation. The Contractor will represent the attributes for appropriate site
locations within the City that meet the prospects criteria. In such dealings, the Contractor shall
participate in the handling of prospects, in accordance with the following guidelines:
(1) Contacts made directly to the Contractor or referred to Contractor by DCTED.
(a) The Contractor will provide general information and other data requested by the
prospect. Within 24 hours of being contacted regarding a prospect, the Contractor
shall notify the City Manager, or his designee, by phone and/or e-mail, regarding the
contact.
(b) If the prospect indicates an interest in. specific business locations, the Contractor
shall notify other affected parties and property owners as appropriate, make appropriate
introductions, and assist in follow-up marketing.
( c) If the prospect requests confidentiality, the Contractor will keep the City Manager,
or his designee, fully informed without revealing the identity of the prospect.
(2) Contacts made directly to the City.
(a) The City shall rely on the Confractor to supply recruitment information and
services as described in IA and IB. When the City receives a direct contact or is
managing a development prospect and desires support from the Contractor, it need only
request such assistance be made within a reasonable time frame, and Contractor will
render such assistance:-
(3) Public Events. and Media
Public events such as media conferences, ground breaking ceremonies, and ribbon
cuttings will be coordinated will the siting jurisdiction and other partners.
D.
The Contractor shall provide to the City and to such persons as the City may direct, free of
additional charge, materials prepared by the Contractor.
E.
The Contractor shall maintain records and report to the City as follows:
(I) The Contractor shall maintain accounts and records that accurately reflect the revenues
and costs for the Contractor's activities under this Contract. These financial records, and all
records related to the performance of this Contract, shall be available for City inspection.
(2) The Contractor shall provide the City with quarterly reports fully describing what work
has been performed pursuant to this Contract, and including a current statement of revenues
and costs.
121
(3) The Contractor shall use its best efforts to economize on overhead expenses to the
maximum extent feasible in providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Contract.
(4) The Contractor shall provide the City with an annual budget, including current salaries and .
benefits for all employees and classifications of employees and shall notify the City within 30
days of any increases in salaries or benefits from the previous year.
2. PERFORMANCE BY THE CITY
A. For the "Core" services rendered by the Contractor, the City will provide, by payment in cash,
the amount of $20.000 and, in-kind telephone service, an amount not to exceed $2.500..
B. Payment by the City shall be due upon receipt and acceptance by the City Manager of the
Contractor's quarterly report as required under Paragraph IE of this Contract. The Contractor
will invoice the City for all quarterly payments.
3. TERM.
This agreement shall be for a term of one year, commencing on January 1, 2000.
4. ASSIGNMENT.
This agreement may not be assigned by either party to this agreement except by signed .
amendment.
5. BREACH.
A. In the event of either party's material breach of the terms or conditions of this Contract, the
non-breaching party reserves the right to withhold payments or services until corrective action
has been taken or completed. However, the party shall not exercise this right until they have
given written notice of such material breach to the breaching party and ten days have passed
since the receipt of such notice. This option is in addition to and not in lieu of the parties' right
to terminate this Contract or any other right which State law offers for breach of contract.
B. If either party shall materially breach any of the covenants undertaken herein or any of the
duties imposed upon it by this Contract, such material breach shall entitle the other party to
terminate this Contract, provided that the party desiring to terminate for such cause shall give
the offending party at least twenty days' written notice, specifying the particulars wherein it is
claimed that there has been a violation hereof, and if at the end of such time, the party notified
has not removed the cause of complaint, or remedied the purported violation, then the
termination of this Contract shall be deemed complete.
.
122
- 4 -
.
.
.
6. NON-DISCRIMINATION.
A.
:~~@(-}~;;>J
The Contractor shall conduct its business in a manner which assures fair, equal and non-
discriminatory treatment of all persons, without resp~ct to race, creed or national origin, and,
in particular:
B. The Contractor shall maintain open hiring and employment practices and will welcome
applications for employment in all positions, from qualified individuals who are members of
"minorities protected by federal equal opportunity/affirmative action requirements~ and,
C. The Contractor shall comply with all requirements of applicable federal, state or local laws or
regulations issued pursuant thereto, relating to the establishment of non-discriminatory
requirements in hiring and employment practices and assuring the service of all persons without
discrimination as to any person's race, color, religion, sex, Vietnam era veteran's status, disabled
veteran condition, physical or mental handicap, or national origin.
7. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION.
The Contractor shall protect, defend, save harmless, and indemnify the City, its officers, agents,
and employees from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including
reasonable attorney's fees, occurring, arising, or resulting from supplying work, services,
materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Contract.
8.
ENTIRE CONTRACT.
The parties agree that this Contract is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral
representation or understanding not incorporated herein is excluded. Further, any modification
of this Contract shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto caused this Contract to be executed the day and
year first herein above written.
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
CLALLAM COUNTY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
.~~/~~
~Sident /
By:
Mayor Larry Doyle
ATTEST:
~
Vice Pr sident
Becky 1. Upton, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
C:\DATA\WP\WP60\PAWORKS\Edcon2000.wpd
- 5 -
123
05/31/00 WED 15:25 FAX 360 452 9618
CLALLAM CO EDe
l4J 002
~.~iI
.
2000Progrnrn ofW ork
Consideration by Executive Board as
Focus for Planning Session
':'ii;;iii"::';';;.~'I""---"-.-'-'!EW~:~:'V~~llil~a~,t;:::;ii;~:;::~~~~f!:.!llI"i'7..,e,~~~~'''''.'-':;;:if.!l!~~i~'':..~tl:iW~IIMlllllJ:nrw;~
t:.;:~iH~:1;i:;i[;l~2;)~H!q~~i2~:;~~~~~~~i'~~:~~~~~~~~!t~~L~!~~J~M.!~~h~~~~lt~l~~~nuh~~~;~:~~
The Council has not undertaken a major strategic planning process for the past six years.
While it is true that we have evaluated our strategic direction annually during thc work
planning process, staff feels it is prudent to undertake a more compTchcnsive process lbat
includes public and stakeholder involvement. Much has changed in our political,
organizational and economic environment. The Council needs to redefine/confirm its niche
and programs.
. Action - Undertake and complete strategic planning process that identitiel>
long terms goals objectives and economic developmenl responsibilities for
the Council.
.
1'.;;.'I::.;;~...".;.:.,;.,..',:.:.:...;i.".'.\";.I:'"i.'I!.'.'.".;I'.B'~i.-S"~I"",\:^,.Il''"''\.;~'\'.' "',",','i;",'" . '''.'...l,..,.';:...........''..:,~r.lI!Ii..''.e''.....~...,.: '" .., ''liF!'~t~':';'I:;.ll.'.;.I'I....I..\...ii':.\...f.\.';!....ji.~\.i;~llt~~'!'.I'I\I.IZI..J..J.t;.t.:;(:"...:t;,;i1\I:WIl.:llW~:~!1t~l!!;~. ~~~r.1lli:~!."I.t:'I'I...i;~....,1....;t;:.i:...1
..,.,........,........'1"1"1"1'" u :'~"1 ."tIII,. .~ . ~.I,'itl~ll'", """s'."'."'J);'" . .<1".,'1,,,..1>0,.<'",.,, d! 1~lljl'''.' I~r"'r'.'t
;':';...:':_;:':';,:~_:I~;__-:-~\;t i: '~f~';":::':'_:...~...:_-,..:.I.=:m~...~._,.4I_'_1.. I. u""" .I"'..f~'::.1...~':..."I.--'" ,:":;:~'::~"'\...'~d'X'.n.n... l.\ ~ ~(t t.\ti li r..T:',..:_L..u._~-f.l_..._::.~::.,(:j,.:.,l.; ...,ht1.t~....I,~...t,.,,~.6~1Il,\~ib~til.....tUi~illllf.\i ~ _. UII dt\i:n-.in:~.~f
We bave a ~uccessrul prosrnm that must be expanded. The limited counseling resources must
be targeted toward larger clients. SBDC resources can be freed up by expanding SCORE
resources. It must be said that we will need to recruit new a new Counselor; Chuck Lamb is
retiring. Staff recommends institutionalizing the business retention and expansion pilot
. project as a program activity. An important component of retention and expansion will be
providing assistance to exisling firms with adapting to e-commerce and changing
tecbnologies- Members ofthe STMA and Council have volunteered to assist the Council with
developing a high tech counseling capacity.
. Implement a business and job retention program spanning Clallnm and Jefferson
counties.
. implement SBDC marketing program targeting mid size businesses.
. Recruit new SCORE counselor.
. Create e-commen:e assistance learn
.
Exhibit A
124
05/31/00 WED 15:26 FAX 360 452 961~~~~~~t~ffw~yCAh~~O~~bV~
19j UUJ
.
., -:"':"::":''-;II;-'(;'''~''.'''~:''-'''''f'':'f.'t'_'\rl;l~f~_._.': I 1" \ 1\f~iiJ~'''-:::~'---_:';:'::::-'~-<-'':'-''-'::'_:.',:::,::,::: ':-:''-::",' ;'-"4'~"-'::":;'\"'}"'I'\;J.;n\I~'u~.c;nr:t:1'iqO~li/'~i:.:::,.,,:,:::,:'~.,:,:;":';'.,:~ ;' . ,:I'~- A~1":~"'-::'7''''!.:~''\'' ":'.!, ...,.". '-,' , '/
;\~;~I:~:;_"~"~\'1.. "",:----,::;:;ii;f~lRiifIlLm n il)lI\l.d~\l''-';~jl'~I-:4'''\'1~lTtt\l,.f,.,hl.h{(Jt;).\t(M.:L'~11: l\{~" 1.1._.:." ,1.._'. '-_ l..,j!,.(\;./.,....\/\ "I,.h,\,\h","~"~h~~',\\,\ .\&..}). 1)1..... '\. '"-,, .."
~~~:;~tLt-3~bi:i.:::'~~~!~;,,:~:.:::~~;::~~~!.t',f.:, _'.... ....). ;;;..,-._.i..",\,.i.:.o",..,.i " .. ei:, .~.!;~~; ::~'..~ .~:IV1: :~,:::!.::~, ,;!:~.} i~';:}t:;~<~~~;~;:~!~,':~:';:::~,:~:..:~:~;;';';~:~; ;;';.L"ii~\/;;~~~;\!",~: ;::.'~:: ~...~.:~i:.:~.r::.:.:.:::..::'7<:':.;',~::::::,~~, :::,.~;. :: ,~:I":: ;".:: ::,'::::. .:',::'
".lhe external marketing component of the Council is fairly well established. With the
repayment of the FTC loan, business recruitment seminal's Me being planned for Seattle and
Victoria. The Council will work with APCO Associates to assure that the seminars leverage
any activity undertaken by the City of Pon Angeles.
. Implement 2000 marketing and recruitment plan
. Conduct Seattle! Victoria business seminars
. Undcr contract, work with the Port to effectively market Port properties as well as
general economic development
';,;:C.;jIJ;.;'Ji:;I!lii~r.o;&..+Mai1=~Ml:C';';j';g:;;rQO::~@E2.:;Iur;;'-C~:~;;TiHEnj',?IU~;I~i:!~1;1~ll!l~ilill;mg';';;;111)'7;E:ljtqi:jFi'T'!}j'''-'::'~'lt:il:I!:ut~i;l
.":,.::,,..,~:.,.,;:,;:.~~~,.I\.b:..~, ;.:I~.!t,,~;;...,.,.., e~F.!I.:~~!:,,,,,,,,,.';j.. ;..cc.... .....,....,..;"~;..";,....I:l.;;;,.".....l.l,wt!lh:,,U,,t.,',lill .llJ.....,c,.,.c.,.,..,"~..'1d ullitlJl ,H,!li.~,'llli~lr, 1l!!l.Iil...,.;,,'
The Conneil is managing a number of projects for our governmental partners on a fee for
service basis. We should continue to seck these oppormnities that are consistent with the
goals and objectives of the organization.
. Complete the Clallam Bay Sekiu Community Center Project
. Complete Comprehensive Timber Inventory
. Complete Fairchild infrastrUcture Project
.
:"'!;.. ..':'i....~,,:":...... ii.'. ..i.~,i.;;';:...,...~.....,.; "", I."" "","n"'~~!!!l~,ru"P''')::'.'.'.'.'~':''.H.'':'. ';:...i~...:.......i..!...:'....'...-I!..j.;I'....I.~.1]r,..'~. :'If.~";lE:,:,<::,;I::':..;::..''. .::;...:'i.'....~.';'~'Irn;\.l". :.:... '.;........".:'....I..I'....I';'lm. l~lllf'um\l\ml>r.~' ~1~'~."!':.l:...'..;.I!~.....r:1
.,:,X:I;ii';ii/;FI",Il,hh'i. ~,;I~I' . , . u.ijJGiIIIOnc'''ll'''''"'IlII''i'l!lll'I'.!l..h", ~III. :'~'. 'p'/'~"iliilll;I'I,.;tr."I'Jf:,,!~I;.L].I.,\I~~,t..I~I!;~11.11' I." ';"..'r"/il'~'"\ . 'il\]"t"III~O.J.J.t
"..".:.."l....T,::;____:',;.;:,;~,;,;~.\./ .h~~ r~ll..:..,.....::..J. ;:.~u('u \!( \Vl 1....I.l..........,.,.IoII.&\I,\IoI(.r.u.\~r.:~ ..,","...",~ ~... "'~,_....,.;.l.........~tj,..tT,,\.Jbl.r.-Jm"1:r ..,,:.:..l.~:l.u:h.I.\.-'I::J..,b( Q:,\\;J_I.....,....... .l\....u,'.Jh\~\,bW"'.l,(W}~t ~ ;,v.~fiil""."I"d
There is not a 'bigger' issue than telecommuhicllliuns. The COWlcil's appropriate role is to
convene the public and private players to assure communication and coordination.
.......................'...'...............'."......1'1",.,...........,.,....'''"~,:I~,.'',.....1~9.. ", ,;'''' '.;]2"'."''''.'''. ..-,,''''',''.,.''....r .'.""511"1.'[1."...,;'.... "..'''..::'. ""...........~lf."!..;,..";'".,.,:";;~"""'7":I':Il. ~".;.'.:;\~w.I'I,.I..".."
.})~H~::crr';Ma,..J'nt1 . om: .. .', :,if~ilam~~Jec!!U~:!ilJlll; nlJ;:'!~;;\I':/,;;;;,',i'.;~, I~~ 11::!I!':il;'.1,..iiit:c\:i..";';;'tl~I~:1.J: ~ I!l~c,g
:...",,,.., .cI.II,..I..';"...........~.!~::w~...._ ......_"..!.!I: . .... ",.....C'L'..'tl':uuc.,...,..'''.~''.Il... ....~tll. I.' i,.J.._.. ......1 . ...,1 ...... f..... ......1.......... ..,......t..,....~;jt,. I. I,rb,
A major challenge facing statf is how the Council addresses the many larger economic
development issues facing the Peninsula and its economy. Reconstruction of the Hood Canal
Bridge, ESA, and work force development are all issues that require business and economic
development input. 'loe Council is currently not eng~ed in these issues and we need to
evaluate whether we need to become involve and if so, how.
.
125
.
.
.
126
.
.
.
FORTA,NGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
DATE:
May 11,2000
To:
MAVORDOYLEAND CITY COUNCIL /"".:~
Timothy J. Smith, Economic Development Dire~ ..
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Sale of City-owned Surplus Property
Summary: In the late 1980's, Old City Hall was declared surplus property for sale or lease.
Recently, an offer to purchase the property was submitted by the current lease tenants; Olympic
Mountaineering and Sirens of Port Angeles. After consideration of their proposal, including a
comparison of sales price with a recent property appraisal, the Real Estate Committee recommends
acceptance of the offer.
Recommendation: The City Council approve the sale of Old City Hall as per the offer
made by the current tenants and in accordance with the recommendation by the Real Estate
Committee, authorizin the Ma or to si n the a ro riate sale documentation.
Backeround I Analysis: In the late 1980's, after the move to the current City Hall facility on
East Fifth Street, the previous City Hall located downtown was declared surplus property and placed
on the market. Although the attempt to sell "old City Hall" generated some interest, it was not until
1996 that an agreement to lease and renovate the property was accomplished.
During the last several months, the City Council's Real. Estate Committee and Office of City Manager
have discussed the potential for selling "Old City Hall" to the current lease tenants. Recently, the
tenants submitted an offer on the property. Following some minor negotiations, the tenants submitted
another proposal, expressing a purchase offer of approximately 25% down payment, with an eight
year contract on the balance at 9% interest. The price offered on the property matches an appraised
value which had been determined by a certified commercial property appraiser at the request of the
City.
Details of the City's certified appraisal and the tenants purchase and financing offer are as follows:
Appraisal (December 1999)
$265,000
Purchase Proposal
Price
Total Down Payment
Balance
$265,000
$ 67.354
$197,646
127
Financing
Loan Amount
Loan Life
Interest Rate
$197,646
30 year amortization, with "balloon" payoff in 8th year
9.000%
Per the proposal, the purchaser agrees to pay $67,354 down and the balance of the purchase price .
in monthly installments of$1590 or more at the purchasers option, including interest from the date
of closing at the rate of 9% per annum on the declining balance. The proposed down ,payment
includes credits for building improvements made to the property by the tenants. The recent property
appraisal, which was commissioned by the City, was used to substantiate the residual value which the
building improvements (made by the tenants) contributed to the overall value of the property, after
allowing for earlier credit which had been allowed in the lease agreement with the tenants.
The proposal calls for the full balance of principal and interest to be due and payable 8 years from the
closing date of the sale. At the City's option, the principal amount owing shall bear interest at the
rate of 12% per annum during any period of the purchaser's default. During the 8 year life of the
contract (subject to earlier payoff, increased principal payment or potential default), the City can
expect to receive approximately $170,000 in interest payments in accordance with the proposal being
recommended.
.
.
128
.
.
.
DATE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
JUNE 6,2000
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utili~i~~
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP) Public Hearing
Summary: The State requires that the City annually update the TIP for planning and funding
of transportation related projects. A public hearing is required to receive input regarding projects
and additions to the TIP. The TIP projects are also included in the transportation element of the
CFP and it is important that we also take public comments on the CFP.
Recommendation: Open the public hearing and receive public input regarding the TIP
and transportation element of the CFP for the years 2001 thru 2006. Continue the public
hearin2 to JuneX2000.
ICf
Background / Analysis: Annually the City is required by the State to update the TIP for
planning and funding of transportation related projects. The projects to be included in the TIP
cover the next six year period. The state will not fund projects that are not included in the TIP.
The projects included in the TIP do not have to be currently funded and the majority included in
the TIP are not. In that the projects included in the TIP are also included in the transportation
element of the CFP it is important that we also take comments on the CFP. The CFP is a project
planning tool which covers alL aspects of infrastructure planning within the City and is utilized to
plan for growth in the Urban growth area as well. Projects in the CFP should be currently funded
or have the source of potential funding identified.
Attach: TIP/CFP Project Listing & Location Map
N :\PWKS\ENGINEER\6- YEAR\2000TIP 1. wpd
129
-'
eN
o
.
2001 - 2006 TIP and CFP TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PROJECTS
PROJECT TITLE
STREET PROJECTS & T.I.P.
1 TR40-99 Lauridsen Blvd/Airport Road Realignment 1,850,000 249,062 1,300,000 0 0 0 0 0 249,062
2 TR48-99 Olympic Peninsula Inti Gateway 4,717,999 18,333 1,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 18,333
3 TR30-99 8th Street Bridge Replacement 15,600,000 3,120,000 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 14,600,000 3,120,000
4 TR42-99 Lauridsen Blvd Bridge Widening 1,850,000 185,000 0 1,850,000 0 0 0 0 185,000
5 TR18-99 Lincoln/Blvd Rechannelization and Signal 453,000 453,000 0 0 453,000 0 0 0 453,000
6 TR11-99 8th Street Bridges Repairs 450,000 450,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
7 PK25-99 Waterfront Trail-Valley Crk. 150,000 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 PK23-99 Centennial Trail-ITT to Lees Crk. 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 TR01-OO Front Street SIW (GC to Ennis St.] 200,000 50,000 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 50,000
10 TR02-OO First Street SIW [Ennis to GC] 200,000 50,000 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 50,000
11 TR03-oo I' St. SIW [14th St. to 16th St. . 150,000 30,000 150.000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000
12 PK76-99 Waterfront Trail Through Rayonier 979,800 75,000 0 979,800 0 0 0 0 75,000
13 PK26-99 Centennial Trail - Lees Crk to Morse Crk 340,000 170,000 40,000 0 0 300,000 0 0 170,000
14 TR97 -99 "C" Street and Fairmont LID 2,300,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,300,000 0 0
15 TR26-99 ADA Curb Ramps 1,370,000 1,370,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 750,000
16 TR17-99 Truck Route at US1011ntersection 1,150,000 1.150,000 0 0 1,150,000 0 0 0 1,150.000
17 TR32-99 9th Street Widening 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000
18 TR16-99 18th Street Reconstruction 3,300,000 3,300,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,300,000 3,300,000
19 TR04-99 Laurel StreeVAhlvers Road Reconstruction 1,010,000 1,010,000 0 0 0 0 1,010,000 0 1,010,000
20 TR13-99 City-Wide Traffic SignallnterconnecVPre... 500,000 500,000 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 500.000
21 TR33-99 Peabody Street Reconstruction 300,000 60,000 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 60,000
22 TR21-99 Lauridsen Blvd Reconstruction 1,800,000 1,800,000 0 0 0 1,800,000 0 0 1,800,000
23 TR04-OO Lauridsen Blvd SIW JJones to Liberty} 100,000 20,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 20,000
24 TR05-OO Lauridsen Blvd SIW IVine to Francis} 100,000 20,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 20,000
25 TR14-99 White's Creek Crossing 6,250,000 6,250,000 0 0 0 6,250,000 0 0 6,250,000
26 TR12-99 Park Avenue Reconstruction 1,400,000 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 1 ,400,000 0 1,400,000
27 TR70-99 Mt Angeles Road/Porter Street LID 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0
28 TR98-99 Paving Program 1 ,400,000 1,400,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
29 TR22-99 Chip Seal Program 960,000 960,000 100,000 100,000 100.000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
30 TR06-00 Alley Paving 270,000 270,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 270,000
31 TR02-99 1 st and Peabody Signal 200,000 20,000 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 20,000
32 TR60-99 5th Street Reconstruction 780,000 156,000 0 0 780,000 0 0 0 156,000
33 TR10-99 10th Street Reconstruction 1,200,000 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 1,200,000
34 TR35-99 Laurel/Lauridsen Signal 175,000 35,000 0 0 0 175,000 0 0 35,000
35 TR74-99 Sidewalk Program 480,000 0 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 0
36 TR07 -00 Park Ave. SIW [Wash. To Liberty} 270,000 120,000 0 0 270,000 0 0 0 120,000
37 TR08-OO Park Ave. SIW [Race to Wash.! 80,000 16,000 0 0 80,000 0 0 0 16,000
38 TR09-OO 16th St. SIW ['I' St. to 'F' Sl.} 243,000 93,000 0 0 243,000 0 0 0 93,000
39 TR10-oo 16th St. SIW ['F' St. to Stevens School} 210,000 60,000 0 0 210,000 0 0 0 60,000
40 TR11-OO 10th St. ['N' St. to 'M' St.} 240,000 90,000 , 0 0 240,000 0 0 0 90,000
41 TR12-oo 10th St. I'M' St. to 'I' Sl.} 170,000 34,000 0 0 170,000 0 0 0 34,000
42 TR13-OO N' St. [14th St. to 18th St.] 190,000 40,000 0 0 190,000 0 0 0 40,000
43 TR71-99 10th/13th and "1"f'M" Street LID 1 ,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ,200,000 0
44 TR69-99 Rhoads Road Area LID 840,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 840,000 0
45 TR36-99 Ennis Street Guardrail/Slide Repair 66,000 13,000 0 0 0 0 0 66,000 13,000
46 TR07 -99 Milwaukee Drive Phase I 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 2,000,000
47 TR08-99 Milwaukee Drive Phase II 3,200,000 3.200,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,200,000 3,200,000
48 TR05-99 Hill Street Intersection Reconstruction 290,000 290,000 0 0 0 0 290,000 0 290,000
49 TR80-99 Lauridsen BlvdlWashington Street Recons 250,000 125,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 125,000
50 TR20-99 Street Bicycle Facilities 600,000 600,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 510,000
51 TR06-99 8th and "C" Street Signal 170,000 170,000 0 0 170,000 0 0 0 170,000
52 TR37 -99 Bicycle Racks & Striping 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000
TOTAL OF MANDATED STREET PROJECTS 1,820,000 1,820,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000
TOTAL OF ALL STREET PROJECTS 64,314,799 32,682,395 3,985,000 6,944,800 5,921,000 9,890,000 10,895,000 23,871,000 31,262,395
.
.
.
~
\
e
.
'.
,-
~
,
~
If
~
!
i
-
~
~~
00 'O~ lbOd~I'"
~~ @@ 0
@@ ~
~
~~ ~@ "
~
~ ~ @(8) ~ "Ol:!"'3J
~j!:
Ol:!>lJIOClJl:!
.
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
PUBUC WORKS
.
'Gij)lJ~;'~
'Ot! Y""",) 1l:w.01
SCALE
I
1750
3500
I
2001- 2006 TIP /CFP PROJECT LOCATIONS
.
.
.
132
.
.
.
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
DATE:
June 6, 2000
To:
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Brad Collins, Planning Director ~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 00-01, 00-02, and 00-03
Summary: On May 31, 2000, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the three
Comprehensive Plan amendments proposed for the 2000 annual review process. The Comp Plan
can only be amended once a year and requires City Council action in June. Two changes to the
land use map are proposed by private property owners, and one change to the maximum density
policy is proposed by City staff. Only the density policy change is recommended for approval by
the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission deadlocked on approval for the proposed
map change to High Density Residential on Lindberg Road and recommended denial on the
proposed map change to Commercial on Race Street.
Recommendation: Close the public hearing and continue consideration of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA 00-01, CPA 00-02, and CPA 00-03 to the Monday
June 19, 2000, meeting.
Background I Analysis:
CP A 00-01 is a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation
of an area along the west side of Race Street between 5th And 7th Streets from Medium Density
Residential (MDR) to Commercial (C). The proposed map change is not consistent with the
Comp Plan policies, particularly Policies E.2, E.5, and E.6 which state new commercial areas
should not be located along the crosstown truck route (Race Street) and commercial development
should not be in a strip pattern (2 lots deep along Race Street). A similar amendment (CPA 96-
01) was approved changing the east side of Race Street between 6th and 7th Streets. Three letters
and a petition with 39 names was received opposing the change of Race Street land use
designation to commercial.
CPA 00-02 is a proposal to allow an exception to the maximum residential density of 43
units per acre for the conversion of existing motel or hotel units to residential units. The
intention of the amendment is to clarify a gray area in the Comp Plan which encourages the
variety, quality, availability, and affordability of housing opportunities and which now
specifically allows for residential uses in commercial zones where it wasn't previously permitted.
G:\CNCLPK1\PLANNING\000606a. wpd
()
1~33
CC Memo for 2000 CP As
June 6, 2000
Page 2
The City has experienced blight caused by the dilapidation of old motel and hotel buildings.
With the amendment reuse of motels and hotels for residential apartments and condominium .
units will be possible.
CPA 00-03 is a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation
of an area south of Lindberg Road and east of Golf Course Road Low Density Residential (LDR)
to High Density Residential (HDR). The proposed map change is consistent with the Comp Plan
policies which encourage a variety of residential opportunities and densities within a community
of viable districts and neighborhoods, creating the desired urban design of the City where
housing is available and affordable. The Comp Plan policies also direct that utility services be
provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner, distributed equitably across the City, and
designed for the maximum planned density and/or land use intensity of a given area. The
proposal is in an area of new development, and new sewer service was recently developed by the
City. The City adjusted UUD assessments for the new sewers with the expectation that new
development such as proposed would take place within the ten-year bond period and make the
assessment costs more equitable. Previous analyses of the amount of the City's land uses have
shown that there is a relative shortage of high density to low density residential designated areas.
Two Planning Commissioners did not support the proposal because of the proximity of the future
alternate crosstown route alignment, and another Commissioner felt there was enough land
available for high density residential uses.
Attachments: Staff Reports for CPA 00-01, CPA 00-02, and CPA 00-03
.
.
1 34:\CNCLPKlIPLANNING\ooo606a.WPd
.
.
.
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
DATE:
May 31, 2000
TO:
Planning Commission
Brad Collins, Planning Director ~
FROM:
FILE #:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA 00-01
APPLICANT:
MICHAEL LUND
OWNER:
Guy and Michael Lund, Harriet Zachwiejatte,
James Hollatz, Craig Smith
LOCATION:
West side of Race Street between 5th and 7th Streets
PROPOSAL:
Change of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation from Medium
Density Residential (MDR) to Commercial (C)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends denial of CPA 00-01, citing the findings and
conclusions found in Attachment A.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation for a small area on the west side of Race Street between 5th and 7th Streets from
Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Commercial (C). The application is included as
Attachment B.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Three letters and a petition with 39 names opposing the proposed change in land use
designation from residential to commercial have been received. The three letters and the
petition are included as Attachment C.
135
Planning Department Staff Report
CPA 00-01 - LUND
May 31. 2000]
Page 2
ANAL YSIS/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
The proposed Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment would expand the .
commercial land use designation along the planned crosstown truck route. Suchexpansion
is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Goal E, PoliciesE.2,
E.5, and E.6, and Transportation Element Goal B, Policies B.2, B.3, B.6, B.7, and ObjectiveB.1.
If the primary purpose for relocating truck traffic off of First and Front Streets is to avoid
commercial areas where access and congestion are significant concerns with circulation patterns,
then developing new commercial areas along the planned crosstown truck route would defeat a
purpose for the major capitaI'improvements planned and given high priority in the
Comprehensive Plan. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and palicies are included in this
report as Attachment D.
The expansion of a commercial area along the planned cr'osstown truck route on
Race Street should be seen as reducing the potential benefit for such a route and therefore
decreasing consideration of very costly improvements in the future. It is possible the
crosstown truck route could be developed along the alternate local crosstown route, now referred
to as the future Heart of the Hills Parkway, which is not scheduled for development soon. The
crosstown truck route policies were adopted to take early action to relieve the intensive pressure
on the principal arterial (US 101) and the minor arterial (M~ne Dr) corridor through the
downtown area.
A previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 96-01) changed .the east side of
Race Street south of Sixth Street from the Medium Density Residential to CODlIuercialland .
use designation. That similar amendment was found to be consistent with.Land Use Element
Goal A, Policy A.l, Goal C, and Policy C.l, which allows for a viable district including
nonresidential uses compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods, and with
Commercial Land Use Element Policy E.3 and Transportation Element Objective B.l, which
provides for adequate mitigation of new commercial uses on both the principal arterial (Race St.)
and the residential neighborhoods. When the extension of commercial zoning from Seventh
Street north along the east side of Race Street was approved, it seemed likely that commercial
land use designation could have been expected along the west side of Race Street, too.
However, four years later, nothing has changed concerning the Comprehensive Plan land use and
transportation policies, the planned crosstown truck route, nor the alternate local crosstown route:
This year a new office building was developed in the area redesignated in 1996.
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
The Public Works and Fire Departments have no comments on the proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City's State Environmental Policy Act Responsible Official issued a
Determination of NonSignificance for the proposal per WAC 197-11-355 on May 23, 2000.
CPAOOOI
.
136
'-"_"'^"-;-'::"1/)a'"ffr-'~:-'J';"'- : _-:r:~~,T:;;:~16':{"})f2:c;'?:t~n~~
Planning Department Staff Report May 31. 2000]
CPA 00-01 . LUND Pagc3
ATTACHMENT A
.
Findings and Conclusions regarding CPA 00-01 - LUN.D
Findin~s:
1. . The 2000 Comprehensive Phm Amendment is proposed by a property owner, Mr.
Michael Lund, for a change in the land use designation from Medium Density Residential
to Commercial in the area along the west side of Race Street between 5th and 7th Streets,.
. 2. The propo;al encompasses a small strip (a few lots deep for a two block area).
3. The amendment was submitted in a timely manner prior to March 31, 2000.
4. The proposed Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment would expand the commercial
land use designation along the planned crosstown truck route.
5. The Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed with respect to the proposed amendment,
and the City's Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Element Goal A, Policies Al
and A.l 7, Land Use Element Goal A, Policy AI, Goal C, Policy C.l, Goal E, Policies
E.2, E.3, E.5, and E.6, and Transportation Element Goal B, Policies B.2, B.3, B.6, B.7,
and Objective B.l were found to be the most relevant.
.
6.
The crosstown truck route policies were adopted to take early action to relieve the
intensive pressure on the principal arterial (US 101) and the minor arterial (Marine Dr)
corridor through the downtown area.
7. A Determination of Non Significance was issued per WAC 197-11-355 on May 23, 2000.
8. A previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 96-01) changed the east side of Race
Street south of Sixth Street from the Medium Density Residential to Commercial land use
designation.
9. Three letters and a petition with 39 names opposing the proposed change in land use
designation from residential to commercial have been received.
Conclusions:
A Such expansion is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Goal E, Policies E.2, E.5, and E.6, and Transportation Element Goal B, Policies B.2, B.3,
B.6, B. 7, and Objective B.l.
.
137
Planning Dcpanmcnt Staff Report
CPA 00-01 - LUND
May 31, 2000)
Page 4
B. If the primary purpose for relocating truck traffic off of First and Front Streets is to avoid
commercial areas where access and congestion are significant concerns with circulation
patterns, then developing new commercial areas along the planned crosstown truck route .
would defeat a 'purpose for the major capital improvements planned and given high
priority in the Comprehensive Plan.
C. The expansion of a commercial area along the planned crosstown truck route on Race
Street should be seen as reducing the potential benefit for such a route and therefore
decreasing consideration of very costly improvements in the future.
D. The City's action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 00-01 is consistent with the
established' procedures for amending the Comprehensive Plan, Title 18, Port Angeles
Municipal Code.
E. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 00-01 is not in the public interest without a
change in policies that give high priority to the planned crosstown truck route along Race
Street.
.
.
138
.
.
.,'
IW: -&IIi- .:t5 ~C> ()
COMPREHBNSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
APPUCATION FORM .
PIeI. ~ ~dlina; elate for applicacioo is March 31, -t9"~o
1. APPUCANT --f'I,J,ael &. LU1II.d .
ADDRPSS S J..Z . S. R ~le .9.
ill ~~:8B~ m m
L ~U;;
DAYTlMEPRONB ~5L- 5Qg2'
2.
3. .
(Use ~ paps if DeCelsary)
~,1//~/
Signed
:~~~~-OI
HeuiDa:
ATTACHMENTB 139
.
.
.
140
.
.
.
,.
p-
r
---
~'=.I. ...... Ir-........... '- 1"........- - -~_"r~ -~
~ ~ lk. ................ TA.. ~ _ ~ ':-........9~_ _ ~
~ ~, "' ~'V( -......: ~( """ ........--.::::"1/L --.J
-..... ~ I ~2%"'~~ 'r' ~f
~. .... JL ...........L/ ~-""" I~ B
~ ~ ~~t- "',' _~"'-- ~ ~~ ~
t ; ..~:~~~ :~ ": _____'~ ~ a
.~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~
~ " ~ ~~ ...... ~/"-, ~~ ~ --------~ Y'
~ ~~............, S7.. ~ ~ I)~~ '- _ ~j./
1), ~~"\' ~ "'.....,(~~-.;; ~ Zl'lIS: L"'I.. I I~~~ ~ /
~~ ~ -w ~.( '" -j{........~~ ~~1Jf '" ~~.......~~ I \hi. 1"'t7~
~ ~" ~ -~... .?,~ ;000... ~ ~.tL. ~ ~~ S' ~
- :1"--k~ , \~ ~"t'071 ........" /ro... " ...... --........... -~~Q:Yk ~~ r- ~/'~
.~~-fj )(! .~~~ YI "'~"'... "'''' ~~.........~ ~
......7.&_~ ~ ~~ ~--'\~....... .........'F#!.I/E"."'........~~ TA.. ~ V
~ y( ......... 'i :"'I ~~1 ~ IA ........ l~"'"
~~_/L~~ 'f:: ~ '(L \)~"'~~ ~............, ~ ,:<f// -=:::; ~
~ ,,~;;~~I'.~,..~ ~ ~ 'v ~ f:}~-'>::,.~ ~~~"'-'4D~f/r-~ '~~+- '<
'-':: .I/' ~ .~ ~ ,/~ (; ""-,, roo...r-"~ f'o ~ ~:::o.... 'A ~ 1"""'- ~~ \ ~
'" ~ "'-_'i...,- """- .11 ...... ~ "t "~ r; ~ ........-( ~).!::. ~ I~ ~ \i
~...... ,.( ~ ~~ 7l\."K """ \ 'R<" ~ ~ 'II"",~ '#. :...~~~ :;:~:I'k .......,~( Y)
.'~ " ~ ,~~ ,.." ~...\'r;;;;p> ~ r;. ."U,,-~"'" 0... ~~_
i:2 ~ 1'<: t;( L'5~ ~ ~ ~ _ '" ~ ~~ /)..... ::-'::7/0" ~
W 'e "" ll;i: ~ {..., ~.... ~ .'):..~~ IN: ~.v
1'"<: CS~ ~~:iIk--~:.4- !llo.. ~ P ... I' ~ .... f^: J\( 7kQ:.........., 7k ~ - 'I
:", ~ "- ~...." ,;:s 'lJ I"'" I, ~ IA~~ ~"- ~ ~_ . I....
r-.. ~ "" ~~"~ ~~~~~ "ill.: or- r'::: .... V'" ~ ~..... ~'-..j'1I ~
... I" ~ ~(~ ~/",........ ~~ ": 'l' " jJ,::::: "" :-s.. ~-7~
1'<: <r::::::, [jj '?' ~ ~ d ..... II) ~ ~ ~~ "SL d!
~~ I'-.. ~ r'" J: ~ ~ ~ ~~' J:~ ~ ,,~ I"'-, "': S r-r\....~~ :::.......""U"
Ii;;::: III' ,~ '<: 2i! ~~~""- ~ ~<. "'. . r S 1'.1. ~ \ 7'( ~ ~
l"'l '" r5: ~ . ),~l ~ ~~r\ ~ ~ I"::: h f;::- ('.;: ~ I'" ts::K ~ ~ ~
~ AU,"- >- ~ I">':,... ~ ~,A "-)I I.... ~ ~ 'i, ~ .0-':-'" ~
~~ IX. I'~ ~ ~ ~ ......I'IF ""'M""'.~ &~ ~
: ~'ul ~I'. ": Ml"~ ~ r;:.. .....J.\.~;:~. ~ ~
L'" 31mj I":: r~'" Q ~~ ';( ~ ~ 1"(;~
'\ s 'lv,j . ;:::,. T/-, _ IS ~ "':
~HI)8E'1 lJ!Ud"E1 ~ [7l-, _.{II I... H
HI'~ ~/ ,\" I ~ ~
V - J f /I r- II~II ~
~ AVE. \~ ";tl R
../
IV
UJ
It
lion'
~
~
"
'( So:
~ l""'ooo
..... ~
"'~ IS::
~ f"'o
4MB '" _ ~ NJ
'T:::;;r l~
~~_r
J'. ~t2
'ul~ ~~(~~
J ~
V r""'
V
i::i
>- ?
J.I:.
P,~R
'^
._~'~ I
a. I I
:::!;I=
L
I ...
~...
..\
I~
~
./
I
I
.) J
if
Y
-r- r- J
,.
II
I
jr ""'" ~
L M u~ AI E
1200
I
>-<
~~
,," .~ J'
~- A~ I L ~ 4 ~qk44o.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND.
LUND - CPA 00-01
f-
~
\\
r'I
r~.1
-
Ilk-
I r=E"
1-'
....
J
V
~
~ II
1-...
t_ toil'- ,,-
Ij" =
'1 1-'.'1
J~ ~
SCAlE
HI R re:. .0,
\
~"""
I
II I
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
PUBUC WORKS
~
f
I
600
~1 JI 1
r .e=1lJr'lJLN
I:...
t-'lot uo. te: U:J/2b/OU
r<evision uo. te: o~/ Cb/UU
.
.
.
142
'.<' ., .....'.::~-F'":,""":,~,':,,]:.~:.,.:.;
.
Post Office Box 160
Carlsborg, WA 98324
(360) 683-2062
(800) 753-2063
Fax (360)683-2092
May 12,2000,
if . ~
City of Port Angeles
City Hall
321 East Fifth Street
Port Angeles W A 98362
rn
lE(CffDwm
MAY f 5 3m
@:
Re: Consideration of extending commercial area to the west side of Race Street south side of
Sth Street to 7th Street.
Dear Planning Commission members and City Council:
~ ;
'f .'<
Three years ago when we requested a change in zoning for our vacant property located on the
east of Race Street between 6th.and 7th Streets, all ofus agonized on how this request would
impact the neighbors' style of life and neighborhood. The decision was that we would build a
professional office building that would "fifin" and enhance the neighborhood. The neighbors
were told during that final meeting that the commercial area would extend no further north or
west of our property.
.
We feel there was a commitment made to these neighbors and neighborhood that you as.
governing officials are obligated to uphold.
Respectfully submitted,
~r~
Sandy and Jim Reed
.
ATTACHMENT C
143
1--
5-21-2000
00 mr8mo\YJm ill'.
MAY .2 3 am
POR GElES .....
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
Port/....Jeles tit, PlaoniD4j Commission
Ci~, Ban
321 E. Fiftb St.
Port Angele$. WA 98362
Re: Public Hearing-Ma, 24-MicbaelLuod
As I V'ill DOt be in tbe arn on Hetj 24th to attend this poblic beariIMJ I herebtj sobont
the folloYi 114J:
As propertg oyner of 815 East 6th Street in Port '.les. I hereb'l Yish to IMte it.
toovn that I am lO8i Mt extention of tbe commercial designatioD that exjs~sJ.~a~t cf Race
Street t8 the vest side of R8ce Street from the south side of 5th Street .01t" Street M
requested bg Michael Lund.
H'J reason for this is tbat our area has been a 10RQ-time residential area~ ao.fas SUCh i
bope tbat it caD be preserved as a residential area.
Recentl g Mr _ Lund had requested to rezone a lot of his for a one-on-one coRs.d~j og
business in this area and at that time I did not protest. However. noy that he 1:
reqlJestilMj ahJlrger section to be rezoned I feel it is time.,totrg and stop commercla'
boilding intllispart of Port Angeles as it vould create more traffic. less private .
partiRg in our residential area as venas a saftey bazard getting out.of tbe alley
between 5tb and 6tb Street and yoold .Ieverthe va,' De of tbebo.mes 1 ft,!biS area. I
understand that Hr. Lond noY has his Jots between. 5th & 6th Street up for sale aDd I
don"'t feel that thlS area should be rezoned for his penonal g81D.
~~~
Esth.er F _ NelSOD.. propertg oyoer
of 8 t 5 E. 6th St.. Pt.Angele
Home Address:
71 Deerhaven Drive
Seqoim. Wa 98382
(phe,ne: 683-7340)
cc: pt_Angeles eit.., CouocH,
.
144
i'. 'f'-t.,'-';'" ~'\:'.
'fiJ II (I fj U W~,.~ P
l1l] MAY 2 4 2000 ; ;' ,
.~
.
We, the residents, property owners and neighbors of the proposed Race tr ea
and the adjacent and impacted"neighborhoods, oppose the proposed c e f~L~~f~
following reasons:
This is a long time residential area and we hope to preserve its character and quality as
such.
The proposed change will adversely affect residential property values and the desirability
of the residential neighborhoods.
The change will create additiona1loca1 traffic on cross streets and alleys as well as on Race
Street. This will create additional noise, increased public safety concerns, and parking
problems.
There already exist many vacant and available commercial properties in Port Angeles. It
seems that everywhere one looks there is another vacant or failed commercial building,
property or store. First Street and Eight Street are good examples. We see no need to
create more in a traditional residential area.
.
It was our original understanding that Michael Lund requested a conditional use permit for
a one-on-one consulting business in the garage, (and here we understood 'garage' in the
ordinary sense) of a proposed new building. It is our understanding that this permit
request was denied. Under those circumstances, we do not know why Guy Lund and
Michael Lund, co-owners of the properties, went ahead with their development.
Because Michael. Lund may be moving out of the area and he and Guy Lund at this time
are offering the properties for sale, we see no valid reason for their request other than to
augment the sale of their property for their personal gain, at our expense. We request that
the Planning Commission take into consideration the potentially detrimental effects on
those ofus who have b~ long-time residents and property owners of these
neighborhoods.
It is the job of the Planning Commission to prevent this type of zoning "creep" which
destroys the attractiveness and livability of our city. We urge you to encourage
development in existing Commercial areas and continue to preserve the residential areas.
Thank you.
()~ j ~
.
145
.
.
.
146
May 24, 2000
ill I;: 4D~ rn:~:
.
To: Port Angeles City PlaDDing Commission
Regarding: Amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan
PWIr,.L~
We oppose the proposed Race Street change to Commercial Land use designation and oppose further Race
Street commercial development
NAME
ADDRESS
.
. - "-il"l'\.
r/ J ., ..~ '- - .::;)..
_)( J-I i-- I ~ . J'
.
147
To:
Port Angeles City Planning Commission
I~ ~ @ In \VI ~ JijY
UO MAY 2 4 ~ IIU'
1UHtlINQ~
May 24, 2000
Regarding:
Amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan
We oppose the proposed Race Stteet change to Commercial Land use designation and oppose further Race
Street commercial development
NAME
ADDRESS
.' . 1"
.1,1', " {
'\:., "'"..- 'V ,/
. /~~Ui:~~
tc:~ f~i:
:~
'i .
/tl't /h,'~"'$. .4'.1..
;-tI- j'~ ~ ~
~. ~,'1ii. ~ ~o -
I
.
148
',.....'..f.'i:<,'.'.":i'<'.''1:.;,Y':.-.-:
Planning Department Staff Report
CPAOO-OI-LUND
May 31,2000]
Page 7
ATTACHMENT D
.
IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal A: To manage growth in a responsible manner that is beneficial to the community as a
whole, is sensitive to the rights and needs of individuals and is consistent with the State of
Washington's Growth Management Act
Policy A.I: In all its actions and to the extent consistent with the provisions of this
comprehensive plan, the City shall strive to implement the following goals of the State Growth
Management Act:
,
Policy A.I7: All development regulations shall be promulgated with due regard for private
property rights in order to avoid regulatory takings or violation of due process and to protect
property rights of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
V. LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal A: To guide current and future development within the City in a manner that provides
certainty to its citizens about future land use and the flexibility necessary to meet the challenges
and opportunities of the future.
.
Policy A.I: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map should be used as a conceptual guide for
determining current and long range zoning and other lan~ use decisions. The map's land use
designations are intended to show areas where general hind use types are allowed. The area
between land use designations should be considered an imprecise margin in order to provide
flexibility in determining the boundary of such areas. When determining appropriate zoning
designations for an area near a margin, the goals, policies and objectives of the Land Use
Element should take precedence.
Goal C: To have a community of viable districts and neighborhoods with a variety of residential
opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages,
characteristics and interests.
Policy C.I: Residential land should be developed on the district and neighborhood concept
Although such districts may be composed primarily of residential uses of a uniform density, a
healthy, viable district should be composed of residential uses of varying densities which may be
augmented by subordinate and compatible uses. Single family and multi-family homes, parks
and open-spaces, schools, churches, day care and residential services, home occupations, and
district shopping areas are all legitimate components of district development and enhancement
A neighborhood should be primarily composed oflow, medium, or high density housing.
.
Goal E: To provide shopping opportunities which meet the needs of all City residents and
visitors in safe, usable shopping areas that are compatible with the surrounding area and uses, the
environment, and the desired urban design of the City.
149
Planning Department Staff Report
CPA 00-01 - LUND
May 31, 2000J
Page g
Policy E.5: Commercial development outside the Highway 101 corridor should not be in a strip
pattern.
Policy E.6: New c'ommercial areas should not be located along the alternate local crosstown
route or the crosstown truck route.
VI. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
,Goal B: To improve circulation patterns across and within the community.
Policy B.2: The City should divert crosstown truck traffic around the downtown area.
Policy B.3: The City should facilitate the development of a crosstown truck route with
improvements which provide full access to Highway 117 to and from Highwayl Oland
improvements to the Lauridsen Boulevard Bricige over Peabody Creek and the intersections of
Lauridsen Boulevard at Race Street and Highway 101.
Policy B.6: The City should facilitate the development of an alternate local crosstown route with
improvements which provide full access at Highway 101 and Highway 117 (the Tumwater Truck
Route). Improvements should be made to the intersections of Lauridsen Boulevard at Lincoln
and Peabody Streets. Improvements should be made to the Lauridsen Boulevard bridge over
Peabody Creek. Improvement should be made for development of a crossing over White's
Creek.
.
Policy B.7: Alternate local crosstown route and crosstown truck route improvements should be
given a high priority in capital facility planning.
Objective B.t: Secondary and primary arterials will be designed with an appropriate balance
for moving through traffic and providing local access to uses that front on these arterials: In
,- ,
commercially zoned areas, policies for consolidating access and providing for joint access and
maintenance of driveways would be considered.
.
150
Dear City Council and Concerned Citizens:
~~AJ .ixlo i:AL ALuJkd-
~~~~
~ L~ ~J 'cRODO <1
First, I would like to apologize for my absence. Recently, it has been necessary for me to find
employment outside of Port Angeles and this necessity has brought me to Bellingham, Washington
where I am now working. The need for employment outside of Port Angeles will be further explained in
the content of this letter. In my absence is, Meredith Lund, my wife, who will be reading this letter to you
and who can answer any of your specific concerns that this letter does not address.
Since the submission of our application for a Comprehensive Zoning Change, we understand that there
have been some concerns regarding this change. Before we answer these concerns specifically we
would like to describe the original purpose of our building and explain why we are requesting this
Comprehensive Zoning Change.
We (Mike and Meredith Lund) started our remodeling and building project in the fall of 1999 with the goal
to build a building that could both accomodate a one-on-one personal fitness training business on the
buildings' lower level and a. rental on the upper level. We wanted to support our family with the business
income and supplement our income with the rental.
In order to obtain our goal we were informed that we needed to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. The
Conditional Use Permit was denied because we were living in a different dwelling (522 S. Race St.) than
the business would be located. As we now understand Conditional Use Permits, they specify that one has
to be living in the same unit as the business and that the business cannot exceed allowable usage time.
For example: having a business that operates ten hours a week or less is acceptable whereas a building
used 40 plus hours a week is not acceptable. Our business was not intended as "a garage operation" of
10 hrs per week or less, but as as full-time, professional, private, one-on-one personal fitness training
facility .
After being denied we went back to Brad Collins, the City Planning director. At this point, we knew we
could not start the personal fitness training business because of being denied the Conditional Use
Permit, yet we had 1200 square feet of unusable space that already included a private bathroom and
office. So we asked Mr. Collins what we could do to salvage our project. He proposed to us that we apply
for a Comprehensive Zoning Change. The precedent had already been set by Mr. Jim Reed who had
applied for a Comprehensive Zoning change right accross the street and had successfully changed his
property from residential to commercial. This allowed Mr. Reed to build his commercial office building,
which at this time is almost complete. Mr. Collins told us that if our property was changed to commercial
that we could utilize our 1200 square foot space for either a business or another rental making our
building a duplex. In addition, Mr. Collins suggested that we bypass applying for the next step up, Multi-
Family Zoning, since Mr. Reed had received opposition from the neighbors and a denial from the Council
on Multi-Family Zoning, while his proposal for a Comprehensive Zoning change had been approved.
Now let us address the concerns from the citizens of Port Angeles, one of which is safety. This is an
important issue and one with which our building complies. Before we built the building at 520 S. Race St
it was a vacant lot with many overgrown weeds, trees, bushes, and plants. There was no lighting which
made the lot a dark and unsafe place. By building, we were able to clear all the excess vegetation and
replace the vegetation with a nice looking building that included outdoor lighting that adequately lit the
yard and alley. We improved the power to the block by paying for a Transformer Upgrade. We also paid
for a new sewer and water line and repaired the damaged sewer T that connects both 522 and 520 S.
Race St. This was an important safety upgrade as the previous owner was unaware that the T that
connects the property to the city main sewer Iinee was spilling some raw sewage into the earth. As a
result of our efforts we have increased the safety of our property both above and below ground.
"
. .
..
Other concerns are: traffic, noise and size of our building. In regards to traffic and noise we designed our
building to set back code. In other words, we put the buildin~f on the furthest most west point at the back
of our property. This allows any traffic coming to and from the buliding to be blocked by the building. Our
closet neighbor, which happens to be a renter, will not see or hear people coming or going from 520 S.
Race. The entrance for the 2nd story rental is on the West side but parking both for the rental and the
lower level of the building is located to the East and North sides of the building.
The concern regarding the size of the building has already been addressed because our building was
inspected and approved by the city. Our building meets residential specifications and is smaller than if it
had been built on a lot that was already approved for commercial specifications.
There has also been a concern raised that because we are trying to sell both our house at 522 S. Race
and our building at 520 S. Race that we will be gaining financially from this sale while leaving the
neighborhood with the impact of a commericial zoning change. We can appreciate this concern and
would like to assure you that our profit will only consist of enough money to pay our loans and any
additional expenses for our project. My move to Bellingham is as result of being unable to utilize our
building for small self-employed business and being unable to find a job in Port Angeles in the fitness
field. My job in Bellingham is in the fitness field and is enough to financially support and move my family
of two, soon to be three, to the Bellingham area. Although my salary is adequate to support our family in
Bellingham, it is not adequate to support our family and our two properties in Port Angeles.Therefore, we
are forced to sell to financially survive.
We have taken our property and improved on it's safety and appearance. If we are able to successfully
change our building to commercial zoning, we believe we have already taken the necessary steps so that
the bottom half our building, whether used for an business or an additional rental, will not create any
adverse impact on our neighborhood.
While we personally feel it would be unfair to deny our proposal for a Comprehensive Zoning Change
when Mr. Jim Reed's proposal passed, we would like to appeal to your sense of fairness as you make
your decision. Please look at the facts that propelled you all to vote in favor of Mr. Reed's proposal,
directly accross the street from us, and apply those facts to our proposal. May I approach and provide
you with The findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding your approval of Mr. Reed's
proposal?
My wife and I would like to thank our neighbors for their concerns expressed through letters, a petition,
and their attendance tonight. We feel that questioning change is good and allows any potential problems
to be brought out in the open and for those problems to be addressed. We would also like to thank the
planning department for their help and patience in guiding us to this point and we would like to thank the
City Council for their time and consideration of our proposed zoning change.
Thank you and good evening.
Sincerely,
Michael and Meredith Lund
-ti,'dvuL E/ ~ ~
, ~~f\ I
m).,~d;+-FA-~ w- t.o-d:?()tJ()
FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS, COMPREHENSIVE' Pf.ANAMENDMENT - REED -
96-01:
3288
Exhibit . A.
Findings:
1. This 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendment is proposed by the property owner Jim Reed
for a change in the land use designation in area of Race Street east and between 6th and
7th Street~ from medium density residential to commercial,'
2. The Comprehensive Plan, particularly Land Use Goal A, Policy A.l, Goal C, Policy C.l,
and the Policy E.3 and Transportation Policy 8.5 and Objective 8.1, have been reviewed
with respect to the proposed amendment.
3. The subject Comprehensive Plan map area is contiguous to commercial land use
designations to the south and southwest.
4. A recent request to approve residential medium density zoning consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the sugject area was denied.
5. The amendment was submitted in a timely manner on April 1, since the March 3 1, 1996,
deadline was on a Sunday and the deadline was extended, therefore, to the next business
day and in accordance with the procedures that have been established by the City
consistent with the Growth Management Act.
6. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan was
adopted by the City of Port Angeles for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
on April 18, 1996.
Conclusions:
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-01 is in the public use and interest.
8. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-01 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Goals, Policies, and Objectives as identified in the staff report and with the Growth
Management Act.
C. The City's action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-01 is consistent with the
established procedures for amending the Comprehensive Plan, Title 18, Port Angeles
Municipal Code,
t~es City Council at its meeting of June 4, 1996.
I
s J'\-'
ayor
Ao~~, )F^
Becky J. n, ity CI k
.
.
.
i ,./
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
DATE:
May 31, 2000
TO:
Planning Commission
, Brad Collins, Planning Director '/3L/
FROM:
FILE #:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA 00-02
APPLICANT:
City of Port Angeles
OWNER:
City-wide
LOCATION:
City-wide
PROPOSAL:
Amend the density for residential units in High Density Residential zones
from a maximum of 43 units to include an exception for the conversion of
motel and hotel units at a density greater than 43 units per net acre.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends approval of CPA 00-02, citing the findings and
conclusions found in Attachment A.
PROPOSAL
Based on an administrative interpretation of Comprehensive Plan policies and
development reviews of the conversions of several existing buildings, the City is proposing the
following amendment: Land Use Element, General Comments Section, page 51, "High
Density Residential (up to 43 units per net acre, except that existing motel or hotel units may
be converted to residential units at a density greater than 43 units per net acre)." The Planning
Department's administrative interpretation is included as Attachment B.
151
Planning Department Staff Repon .
CPA 00-02 City ofPon Angeles
May 31. 2000
Page 2
ANAL YSIS/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
The proposal provides an exception to the maximum residential density that is
permitted in the City of Port Angeles with the intention of facilitating the reuse of vaca,n(and .
often derelict motel and hotel buildings. The City has experienced blight. caused by the
abaI1donment of large buildings such as the Lee Hotel, which represent a significant investmerifand
are subject to lengthy periods while sale is offered and/or when dilapidation takes place. Before the
new Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations were adopted under with the Growth Management
Act, the City's policies made residential use nonconforming in commercial zones. Changes in the
Comp Plan policies in 1994 and -the Zoning Code regulations in 1995 encouraged and permitted
residential uses in commercial zones. Consequently, reuse of motels and hotels for residential
apartments and co,!dominium units is now possible.
The proposed density revision is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Element Goals B, C, D, and F, Policies C.I-C.4, D.I, and F.3, Housing Element Goals A
and B, Policies A.I, A.2, A.5, B.3, and B.5, and Economic Development Element Policy B.5.
The entire Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed, and the most relevant Comp Plan goals and
policies are included in this report as Attachment C.
These goals and policies encourage a variety of residential opportunities and densities
within a community of viable districts and neighborhoods, creating the desired urban design
of the City where housing in available and affordable. Medium and high density housing should
be located in areas of the community most suitable for such uses, based on existing services, public
facilities, and transportation. Most existing motels and hotels are located downtown or along
primary arterials where public facilities and services are adequate to serve the needs of residential
densities in excess of 43 units per acre.
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS .
The Public Works and Fire Departments have no comments on the proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City's State Environmental Policy Act Responsible Official issued a.Determination
of NonSignificance for the proposal per WAC 197-11-355 on May 23, 2000.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments have been received. Notice of the public hearing on the proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan was published on May 10, 2000.
CPA0002.WPD
.
152
.
.
.
Planning Department Staff Report .
CPA 00-02 City of Port Angeles
'~~':";;' ,,"'~?~i!.'4:~" tJ;;*11f.;>i':'\"i;;~ ,;_"i _,~;"J:Ll<":'I'.~ ~\ ~1~f~':i;i:f~,"_~",r:a:~:!'~;:.:y; ~;:
May 31. 2000
Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
Page 1 of3
Findings and Conclusions regarding CPA 00-02 - City of Port' Angeles
Findinl:s:
1. Based on an administrative interpretation of Comprehensive Plan policies and development
reviews of the conversions of several existing buildings, the City is proposing the following
amendment: Land Use Element, General Comments Section, page 51, "High Density
Residential' (up to 43 units per net acre, except that existing motel or hotel units may be
converted to residential units at a density greater than 43 units per net acre)."
2. The proposal provides an exception to the maximum residential density that is permitted in
the City of Port Angeles with the intention of facilitating the reuse of vacant and often
derelict motel and hotel buildings.
3. The City has experienced blight caused by the abandonment of large buildings such as the
Lee Hotel, which represent a significant investment and are subject to lengthy periods while
sale is offered and/or when dilapidation takes place.
4.
Before the new Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations were adopted under.with the
Growth Management Act, the City's policies made residential use nonconforming in
commercial zones. Changes in the Comp .Plan policies in 1994 and the Zoning Code
regulations in 1995 encouraged and permitted residential uses in commercial zones.
Consequently, reuse of motels and hotels for residential apartments and condominium units
is now possible.
5. The proposal applies to motels and hotels City-wide.
6. The amendment was submitted in a timely manner prior to March 31, 2000.
7. The Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed with respect to the proposed amendment, and
Land Use Element Goals B, C, D, and F, Policies C.l-C.4, D.1, and F.3, Housing Element
Goals A and B, Policies A.I, A.2, A.5, B.3, and B.5, and Economic Development Element
Policy B.5 were found to be the most relevant.
8. The Comp Plan goals and policies encourage a variety of residential opportunities and
densities within a community of vial?le districts and neighborhoods, creating the desired
urban design of the City where housing in available and affordable.
9. The Public Works and Fire Departments have no comments on the proposal.
10. A Determination of Non Significance was issued per WAC 197-11-355 on May 23,2000.
153
Planning Department Staff Rcpon
CPA 00-02 City ofPon Angeles
May 31. 2000
Page 4
11.
ATTACHMENT A
. Page 2 of3
Notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan was .
published on May 10, 2000.
12.
No public comments have been received.
Conclusions:
A. The propos~d density revision is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Element Goals B, C, D, and F, Policies C.1-C.4, D.1, and F.3, Housing Element Goals A
and B, Policies A.I, A.2, A.5, B.3, and B.5, and Economic Development Element Policy B.5.
B. High density housing should be located in areas of the community most suitable for such
uses, based on existing services, public facilities, and transportation.
C. Residential conversions of old motels and hotels will help to maintain a healthy and diverse
commercial sector by renovating blighted buildings.
D. The City's action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 00-02 is consistent with the
established procedures for amending the Comprehensive Plan, Title 18, Port Angeles
Municipal Code. .
E. Most existing motels and hotels are located downtown or along primary arterials where .
public facilities and services are adequate to serve the needs of residential densities in excess
of 43 tinits per acre.
F. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 00-02 by encouraging housing opportunities and
economic development is in the public interest.
.
154
" '>'~;".,'
;"~i ,',. ';;)}",!!~,\!o';:\'.'J~"
May 31, 2000
PageS
Planning Depanment Staff Report
CPA ~2 City of Port Angeles
ATTACHMENT B
.
~,-110ft; _z.,-
CITY OY&'OR~NGELES
Z~:'~0': ." ~.. .... . ;:'j._~:. \ .
t _"~~:":~..."::": ".-.""~ .';~:~7~\~:-;.~.;.~.-!'t.~.. ".- \
COMPREHElksIVE :"PIAN:,umNDMENT
\-~;" ~.I
AP~N
f~LA NN\~C,
PLEASE NOTE: Deadline/or applications is March 31, 2000.
fD)~@~DW~fn)
Ul] MAR 3 I 3IIJ ~
APPLICANT/OWNER INFORMATION:
Applicant: CITY OF PORT ANGELES
Address: P.O. Box 1150. Port Angeles. WA 98362 Daytime phone #: (360) 417-4750
POR ANGElES
PLANNING DEPARIMENf
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXTILAND USE MAP CHANGE: (Note specific Plan
policy citations.)
.
Land Use Element. General Comments Section. page 51 "High Density Residential (up to
43 units per net acre except that existing motel or hotel units may be converted to
residential units at a density greater than 43 units per net acre).
JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE:
See attached "Department Interpretation - Residential density in commercial zones" dated
March 16.2000.
SIGNATURES:
Applicant:
.
I have read this application' 'ts entirety and believe the information herein presented to be true and correct.
.......
Signature
-...a.
Date S -2q -DD
c.,..(T"( t:;'r ?oeC\ 'v,v~.~L.C::S
Attachment
155
.
.
.
156
<'" :{.:{i
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G' TON, U. 5; A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE:
March 16, 2000
To:
Administrative Interpretation File
FROM:
Brad Collins, Planning Director
RE:
<;f~~~~~:~~~it7~~~~~i~~~~~~~m~J:W~V~:lr.~~~~~~~.~~llf:1;~~~~~jm~!rf~
(B~:,\-.4j it t1r:} 1 ;:>~: ::;;',~} r;' J'h~ 4\t1 ::<; ~.\ ~ /~ ~~.~~ i...~!;t. ~;"n ~t'> I ij) ~1"cl}...;i'f~tfi~Mnll~~~:J.~~1i1~5'~'>t>f'~~~o.
~i~~i..~~;.~~i})~!,;~~';e~~~~iit~~~:~d~~.&~lii1J~,. '-
Issue: Should hotel and motel uses be allowed to exceed the maximum residential density >>
allowances in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code?
Backgroundl Analysis:
.
The conversion of hotel and motel uses to residences often may not meet the maximum residential
density allowances established in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. Residential uses
became permitted uses in commercial zones in 1994 with adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan and
in 1995 with adoption of a new Zoning Code. It was assumed that residential density allowances for
high density residential designations HDR in the Comp Plan and RHD in the Zoning Code would
provide the highest density allowances needed. While this may be true for new construction, it failed
to consider the conversion of existing hotel and motel uses to apartment and condominium units.
The fact that this zoning issue was overlooked in the conversion of several hotel and motel uses
such as the Lee Hotel and the Cottage Apartments is evidence about an assumption that conversions
were anticipated. Since these conversions were not reviewed by the Planning Department in the
City's permitting process, the issue did not become evident until the conversion of the Aggies Motel
was sent to the Planning Department for review of a parking variance not a building permit.
The issue now needs to be resolved. Two steps can be taken to decide how to interpret the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. First, review of.the following Comprehensive Plan
policies and Zoning changes shows an intent to allow high density residential uses in commercial
zones and to redevelop existing (many underutilized) commercial buildings for residential purposes.
.
COIl\Prehensive Plan Policies
Land Use Element Commercial Goal D -- To create and maintain a healthy and diverse
commercial sector for a balanced and stable local economy.
157
-=.
}
Land Use Element Commercial Policy D I -- The City should encourage new and existing
commercial developments and businesses which are consistent with the goals and policies of .
the Comprehensive Phm.
Land Use Element Commercial Goal F -- To provide a pleasant, safe, and attractive shopping
environment in the traditional downtown waterfront area which provides a wide variety of
shopping, dining, entertainment, and housing opportunities for visitors and residents alike.
.
Land Use Element Commercial Policy F3 - Residential uses should be encouraged for the
downtown area as part of a mixed-use development concept.
Housing Element Goal A - To improve the variety, quality, availability, and affordability of
housing opportunities in the City of Port Angeles.
Housing Element Policy Al - The City should expand the residential land use options in the
Zoning Code by classifying residential zones by allowed density rather than by housing types.
Housing Element Policy A2 - Residential uses should be allowed in all non-industrial zones,
including commercial and office zones.
Housing Element Goal B -- To participate with Clallam County and other entities in programs
to increase the availability and affordability of public assisted housing and rental units as well
as other affordable housing opportunities.
Housing Element Policy B3 - The City, in cooperation with the County, should promote .
innovative housing techniques and should explore creative regulatory programs for the
purpose of creating affordable housing opportunities. Such programs may include transfer of
development rights into high density receiving zones, density bonuses and regulation
allowances for guaranteed low and moderate income housing projects, planned unit
developments, and high density detached single family residential developments.
Economic Development Element Policy BS - The City should encourage the availability of
housing that meets the needs of the entire spectrum of the community's work force.
All commercial zones - Commercial Office, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial
Shopping District, Commercial Arterial, and Central Business District -- were changed in
1995 to allow as either conditional or permitted uses residential uses in compliance with RHD
requirements. Except for the CBD Zone, these new zoning regulations were subsequently
changed to remove density allowances in favor of area and dimensional requirements.
It is clear that the intent was to encourage new residential development in commercial areas and for
new construction to meet RHD requirements. However, there is also an intent to accept "high density
receiving zones and density bonuses and regulation allowances for guaranteed low and moderate
income housing projects." In almost all the previous conversion projects, the small residential units
serve low and moderate income households. Based on these policy and regulation changes, an
administrative interpretation can be made in support of conversions that exceed the maximum
residential density allowance. .
158
.
e;
e
'<.?"r,'~j''.1!lt:.i'~''~Ci;k:S1'<, ';;'\\;\~:~ ~ :'~?".~~'~-~:*ri!~~~~~fr,'~
The second step is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code to clarify the intent of
the policies and regulations with regard to conversion of existing commercial buildings. This step
will begin in March, 2000, but cannot be completed untilJune or July, 2000. High density residential
receiving zones and density bonuses/regulatioIl allowances for guaranteed low and moderate income
housing projects will be included in the 2000 Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Code
amendments.
Interpretation: Conversion of existing hotel and motel uses in commercial zones may be allowed in
excess of the RHD maximum density allowances, if there is no expansion of the building area nor an
increase in the number of units. Residential new construction is still required to meet the RHD area
and dimensional requirements as they relate to the maximum density allowance.
3 It, /1/0
Date I.
~
159
.
.
.
160
Planning Department Staff Report
CPA 00-02 City of Port Angeles
May 31. 2000
Page 6
.
ATTACHMENT C
Page Iof2
IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal A: To manage growth in a responsible manner that is beneficial to the community as a whole,
is sensitive to the rights and needs of individuals and is consistent with the State of Washington's
Growth,Management Act.
Policy A.I: In all its actions and to the extent consistent with the provisions of this comprehensive
plan, the City shall strive to implement the following goals of the State Growth Management Act.
Policy A.I7: All development regulations shall be promulgated with due regard for private property
rights in order to avoid regulatory takings or violation of due process and to protect property rights
of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
V. LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal A: To guide current and future development within the City in a manner that provides
certainty to its citizens about future land use and the flexibility necessary to meet the challenges and
opportunities of the future.
.
Policy A.I: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map should be used as a conceptual guide for
determining current and long range zoning and other land use decisions. The map's land use
designations are intended to show areas where general land use types are allowed. The area between
land use designations should be considered an imprecise margin in order to provide flexibility in
determining the boundary of such areas. When determining appropriate zoning designations for an .
area near a margin, the goals, policies and objectives of the Land Use Element should take
precedence.
Policy A.2: All land use decisions and approvals made by the City Council and/or any of its
appointed Commissions, Boards or Committees should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and its land use map.
Objective A.I: The City will review and revise as necessarY the existing Zoning Map, and other
development regulations to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Residential Goals and Policies
Goal B: To have a community where residential 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, and the
desired urban design of the City.
.
Goal C: To have a community of viable districts and neighborhoods with a variety of residential
opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages,
characteristics and interests.
161
Planning Department Staff Report.
CPA 00-02 City of Port Angeles
May 31. 2000
Page 7
ATTACHMENT C
Page 2 of2
.
Policy C.I: Residential land should be developed on the district and neighborhood concept.
Although such districts may be composed primarily of residential uses of a uniform density, a
healthy, viable district should be composed of residential uses of varying densities which may be
augmented by subordinate and compatible uses. Single family and multi-family homes, parks and
open-spaces, schools, churches, day care and residential services, home occupations, and district
shopping areas are all legitimate components of district development and enhancement. A
neighborhood should be primarily composed of low, medium, or high density housing.
Policy C.2: Medium and high density housing should be located in areas of the community most
suitable for such uses, based on existing services, public facilities, and transportation.
Policy C.3: Medium and high density housing should be served by arterial streets of sufficient size
in order to satisfy traffic demand and to lessen neighborhood traffic congestion.
Policy C.4: Medium and high density housing could be a transitional use between different land
uses, provided such other uses would not adversely impact the residential nature of the housing.
Commercial Goals and Policies
Goal F: To provide a pleasant, safe, and attractive shopping environment in the traditional .
downtown waterfront area which provides a wide variety of shopping, dining, entertainment, and
housing opportunities for visitors and residents alike.
Policy F.3: Residential uses should be encouraged for the downtown area as part of a mixed-use
development concept.
VIII. HOUSING ELEMENT
Goal A: To improve the variety, quality, availability, and affordability of housing opportunities in
the City of Port Angeles.
Policy A.5: The City should plan for sufficient urban services to support future housing in a variety
of allowable densities.
XI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Policy D.5: The City should encourage the availability of housing that meets the needs of the entire
spectrum of the community's work force.
.
162
.
.
.
, ,
~'
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U.S. A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
DATE:
May 31,2000
TO:
Planning Commission
Brad Collins, Planning Director 80
FROM:
FILE #:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA 00-03
APPLICANT:
MORNINGVIEW DEVELOPMENT
OWNER:
Mr. and Mrs. Henry Heerschap
LOCATION:
Southeast Corner of Lindberg and Golf Course Roads
PROPOSAL:
Change of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation from Low
Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends approval ofCP A 00-03, citing the fmdings and
conclusions found in Attachment A.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation
for a small area on the south side of Lindberg Road and east of Golf Course Road from Low
Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR). The application is included as
Attachment B.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
One letter in opposition to the proposal has been received and is included as Attach-
ment C. The letter requested an estimate of how much of the current zoned HDR in Port Angeles
is already developed as HDR and expressed concerns about traffic accidents. Notice of the public
163
Planning Department Staff Report
CPA 00-03 - Momingview Development
May 31, 2000]
Page 2
hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan was published on May 10, 2000.
Several previous analyses of the amount of the City's land uses have shown that there
is a relative shortage of high density residential to low density residential designated areas. .
The most recent land use analysis in Port Angeles was included in the 1995 SEIS for the Areawide
Zoning Code amendments. In that study, 165 acres of high density residential land was available
compared to 2,300 acres of low density residential zoned property. In 1993 EIS for the
Comprehensive Plan, an analysis of the vacant, buildable acreage found 12 acres ofRHD zoned land
and 491acres ofRS-7/RS-9 zoned land were available. There have been minimal changes in the
City's development in the second half of the decade of the 1990's. The City's April, 2000, official
population estimates were based on 78% single family and 22% multi-family housing units with a
declining household size. The trend in single family and multi-family housing percentages in other
communities also indicates increasing needs for multi-family zoned land.
ANAL YSIS/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
The proposal to change the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation along
the south side of Lindberg Road to High Density Residential (HDR) is consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Goals Band C, Policies C.l-C.4, Utilities and
Public Services Element Goals A and D, Policies A.l, D.l, and D.11, Housing Element Goal A
and Policy A.5, and Economic Development Element Policy B.S. The entire Comprehensive Plan
has been reviewed, and the most relevant Comp Plan goals and policies are included in this report
as Attachment D.
These goals and policies encourage a variety of residential opportunities and densities
within a community of viable districts and neighborhoods, creating the desired urban design
of the City where housing is available and affordable. Medium and high density housing should
be located in areas of the community most suitable for such uses, based on existing services, public
facilities, and transportation. The properties in the area along Golf Course Road were annexed into
the City several years ago, and a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) was formed to provide
sewer services. In this case, high density housing could be a transitional use between the Bonneville
Power Administration electrical transmission lines and the golf course without adversely impacting
the residential nature of the housing on the site and in the area. Although the subject area is served
by Lindberg and Golf Course Roads, both of which are arterial streets, roadway improvements will
be needed at the time of development for City street standards to be met and projected traffic demand
to be satisfied.
The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies also direct that utility services be provided
in an efficient and cost-effective manner, distributed equitably across the City, and designed
for the maximum planned density and/or land use intensity of a given area. The proposal is in
an area of new development, which should be served by sanitary sewers. Accordingly, new sewer
service was recently developed by the City. However, the ULID costs were higher than expected,
creating a financial hardship on property owners and utility rate payers. The City adjusted the ULID
assessments with the expectation that new developments such as are proposed would take place
within the ten-year bond period and make the assessment costs more equitable.
There are several other High Density Residential designations in the vicinity of the
subject area adjacent to the Peninsula Golf Club. The Comp Plan amendment proposal is
consistent with these other developments which are oriented to retirement and recreational
164
.
.
,.,~ ,.~.; , ":!;."',
;i~;:;,.i:,,,., :,::'1',:L};t,,~';;,,;
From:
Patricia Walker
1815 E 3rd Street
Port Angeles, WA 98362
,1t
..H
Date: 5 June 2000
To: Port Angeles City Council
Subject:
CPA-00-03-Morningview Development, Lindberg Road/
Golf Course Road
I am opposed to this change in the City's Comprehensive Plan
Land Use designation at this time for the following reasons:
1. It will restrict the City's flexibility in meeting
future challenges in regards to the Comprehensive Plan's
Transportation and Open Space Elements.
The City has 3 major transportation issues which impact this area by
crossing White and/or Ennis Creeks: a route for local crosstown
traffic along Lauridsen Blvd; a diversion of crosstown truck
traffic; and coordination with County, State and Federal agencies
for a possible future US 101 corridor.
This 9 acre area is between Ennis and White Creeks and appears to
include the Bonneville Power line right of way in the vacinity where
these lines cross Golf Course Road south of Lindberg Road. White
Creek ravine is currently designated by the Land Use Map as Open
Space between Lindberg Road and First Street, as is that portion of
Ennis Creek ravine which lies within City limits. White Creek is
currently relatively uncompromised from/Lindberg Road on the S to
3rd Street on the N. Much of Peninsula College's natural open
spaces and pathways are along its western edge. The power line
cuts across this creek have denuded the adjacent areas by a distance
over 200 hundred feet wide. It is likely that Ennis Creek has been
similarily impacted where it is crossed. The City should continue to
do all that it can to protect these areas as Open Spaces and to
minimize futher damage to them. Any future transportation
developments across White Creek should be S of Lindberg along or
near the power line crossings. Near future high density
development in this area, which is afterall the purpose for this
request for change in Land Use designation, will futher limit the
options for these major transportation issues which themselves will
directly and, if mismanaged, negatively impact the White and Ennis
Creek Open Spaces.
2. There is ample land in this portion of the City already
designated by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as High Density
Residental.
When the Comprehensive PLan was adopted in 1994 most of the area
along Del Guzzi Drive (N and E of this proposed change) was
designated as HDR. City sewers, road improvements etc. seem in
place in this area. To date only one very small area (the Fairway
Condominiums built in 1993 and still half empty) has been further
developed. The area along Melody Lane (N and W of this proposed
change) is also designated HDR and its densest housing (Highland
Commons I and II) has filled slowly and is still 10% vacant.
r~nl ~l Wi 0 ID ID ~ ill
II! r
;1,
~
I
3. There is apparently an increasing number and variety of
senior housing options available in Port Angeles. The City does
not need at this time to change the Land Use Plan to facilitate
the potential development of this land parcel for a senior housing
development.
4. Changing the Land Use Plan to HDR in this area suggests,
1n looking at the full Comprehensive Land Use Map, that Port Angeles
is encouraging or even channelling its densest housing along its
edges and especially to its southeast corner. Is this the desired
direction the City wishes to take? I think it unW1se.
/fL' {jj~
Patricia Walker
.
.
.
Planning Department StaffRepon.
CPA 00-03 - Momingview Development
May 31. 2000]
Page 3
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
The Public Works and Fire Departments have no comments on the proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City's State Environmental Policy Act Responsible Official issued a Determination
of NonSignificance for the proposal per WAC 197-11-355 on May 23, 2000.
CPA0003.WPD
b
/
165
.
.
~
.
166
Planning Department Staff Report
CPA 00-03 - Momingvicw Development
May 31, 2000]
Page 4
.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 10f3
.
Findings and Conclusions regarding CPA 00-03 - Morningview Development
Fiodio&s:
I. The 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment is proposed by a property owner, Morningview
Development, for a change in the land use designation from Low Density Residential to High
Density Re~idential in the area south of Lindberg Road and east of Golf Course Road.
2. The proposal encompasses a small area between the Bonneville Power Administration
electrical transmission lines and Peninsula Golf Club.
3. The amendment was submitted in a timely manner prior to March 31, 2000.
4. The applicant is requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for a
small area on the south side of Lindberg Road and east of Golf Course Road from Low
Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR).
5. The proposed Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment would increase the vacant,
buildable high density residential land available in the City by approximately 9 acres (5%).
.
6.
One letter in opposition to the proposal has been received, requested an estimate of how
much of the current zoned HDR in Port Angeles is already developed as HDR, and expressed
concerns about traffic accidents.
7. Several previous analyses of the amount of the City's land uses have shown that there is a
relative shortage of high density residential to low density residential designated areas.
8. The most recent land use analysis in Port Angeles was included in the 1995 SEIS for the
Areawide Zoning Code amendments. In that study, 165 acres of high density residential land
was available compared to 2,300 acres oflow density residential zoned property. In 1993
EIS for the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis of the vacant, buildable acreage found 12 acres
ofRHD zoned land and 491 RS-7/RS-9 zoned land were available.
9. There have been minimal changes in the City's development in the second half of the decade
of the 1990's. The City's April, 2000, official population estimates were based on 78%
single family and 22% multi-family housing units with an declining household size.
10. The Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed with respect to the proposed amendment, and
the City's Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Element Goal A, Policies A.I and
A.17, Land Use Element Goal A, Policy A.I, Goal C, Policy C.1 were found to be the most
relevant.
.
167
Planning Ocpanment Staff Repon .
CPA 00-03 - Momingview Development
May 31. 2000)
Page 5
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2 of3
.
11.
These goals and policies encourage a variety of residential opportunities and'densities within
a community of viable districts and neighborhoods; creating the desired urban design of the
City where housing in available and affordable.
12. The properties in the area along Golf Course Road were annexed into the City several years
ago, and a Utility Local Improvement District (UUD) was formed to provide sewer services.
13. Although tl1e subject area is served by Lindberg and Golf Course Roads, both of which are
arterial streets, roadway improvements will be needed at the time of development for City
street standards to be met and projected traffic demand to be satisfied.
14. The Comprehensive Plan goa.\s and policies also direct that utility services be provided in an
efficient and cost-effective manner, distributed equitably across the City, and designed for
the maximum planned density and/or land use intensity of a given area.
15. In a recent UUD that included the subject area, costs were higher than expected, creating a
financial hardship on property owners and utility rate payers.
16. There are several other High Density Residential designations in the vicinity of the subject
area adjacent to the Peninsula Golf Club.
17. A Determination of Non Significance was issued per WAC 197-11-355 on May 23, 2000. .
Conclusions:
A. The proposal to change the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation along the
south side of Lindberg Road to High Density Residential (HDR) is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Goals B and C;Policies C.I-CA, Utilities and Public
Services Element Goals A and D, Policies A.I, D.l, and D.II, Housing Element Goal A and
Policy A.5, and Economic Development Element Policy B.5.
B. Medium and high density housing should be located in areas of the community most suitable
for such uses, based on existing services, public facilities, and transportation.
C. In this case, high density housing could be a transitional use between the Bonneville Power
Administration electrical tran~mission lines and the g~lf course without adversely impacting
the residential nature of the housing on the site and in the area.
D. The proposal is in an area of new development, which should be served by sanitary sewers,
and new sewer service was recently developed by the City.
.
168
~<:?(:~{'~~7-lfJti~!,;'~~;i<(::'~e:i; ",,'~ ., ,t: ~":',,;.: 'ik~~'(~),~':::i~\!:'t~fW~~;:;,',_,,:
Planning Department Staff Report
CPA 00-03. Momingview Development
May 31. 2000]
Page 6
.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 3 of3
E.
The City adjusted the ULID assessments in the subject area with the expectation that new
developments such as are proposed would take place within the ten-year bond period and
make the assessment costs more equitable.
F. The Comp Plan amendment proposal is consistent with other developments in the Peninsula
Golf Course area which are oriented to retirement and recreational community interests.
G. The City's-action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 00-03 is consistent with the
established procedures for amending the. Comprehensive Plan, Title 18, Port Angeles
Municipal Code.
H. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 00-03 by encouraging housing opportunities and
economic development is in the public interest. .
.
.
169
.
.
.
170
Planning Department Staff Report
CPA 00-03 - Momingvicw Development
May 31, 2000]
Page 7
ATTACHMENT B
.
APPLICAN'l'/OWNER INFORMATION:
Applicant:.MIJTI'l"("i~ 1:>twlOfmw Mv-= 7bYl _~_ .
Address:~OO PUt It (/ .J-ku..,. (;3. .;. <:;/ ( Daytime phone #: ~. ~ 2.Z . ~l~
~~ tut).~4- . _-
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXTILAND USE MAP CHANGE: (Note specific Plan
policy citations.)
~t. .JUt (1JIMp'(. kfM$iv e p/a,v.- I ()M.J USl u-I~;"i 01
J~e'~.~~ I)..?Vl ~u'1 (Z?f!) aJ- -/fie t!:,;,o()..Jt.&1-t.+ ~lAtW
,
o f ~o /t (ou>,~/!. ~ ~ lollJ '])~<;':t:J f'aid.e.dia-I
1Zai 1!AA-1' . Art so c.k l-
I h: ~'rr A'
JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE:
~il/l~~~ J6..1. &I()D.f,'~ 0 f -Ut.e. (1JlAAv.,{,t...W.S~lJt~ PraM.
I r
-?NP/(f).{ ~.u ;/1\ d"CU':'6~U. iAav.e CJcc-urre,d.
kMA~ ~M(\-' a.v~ 11M.. ItAd.tIJ,Cl-1 /1\ c./4.t yt--!-;t'{.PvtJ
, ~ 0 t Ul,/ D V~
SIGNA~ tt'1 t... d 6146; '1 profu,,! i",-It..e
'-
.
Applicant:
Signature
he information herein presented to be true and correct.
I have read this application in its
Date ?/~1/~1
~ riA, ,. h,-J- %"
-_._---_._---~_._.._---_._--- ---.------ -~_._.._-----_.._..__._.__.- '_._--~--- - ----- ----- ------- - --- . - -.--- ----- - -
_._u...__..____.__ .. ---p-..-"---.---.--- ...--- ...-.--.-- -- ---'-- .--. - . -...----- .. .
____tf;JMpalMm1M-.--~ po I~ a:~~~~ ~_diA;s __..___.... ...
________~UJ:eJ..---~-L.ffi~v.d e,;____~-. _______________.
.____________._.._ --- -.-------.-.--... --------. -------... - .- "--.____._. ..._ '-0.' _..__._ _
______~_u.~_...M4_~-,lldi0.v. LOh~JL~n=-_____ ___ _
. . =---=bo(!A, . 01' u'lki~-:;.- ~b~+t:i:-; (~)-;;;-;;:;~=_~
______&~~ u-r d 4&.e c:ku{~u ~ ___u__~
____... J2f~ltt..Jb.e.'S-J2.L. ~~L_/!,LO.0 Id__1.~.. __ ____....
----.--lMd-...Lcb~ l~!- --~I&!p:,~'!,(1,(~_u._~_____
----.--bh,~-~~~t;~LI::.;J~-e :: 7d!!f-fJ1~---
. ~_____ M~___~__lj2J~____.._____.______
---/}J~_{kd-~(;J _.~i lr~s~_.4L_~__.
~==~~~~-;:-=-e:fZ:~~~_ ._. ~~~-_~~~~=-~
~~~=~~~~==-~=--~====~-=----
--------.-"..------..---...-- -.-.-"" .----....-------.-..---.------.....--.--.
__________. G?o~l~~ (~id~1-i4LJtA/~/f)ow}w :~L~~_
I ----- - -- ------
___________fJ2VY.DMikL~__ .wiJev K_L__~rJr'yrfYl.-l/V\W- f--~~L~
_____ ..__~o___!LI~--'MA-1i l1t;~__..~!(ed_.1k1"jIL~_h_____.._____L__..
__ d ~J~~ OJ.__&~_~~----1JJal!jd~_J.H,,---__--
--------H1d-~--c1A.~-~_ltt-"--w~fLl 4~~ i~____
_.._.~ -~~._-----
._ ______... __~ib.t. (~o.._) ~tUf(M_~(,Q.vI-'!f2' e)!. ___.fuJ:.Jt.-......dk..-.
-- _~__o __ -Lk!b-~--.- _Lit? uiJd~_~IiIL~~ ______..___._ ___________0.______
_17-_ ' ~.____________________o__~....._______ _ _
+ '-& .. -- -- .--- ,- ...-----.
;(rijl1,~'lr~f~~1~~~i~~~fi~~:,~~;_., ,2f' ':'~;~~~-~'tif:f~!f~~7f-~i<
. ...._. .... _.P~L,'~.it!.?_._.~_. ._.__......__. __..._...___ ..___. ...
. ."_....._-~_._---_.. --...-.-.--- --...---.--- .~-----------,-_._-_._- -.-.~--....-.-
------...--...--.. ------- -_... ---
... _._. _. ._..n...~__...__.____. ._.._._ ___, .__._.__._.... _.__. ___ __ _._,___.__ _.______..____.____________.,.____~,..~_
._....__(~__u~_._ .2~~___f!J~l~_ ~'-._J2~ fMJa/ (~l ~--IMAd_.._ ._
- .-. .- ----.-
u . . -- - ______ulAtLU"yd_ - !:J~-/1!1__fJ'!JJLld/y1JA!d~---ti--~~----..-
.----u--~-~L.iY\_.PLt---1?o-~~ . ~';C/s+(~ _~ _____
.__.___.... .__.______U-'~.;.lD Z(~~._.___ ." ___
- _.-=-~:~-i~Pn:j~~~~.JJ:x-~~lrew ,.J,J-f,'~ievvf
... .__._____....00.__... L ( r' ~1Jt1/- .. ( ~_fBtev.()M.C_f!, .-0+ ~~
u----u---j.d~--!Y~4r.evf- p4.;H-uv- wJ)1t!.I) k_
--------#:.f2JL1~;;:;/1!1~.lIlIMW of bofl___
--- __f-L;~e. .~ d :hl'lbH( fa;.d. ~__
. .___-..0 ______._._.____ 'C'. _.
_n___4:,__P((c:5~u~-f,9vc of a-u4 ~.Itv!('yhfJ1r- ~
~ . l' tJJ' ~.
_n_..__.._____m .__.... .'I)k1sul1fl~uslA (fM1~~ ~ I~ .UCMS ____.._____
______.__D.1.__ c:/!i,e :1/L...Lt20'~~-, +::..di~~ ______
-....._.____._____sl[~~__. 0__ Ju~ d~~_~V~wvvJ~_.
- -.-.-_~-..-.-.-_-~..A..-1J.11J1A {cJ b..L-PftW~ -fo-v tLS CUA- ..______
-....- -.----. . ._____.~L~~ ... 01 -lUe dt1/~W){)MA- Of a... ______
.'" - -- -.---... ..___~~t9:L.(StJ.i)___~M~ewJ- wJf1ffey:. W',le.- ._.____
_. ._.._-._m___._OAM..~L~.____.____
__.__u__. ....,
..... --- ---_._.~... ..-..-.-.--.--.--.----...--.-.--
----------- - .--.----:-.
-. ..- un. ---~04L-.:::.-_L_.___.___ ___.
.-----.. -----...-..-.
-.--..-...----... -.----...---- '--.---...-.-.-----
--..- ~---.._-------
.--.-J:2~-....n.Lf1--JJ1(l,~~.ti~/pO,r/;,.OM . w.,rrU-- IL .____
____n___ - JJMIL~--oLLt<31 __ oJ -'2f2(J ()-~n___~_____
-"."- --.--.. ..----..------ .......--.-----.-- -.---.~-~-------- ..------. ---'--73-'
.. .., -.- _._--_..~._._. . -. ..--.- -,. .-..--- -- -_... --.... .-.--...----- ..'.-.---..------------- --..- _._----,--,,-- ----.-.-....- .
-----llLt-
- <i: ..
;- --91~ -vv!57;~ J?mr~p-':t$.9YlS ar--~rJOf1tv;p~------
~.-. ----~~?r!M;crJ--'-v-q_n'lffiT- Hi --~1----u- - -- ----
------.--/?lft-t;j'---;-;;,~!c;"'1VYJ'ri/.t.jdW;; /0 "7f~?Aj77-T~fnfAJq ~ ---
--_. .--..- ----. -..---- _.... -- -.--._.._-_. -_.-. ..--..-..-.---..-.--.--...------- - -------.
_u_______._______________ ----,-- ?rt-~ -I''W? lMf'~-----
---.--..---.---Vo5J.~T~7-V----- IQ--~ V1J ~)t(l-- .-.---
, . -(II '
.-- 'd/CfPf!Ws- fYOf/VJ 7IJh 1 0 . -;1[:fI ~) YJf o/rvi --prrwrr)----------.------
-- !-Brio {'drop '} 1Jt h VJ ~ fJ fr(J.AJ- n!f! J !?W( ). J.'Yif"lfJ- ------
--- j?v'iirSlZ-(J n-n-k1--~fia;#- ,~-r.)J_(jM??~lt51.j,a . ~ -
---.----....-___._0______-.--. _ ".__.._____. ..___.__.. ___.__. ..._______._______....___.___....________ ------ -.-..-------
---- --..--------------...---------- ------- -------------------.-f~J;f+-~V..-'dW ---------
---~JD--PCi1W[7W7flJ-VJ~TVI-~~) TVt.f;) ~'1~--- -.
--------ar-t:~i;;~ I -n-rJO'3> =wdcY ) Y':t.r~---------
. .---~iY) ':i-?]-JwiV/flw.? ~1!!E~--';-------
-----]0 ~lMrftpl?Mp~C(Yl.([Jro-+,-c;~J4/ 7VJ- _u__
- __.n__." .-.rrVFWf].---+~rXfs.rP_77P!fW7 r15~ A -"-?JC1"'!lT"--~IW 1---v---:r -.---.----
. ..--. ---- --- - -----_.-. '---'-- _...~._._.. ...... ---------_._--_..._...~.._------ -.-------......,...--.-------.-------..-- .---
~.::~~~~_.~..~-~~~--------..- -------.....- ...-----.---== -:- y;I.?! ~ Od__=~------"'--
_u_______~______u____ . N?)/,() ~.' ,YI1}f rviJJ~--~
--------pvfW-7}7;./Vi(JT~----T"1r--;--a(j7Y}-p1W-fVl<1 17 -------
--uu---f;;,-!Wi~-Sfwr WI ifOPMP--*fTSWlrl! Vf ~----
_u--7'ff--~1Tj (ir- -X7.J/i4--af--~rk~--fW& iMf~ V051 )----
---- u #J--'~c:?"()-tvqJ Tn' or -wrJraf--~7 WIV[~~~-~_:;r..~- _-~~-=_._~
- . - .-~~. -b,lf-pl1'T!~ -fj1--prv1-if7 ~nP1t\A 1
-. .-~- Us") !fS.'N7-FnJ~Vf7 Ln/nr-rrw--J1}u-id:wd-'--q u. ____u_
.- .. . .-. ,-... -_.... .-....-....- .." .-.." ... ..- ..~_.._._._. ._.._..- ..-....... ...- .........-..------. -.......-----....-.----.---.-...---------.------.-----.'-
-9'l' 'Lh-U.------- -.----.----------------:p--~-------------.-----.-- ,-
. -
-------_.~---_.._-------_._..... ---...-....-- - ---
- -- --,------,--_.-~---_:~--==~-~~--~::--~:~=~~~~-=:-~~~.
.
"
1---------- __u____
- - -:-mFtl7;;-lWJf'.'n-~ ~!'J1A-1p-~?YWf--pw1(J-~un-----
---?iJ4J7J7 if/ ---dift---~~7Yrpq-----t"htdV17Jl7--.)'5rT--------- - ------------- -,-
--~.iff~~Af_ MII~ ~- -r;r!Jff1J<!--PJ71WiT- ..---- .- -..
WJ7~ ~ IMfnJ:(; (+Q5)7?i ~ W17--"'~wiJ---~-::u ---- ---.
.'.>iiy;.f~...:,\::~"t,f;:,,;:
...., :"",":" ,:./Je",.:'
1-----
.
.
.
176
p-
""l
.
~
~
~~I ~ ~
~')o...'- /A ~ ~~ __
~~~ ~~~~~ :t \.h! "'''' ~
~""X~ """ ~~~ "-#.. ~ - ~ '" "x/, ~I\......:
~~~.,.. ..................';,....."',.......~~ ~-1k/) l~""'"
~ ~ '" I"......... ""'- ,,,,'0'/::0... '\ ~ t /
~?'" 7'~"'" ~ ,~,v, 7A.~ 71 ''\~ \ ~ V~> ~
'f.,{ \):..~........~ ~......... 'J/ xu. .:">'1 ~ ~~:n 1Il I-
~ ~ ~~ ~7"," "(0: ~")-...+- ; Q 0::
"~ ~ iIi- ~;A. ~~ )~i ~~~ I. ~\V~~ : tJ ~
~~ /; l/~~ h "-...~_"S j(.................. "Y-L ~.")'A. ~:I: ~
~;..... f"lo. ~ ~ ~(......... ~('/) ~ u 0 :n E 5TH
~ ~ fI. -,....., ~ .......7lt;~~ ':Sf/I 6 0::
~ I,:::" 1.":-'" y~ >-"':.~ I ~ ~ (E 6TH
~ ~~ "//~ :::"~~~7'-r~~I< f -: :n
lJ .....:: ......:::.-....... ~ " ,~ ~ E 7TH v),
~ ~ ~ Ij(. /~ ~ ..... -..;:.,.,~ """" --......~-, } '- -1 KELLER ':: .
IliIr( ~ "I)~ "- ~ f') '" ~ ~K' TJL ::-t". ""'" 1 <
~~ 1"::-,. I'-... >:::- ~ ~~ ~ f\''-U,,,,~ '" RYAN DR l'J
X::-3(< "- ~-'::.'I]:o tr s ~ I'J ~1.1?- J ~~S:::....~!:-*lF-"'::::-_~ I - Pln"''"ER ~
;;""-111 I'::r:-,lt :-... ~- ~'/'..........::::: 1l"V, ~~~;--1~ r~~ \ ) ~~~
~ rL;::::..... I," ...... ~ -..;:~ ..., ~ '.., 'f" ":"::::::,,~ ____ ~
~~~l<:.I>: .l ~r;~ rf 0 ~~ ~
..;:: 1"'::,.:. l'>.. '~ ~'" ~ . I ...1.."-- ~~ ,
I_~ ";6) ~ ~ ~ ::-'/ ... ~~............ ~ __ - ~ -~
:::, ..;:: ~/r7~' ,...!;;== II -Is i'-.. ~ IQ ~ \
} rc~ ~ . -=:: H -=:: VI ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ J II
~~ .... r-: ~ ~
I !':: ",,,: .A ~
~ ,I J 1J1. :::;; .... / U o.
IT ~AM8 IT N rn Y L E /;,./-.\.. ::;;
V ..:: ~ ..., I E ",,!o:: ~~.
- v"; Jlk~~:: ~ ~; >V
U ".Mco, ". "
~
9
n E 3RD
N
~
E 4TH
1
.
..
J
'''II''
L M ~l A \ E
.....
PAULINE RD
:;; ~,
11
f
...
=
;;;
"t!-
~ ~
')'L\:
J' , :I
Ii.....
I" !!: !'.. -~
I-~ "'-- ::> '.
\If. I"s.l ! A 0 C~;
"-
( l:>
z
"-'
If)
Z
"-'
-, HUGHES
McBLAIR LN.
\
BROWN RD.
ci
a:
w
o
a:
z
o
~
0-:
V)
FERNWOOD LN. 3
If)
z
w
-,
:--
.
L
w
!:c'!
---.J
-
SCALE
I
600
1200
I
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND.
MORNINGVlEW DEVELOPMENT - CPA Oij '~~_I
Revision Do.te: 05/c6/00 r i\l?:OOM_rLN ~
~
I-'lot Uo. te: OS/26/00
.
.
.
178
Planning Department Staff'Report
CPA ()()'()3 - Momingview Development
May 31, 2000)
Page 8
ATTACHMENT C
.
, .
Date:
25 May 2000
m ~; Z~60~-fID;
To: Brad Collins, Planning Director, City of Port Angeles
Planning Commission Members
Prom: Patricia Walker
1815 B 3rd.Street
Port Angeles, WA 98362
PORT ANGElES -
PlANNING OEPMnMENT
t
Subject: -CPA-oO-o3-Morningview Development, Lindberg Road/
Golf Course Road
.
.r am at present opposed to changing any LDR in this area
to HDR. I would request that the planning department present
a clear estimate of how much of the currently zoned HDR in Port
Angeles is already developed as HDR and how fully developed it is.
I don't see any need for additional HDR designations in this locale.
The 2 HDR areas nearest this locale appear to have ample vacant .
residences. The manager at Highland Commons II on Melody Lane in
the HDR somewhat to the NW of the Morningview site, indicates that
of the 98 units in Highland Commons I and II, 4 to 6 are vacant in
each of these two buildings. These buildings have not filled
rapidly. The 3 smaller high density structures on the N side of
Melody Lane, just west of its corner with Golf Course Road, have
perhaps 12 units in total among them. Although they appear relatively
full now, they have had noticeable vacancies from time to time.
The real estate office handling the Pairway Condominiums at 710
Del Guzzi Drive (apparently the next nearest HDR zone), indicates
that 5 units out of a total of perhaps 9 units, are currently
available for sale. These units, built in 1993, also have not filled
rapidly.
For several months there has been a sign or series of signs
at the corner of Lindberg and Golf Course Roads declaring 9 acres
available for development.. If this entire 9 acres is included in
this CPA, this i~arge portion of land. L shaped it extends 915
feet BW along Lindberg (perhaps 3/4 of the length of Lindberg across
from the S edge of the Peninsula Golf Club course), 680 feet along its
B edge and 330 feet NS along Golf Course Road (extending approximately
halfway up the hill toward Maddock Road).
I, like many other seniors and others who live or work in this
general area, walk almost daily along Golf Course Road, Lindberg Road
and Del Guzzi Drive. The traffic has increased substantially over
the years. More High Density housing will mean more traffic, more
potential for accidents and less enjoyment in these walks.
.
Sincerely,
~U;~
Patricia Walker
179
.
..~,'"
,.,."""',,
.
.
180
Planning Deparnnent Staff Report
CPA 00-03 . Momingview Development
May 31, 2000]
Page 9
.
ATTACHMENT D
Page I of2
IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal A: To manage growth in a responsible manner that is beneficial to the community as a whole,
is sensitive to the rights and needs of individuals and is consistent with the State of Washington's
Growth Management Act.
Policy A.I: In all its actions and to the extent consistent with the provisions of this comprehensive
plan, the City shall ,strive to implement the following goals of the State Growth Management Act.
Policy A.17:. All development regulations shall be promulgated with due regard for private property
rights in order to avoid regulatory takings or violation of due process and to protect property rights
of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
v. LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal A: To guide current and future development within the City in a manner that provides
certainty to its citizens about future land use and the flexibility necessary to meet the challenges and
opportunities of the future.
.
Policy A.I: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map should be used as a conceptual guide for
determining current and long range zoning and other land use decisions, The map's land use
designations are intended to show areas where general land use types are allowed. The area between
land use designations should be considered an imprecise margin in order to provide flexibility in
determining the boundary of such areas, When determining appropriate zoning designations for an
area near a margin, the goals, policies and objectives of the Land Use Element should take
precedence.
Policy A.2: All land use decisions and approvals made by the City Council and/or any of its
appointed Commissions, Boards or Committees should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and its land use map.
Objective A.I: The City will review and revise as necessary the existing Zoning Map, and other
development regulations to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Residential Goals and Policies
Goal B: To have a community where residential 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, and the
desired urban design of the City.
.
Goal C: To have a community of viable districts and neighborhoods with a variety of residential
opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages,
characteristics and interests.
181
Planning Department StaffRcport
CPA 00-03 - Momingview Development
May 31, 2000]
Page 10
ATTACHMENT D
Page 2 of2
Policy C.I: Residential land should be developed on the district and neighborhood concept.
Although such districts may be composed primarily of residential uses of a uniform density, a
healthy, viable district should be composed of residential uses of varying densities which may be
augmented by subordinate and compatible uses. Single family and multi-family homes, parks and
open-spaces, schools, churches, day care and residential services, home occupations, and district
shopping areas are all legitimate components of district development and enhancement. A
neighborhood should be primarily composed of low, medium, or high density housing.
.
Policy C.2: MediUm and high density housing should be located in areas of the community most
suitable for.such uses, based on existing services, public facilities, and transportation.
Policy C.3: Medium and high density housing should be served by arterial streets of sufficient size
in order to satisfy traffic demand and to lessen neighborhood traffic congestion.
Policy C.4: Medium and high density housing could be a transitional use between different land
uses, provided such other uses would not adversely impact the residential nature of the housing.
VII. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
Goal A: To provide or allow the opportunity for services and facilities which enhance the quality
of life for Port Angeles citizens of all ages, characteristics, needs, and interests.
Policy A.I: Public facilities should be equitably distributed across the City'splanning areas.
.
Goal D: To provide utility services in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Policy D.l: Urban services should be designed for the maximum planned density and/or land use
intensity of a given area as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Policy D.ll: New development should be served by sanitary sewers.
VIII. HOUSING ELEMENT
Goal A: To improve the variety, quality, availability, and affordability of housing opportunities in
the City of Port Angeles.
Policy A.5: The City should plan for sufficient urban services to support future housing in a variety
of allowable densities.
XI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Policy B.5: The City should encourage the availability of housing that meets the needs of the entire
spectrum of the community's work force. .
182
!:n ;;",':1.:1
.
, -. '.,..','
:Al ili:;!I!;;;
pORT / .NGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
June 6, 2000
Telecommunications Conference - Spokane
Thurs & Friday, June 1-2
Thursday, June I
Monday, June 5
Wednesday, June 6
Tuesday, June 91' I
Tuesday, June 6
Out-of-Office
Gateway Committee Meeting
8:15 a.m.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
City Council Meeting
Mike to speak at DOT Commission Meeting
Wednesday, June 7
Thursday, June 8
Monday, June 12
7:00 p.rn.
1:00 p.rn.
4:00 p.rn.
6:00 p.m.
II :00 a.m.
Mike to speak on KONP
Real Estate Committee Meeting
.
Civil Service Commission Meeting
10:00 a.m.
Utility Advisory Committee Meeting
Law Enforcement Advisory Board
Tuesday, June 13
Wednesday, June 14
Thursday, June 15
3:00 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
7:00 p.rn.
7:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
Out of Office
Planning Commission Meeting
Parks, Recreation, & Beautification Meeting
City Council Meeting (date changed from June 20)
A WC 2000 Annual Conference - Spokane
Seahorse Sculpture Dedication Downtown
Monday, June 19
June 21-23
Downtown Forward Meeting
Saturday, June 24
Monday, June 26 \
Wednesday, June 28
10:00 a.m.
7:00 a.rn.
Planning Commission Meeting
7:00 p.rn.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
Monday, July 3
Tuesday, July 4
Wednesday, July 5
7:00 p.rn.
CLOSED
Fourth of July Holiday
City Council Meeting (holiday changed date)
6:00 p.m.
.
G:\CNCLPKT\CTYMGRICMREPTI2000IJUNE6. WPD
1.-83
"
.
.
.
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
DATE:
June 6, 2000
To:
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utili~1----
FROM:
SUBJECT:
2000 Asphalt Paving & Chip Seal Program and Commercial Alley Paving. .
The 2000 Budget contains $300,000 for preventative maintenance for our streets. This is the second
year of long term maintenance program that was established in 1999. The streets selected for the
2000 program have not been revised from the original program established in 1999 due to
neighborhood commitments. In addition to the street program in 2000 we will be paving some
commercial alleys using street maintenance funds. We will be reviewing the 2001 and later programs
later this year prior to making further commitments. The following information is from the original
memo regarding the program:
Traditionally, street maintenance has been performed with a limited budget and work was
identified by visual inspection and experience. A pavement rating system evaluates street
sections by using a manual or computer system to combine visual inspections against known
criteria to place a numeric value on the pavement condition. Once the sections are rated and
prioritized, projects can be developed to restore the pavement on a rational basis. Public
Works Engineering collects street condition data as part of a Pavement Maintenance System
(PMS) to assist in the selection of streets for repairs. With the PMS software staff developed
the attached 5 year program focusing initially on arterial streets. This information combined
with the annual funding of $300,000 will aid in restoring a major portion of the arterial
system in the next five years so that residential streets can be addressed in future years of the
program.
In rating the sections a combination of the street condition and annual average daily traffic
were utilized to assure that the sections with the combination of poorest condition and
highest traffic were addressed first. Identified projects were split into the two categories of
asphalt overlay and chip seal to optimize the restoration work in each of the five years.
Asphalt overlays, with dig outs as necessary, are needed to restore those arterial streets
which have failed to the point that chip sealing would only delay total failure and would not
be cost effective. Chip sealing is reserved for those non-curbed streets that have sufficient
structural strength where their life will be extended significantly. The $300,000 annual
budget was apportioned between overlays ($200,000) and chip sealing ($100,000) to develop
the program. As the program progresses and as additional pavement data is collected, the
program will need to be evaluated and adjusted each year to assure that the City continues
with a balanced maintenance program.
185
The following tables below summarize the five year overlay/chip seal program and the commercial
alley paving schedule:
FIVE YEAR PAVING PLAN
.
1999
2001
5th Street (Cherry to Vine)
Lauridsen Blvd (Race to Lincoln)
Old Mill Road (Rhodes to City Limits
Laurel Street (Viewcrest to Ahlvers)
Euclid Ave (Hwy 101 to Glenwood)
Glenwood Street (Euclid to "C")
"c" Street (Glenwood to Blvd)
"L"
.
2002
Laurel Street (1st / 2nd Alley to 9th St.) I Lauridsen Blvd. ("L" St. to "E" St., "B" St. to Tk Rt.)
Oak Street (2nd St. to 9th St.)
Cherry Street (8th St. to 15th St.)
15th Street (Cherry St. to Blvd.)
Marine D .
"N' Street (18th St. to 15th St.)
16th Street ("N' St. to Owen Ave.)
10th Street ("N' St. to "L" St.)
No specific chip seal projects identified for 2003. These
will be identified upon review of added PMS input and
prqgram adjustments
2003
Georgiana Street (Frances St. to Jones
St.)
Washington Street (Georgiana St. to
Front St.)
Chambers Street (Georgiana St. to 1st
St.)
Jones Street (Georgiana St. to 1't St.)
9th Street (Valley St. to Lincoln St.)
10th Street (Cherry St. to Lincoln St.)
13th Street (Cherry St. to Lincoln St.)
14th Street (Cherry St. to Lincoln St.)
.
186
.
.
.
.1J~';P:l1.:~~~;;~'fft'1t:::i?'iF: .:~;,\t;~Y~:g;!i~~':
.'
,')I;'r: ~.
.~t>~hi
COMMERCIAL ALLEY PAVING SCHEDULE
2000
2001
7th 18th alley, Lincoln to Laurel; 1 st/2od alley, Race to Francis; 1 stIFront alley, Liberty
to Jones
Front/Georgiana, Chambers to Washington and Eunice to Race.
N :\PROJECTS\99-09\OOpgm. wpd
187
.
.
.
188
~ORT ANGEL.ES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY ATTORNEY
May 31, 2000
Howard V. Doherty Jr., Chair
Board of Clallam County Commissioners
223 East 4th Street
P.O. Box 863
Port Angeles, W A 98362-0149
Re: Draft Salmon Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation Plan
Dear Mr. Doherty:
"e
The City of Port Angeles greatly appreciates the County's efforts, and the opportunity to review
and comment, on the draft "Salmon Habitat,and Ecosystem Conservation Plan". The City
recognizes the importance of building a salmon conservation strategy that can be shared across
jurisdictional boundaries and responsibilities. Accordingly, we do want to respond in this letter to
the three general questions that you have raised to help formulate an effective salmon recovery
strategy for our region. However, we would like to take additional time to provide further, more
detailed comments on the draft Plan itself.
...
Our responses to the three general questions that you have raised are as follows:
1. With regard to the scope of the draft Plan, we think that the list of activities included in the
document should be expanded and the City of Port Angeles would like to supply
information regarding City plans and ordinances. Additionally, we believe that urban
development in the near shore marine environment of Port Angeles Harbor and water
diversion screening are other "limits" that should be included in the Plan in order to obtain
the ESA' s 4( d) rule protection for these types of actions.
2. With regard to watershed planning, the City shares Clallam County's commitment to
continue watershed planning into the future. The City sees this as a long-term rather than
short-term commitment. The City is willing to consider committing additional resources
to the watershed planning effort, to the extent that such resources can be made available
taking into account budgetary limitations.
3.
With regard to whether the County is doing enough to address salmon recovery, the City
of Port Angeles commends Clallam County for taking the initiative in addressing this vital
matter. The City of Port Angeles does feel that the draft Plan should be expanded to
include references to the specific present and future actions that the City is committed to
taking. The City also encourages the County to expand its efforts to foster better
.
321 EAST FIFTH STREET · P. O. BOX 1150 · PORT ANGELES, WA 98362-0217
PHONE: 360-417-4530 · FAX: 360-417-4529 · TTY: 360-417-4645
E-MAIL: ATTORNEV@CI.PORT-ANGELES.WA.US
189
Howard V. Doherty, Jr., Chair
Re: Draft Salmon Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation Plan
May 31, 2000
Page 2
.
coordination between jurisdictions. The primary additional role that the City would desire
the County to take on is to consult with NMFS as soon as possible with regard to the scope
and direction ofthe draft Salmon Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation Plan. To make sure
that we are heading in the right direction, the City believes that the Plan should not be
finalized. without having NMFS' input. Since it will take significant time to provide
detailed input as to the City's specific regulations and actions that should be included in the
Plan, we would like to make sure that this effort is not wa~ted. Accordingly, in addition to
obtaining NMFS' input on the scope of the Plan, we also. request that the time for
submitting our. detailed coinments be extended trom the first week of June to the end of
June.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our general coniments. Again, the City of Port
Angeles commends you for-your efforts and the leadership role yoti are taking in developing a
salmon recovery strategy for the North Olympic Peninsula.
Very truly yours, .
Larry Doyle
Mayor'
.
LDCDK:jd
cc: Forks Mayor
Sequim Mayor
Port Angeles City Council
C:\LElTERSldoherty.ltr. wpd
.
190
CLALLAM COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CUL:RTHOL'Sl
223 EAST FOURTH STREET
P.O. Box 863
PORT ANGELES. WASHINGTOr.,; 98362-0149
STEVE THARINGER. DISTRICT I
CAROLE BOARDMAN. DISTRICT II
MIKE DOHERTY. DISTRICT III
May 9, 2000
(360) 417-2233
FAX: (360) 417-2493
E-MAIL: commissioners@co.clallam.wa.us
JIM RUMPEL TES. ADMINISTRATOR
Mayor Larry Doyle
City of Port Angeles
321 E 51h St.
Port Angeles, WA 98362
Rece'VED
lAY 11 2000
City of Port Angeles
Dear Mr. Doyle:
Clallam County invites the City of Port Angeles to review and comment on the attached "Salmon Habitat
and Ecosystem Conservation Plan". By drafting this plan we hope to respond to the ongoing decline in
salmon populations and to the recent listings of four salmonid species within the region as "threatened"
under the Endangered Species Act. We believe that any actions taken to restore salmonid populations
and their habitat must occur by watershed with an ecosystem perspective. The plan attempts to build
strategy which can be shared across jurisdictional boundaries and responsibilities.
.
In its current state, the plan serves as a starting point for a shared strategy to resolve several issues
related to conservation of the ecosystem and supporting salmon habitat and populations.
The document is a framework. The proposed 4(d} rules by National Marine Fisheries.Service
(NMFS) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provide a framework which the document
uses to organize the topics. This framework is useful in discussing ecosystem recovery as well as
issues more directly related to ESA and the 4(d} rules.
The document is a reference. This document is a reference of what Clallam County's current
understanding of the past, present, and future environmental conditions are. With help from other
jurisdictions such as yours, .the document can include your understanding as well.
The document is for review by NMFS, USFWS, and the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office. It is
not a "permit application" for "exemption" under ESA. Clallam County would appreciate the review of
all of these above agencies - NMFS and USFWS because the document has obvious links to ESA,
and the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office for better coordinationof watershed/recovery planning, to
open a dialogue between local jurisdictions in the region and the federal and state agencies.
The document will help define the scope of efforts to address salmon recovery across the region and
the regional response to ESA. The "region" could include an area as large as the combined Water
Resource Inventory Areas of Clallam and Jefferson Counties.
.
The plan is being sent to other jurisdictions (Jefferson County, cities, tribes, water users, and special
districts), watershed planning entities (the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity Group, the watershed
committees for WRIAs 18,19 and 20) and other organizations such as timber companies and educational
groups, asking for a similar review. We anticipate that the scope of the document will expand as a result
of this review. Answers to these three questions will prove crucial to formulation of an effective strategy
for salmon recovery in the region.
klmlenjepartmental\dcd_bocclecosyslem conservallon plan Ietlerslplanpa dOC
191
Letter to City of Port Angeles
May 9,2000
Page 2
1. Should the list of activities included in the document be expanded, and is the City of Port .
Angeles willing to supply information.regarding City initiated or sponsored activities if the City
feels the document should be expanded? The Draft plan addresses specifically only .3 of the
"limits. put forth by NMFS in the proposed 4(d) rule - Watersh.ed Conservation Planning, New
Urban and Rural Development, and Road Maintenance. There are several other "limits" which
could be discussed in the plan such as fishery management, hatchery management, water
diversions, forest management, park maintenance, or scientific research activities.
2. In the draft plan, Clallam County expresses its commitment to continue watershed planning into
the future, it is our hope that this commitment is shared by the City of Port Angeles. Does the
city share this commitment, and to what extent?
3. Is the County doing enough? The document is structured in a way that only details future
actions to which'the County is already committed, such as a County-wide stormwater code.
What other actions does the City of Port Angeles feel the County should take? Presently, the
County provides administrative support and office for NOPLEG and the WRIAs 18,19, and 20
Watershed Planning groups as well as being members of those groups. Should our efforts to
foster better coordination between jurisdictions be expanded or contracted? Are there other
roles the City of Port Angeles would desire the County to take on or support?
County Commissioners and staff are willing to discuss other County standards, regulations, or programs
with the you or your representatives to fully inform the City of Port Angeles of our current efforts. so that
you may respond to the questions above with a better understanding of our current efforts and
commitments. Please contact the Commissioner's Office if you wish to set up such a meeting.
We hope to have the main components of the document assembled by early June. at which time it will be
submitted for review to the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office, NMFS, and USFWS. To meet with this
timeline, we would like to receive general comments on the document and additions during the first week .
of June. We realize that this is a very short time frame for such a significant set of questions, and
appreciate the difficulty this may present. If the City does wish to supply additional information for
inclusion into the document, we request that the actions, projects or activities submitted for inclusion in
the plan be limited to those for which the City of Port Angeles has primary responsibility and are actively
being implemented or will definitely be implemented in the future. When all the comments from your
jurisdiction and others are integrated into the document, we will send you an updated copy for your review
and approval prior to submission to the other agencies for review.
If you have any questions regarding the above information, please contact the Commissioner's Office by
phoning (360) 417-2233 or by stopping by the County Courthouse.
. '( .
Howard V. Doherty ~
Board of Clallam County Commissioners
c. correspondence file
project file Draft Salmon Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation Plan
O. Campbell, B. Collins, City of Port Angeles
.
192
:~:!~~~~~;gJ%1'~\:~?i:~;:r::~;~0~"~~~~)~t~~'t;t~~>.
. DRAFT
.
Salmon Habitat and
Ecosystem
Conservation
Plan
. Clallam County's Ecosystem Recovery
Strategy and ESARegulatory
Compliance for:
. .
. Watershed Conservation Planning
.. New Urba'n & Rural' Deve'lopment
.. Road. Maintenance .
.
April 24, 2000 .
193
'DRAFT
This document is a summary of ongoing and future activities which local governments, .
tribes, organizations and landowners are undertaking to conserve the ecosystems on
which salmon depend, and to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. It
is a local and regional response to both the recent listings of several salmonid species,
which inhabit the north Olympic Peninsula, and the recognized need to maintain habitat
for the stocks that are currently healthy but showing significant population declines.
Areas in the test highlighted in gray are from recent proposed rules published in the
Federal Register.
Background .
In May 1999. the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), listed six species of salmonids as threatened, including Puget Sound
chinook, Hood Canal/Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon, and Lake Ozette
sockeye salmon. In June of 1999, the US Fish and Wildlife Service also listed the Puget
Sound/Coastal populations of bull trout as threatened. All of these species are found in
various locations across the North Olympic Peninsula.
The purposes of the ESA "are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which
endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a
program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and
to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve these purposes."
Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act provides that, when a species is listed as
threatened, regulations shall be issued to provide for the conservation of the listed
species. Such regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions that. apply
automatically to protect endangered species under Section 9(a) of the ESA (known as
"take prohibitions"). NMFS has procedures for promulgation of these rules specific to
each species; these draft 4(d) rules were published on January 3,2000. Final rules must
be published by June 19, 2000, with the rules taking effect either immediately or within
60 days (or longer) of being published in the Federal Register. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) automatically applies the "take prohibitions" from section 9(a)
concurrently with listing of a species as threatened.
.
'''Whether take pr6hibitions))fnewregolations'i~rEfnecessary:is"in'large' part'deper'ldent .
on the biologi~r status' ofthe spe.cies and potentialtmpacts of variou's' ,activlti~s on the
species.... NMFSco'ncludes that threatened.chinook, chum, ah~ sockeye salmon,are at
risk of extinction. primarily because their populations have been reduGed by human .
"take". West Coast populations of these salmonids,havebeen depleted by take resulting
from harvest, 'past and ongoing destru'Ction6tfreshwateir'and estuarine habitats,' poor
hatchery practices, hydropower development, and other causes." (65 Fed. Reg. 170
January 3: 2000). ' . . .. '. ., . ;
The listing of local salmonids as threatened has prompted states, counties, tribes and
others to request NMFS to (1) clarify and provide guidance on what activities may
adversely affect salmon, and how to avoid or limit those effects, and (2)' apply take
.'
, '
Page lof21
194
I
DRAFT
.
In both NMFS and USFWS proposed regulations, approval of such a proposal, which
would provide for protection of local jurisdictions from liability under ESA would be by the
Regional Administrator of the Agency. The NMFS draft 4(d) rule goes into somewhat
greater detail of the approval process, which is essentially a federal rulemaking process.
Such proposals would be submitted to NMFS and after initial approval by the Regional
Administrator, the proposals and supporting documents would be published in the
Federal Register and allow public comment for 30 days. Based on the comments
received, the Regional Administrator could then either approve or disapprove the
proposed activities.
.
Both Clallam County and the State of Washington commented on NMFS draft rule. and
specifically the approval process for such proposals. Both governments' comments
requested that the formal adoption process outlined in the draft rule be modified to allow
for State approval of such proposals, with oversight by NMFS. Given the currently small
number of examples of such a plan, NMFS will likely directly review such proposals even
if the approval process is changed. Accordingly, this document will be submitted to
NMFS, USFWS, and the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office upon completion of an
initial review by local governments and organizations. Even upon completion, this
document will be a starting point for discussion of the relative merits of the plan, and the
process used for "Watershed Conservation Planning" and will undoubtedly change into
the future. At this point in time (April 2000) this document is a starting point for local,
regional, and state-level discussions on the actions and activities which are appropriate
and necessary to meet the requirements and goals of the ESA as well as conserve
existing, healthy, salmon populations into the future.
Geographic Applicability
The area encompassed by this document should include the geographical limits for all of
the listed populations. and could include the entire areas of Clallam and Jefferson
Counties. For Hood Canal/Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum this area includes
portions of Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca to east of Dungeness Spit,
including all major tributaries. For the Puget Sound chinook it includes the Elwha and'
Dungeness Rivers and the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the west end of Freshwater Bay.
For the Lake Ozette sockeye it includes the Lake Ozette Basin. For Bull trout, it includes
the Hoh, Elwha, and:Dungeness Rivers and Morse CrE!ek.
The remainder of th.e document is devoted to further explanation of the ongoing and
future activities as they relate to NMFS's "limits" in the draft 4(d) rule. .
.
Watershed Conservation Planning
Amplifying Information from NM'FS
"(8) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section. (take prohibitions) relating to
threatened species of salmonids..... do not ~pply'to habitat restoration
activities.:,. . provided. that: . .' -
Page :lof 21"
195
DRAFT
(5) Information on how habitat for the bull trout should be identified and how it should be
protected or enhanced."
.
This document serves as the starting point for discussion with USFWS regarding the above
standards Components of a Watershed Conservation Plan to meet both of the guidelines above
could be broken down into 3 elements:
1) Interlocal agreements for coordination of activities across jurisdictions,
2) Prior, ongoing and future habitat enhancement and recovery activities,
3) Cooperative Watershed and Habitat Restoration Planning Efforts
The 2"0 element should be coordinated with ongoing and prior watershed planning efforts,
information sources and recovery plans. Ongoing watershed planning should include specifiC
tasks directed toward'salmon restoration and furthering the goals of the ESA
Interlocal Agreements
Ongoing Conservation Measures
Creation of the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity
Group ( 1999)
Creation the WRIA 18 Initiating Governments for
Watershed Planning which consists of the member
governments and entities of the Dungeness River
Management Team and the Elwha-Morse Management
Team( 1999)
Finalizing interlocal agreements for WRIAs 19 and 20 in
early 2000.
Creation of the Lake Ozene Sockeye Steering Comminee
( 1999)
Marine Resources Comm inee (1999)
Habitat Restoration Activities
Ongoing Conservation Measures
Jobs for the Environment projects - Meadowbrook Creek (1992),
2700 feet bioengineered bank stabilization (1992), McDonald
Creek Restoration (1992), Meadow Creek restoration (1992),
Bell Creek reconstruction (2200 ft) (1996), Morse Cr.eek
Estuary Restoration (1996), Tassel Creek Culvert replacement
( 1996).
Other projects - Mattrioni Creek Reconstruction (1993), Bell
Creel; Estuary restoration (1999), Bogachiel River stream bank
slabl i1Latiol1iL WD placement (1995& 1996).
Kincaid Island Dike Removal (1999)
Burlingame Bridge on the Dungeness (1999)
Page 50f21
196
Future Conservation Measures
Need: much better coordination between Clallam
County(or a local regional entity), other
jurisdictions in Western Washington, Governor's
Salmon Recovery Office, NMFS, and USFWS.
(2000)
Need: Lake Ozette Sockeye Steering Comminee
currently has no dedicated staff or funds. Further,
Lake Ozene recovery planning efforts are
hampered by lack of political power, bureaucratic
recognition and geographic isolation. (2000)
Future Conservation Measures
JimmyComeLately Creek and Estuary Restoration
in cooperation with the Jamestown Tribe,
WDFW, WDOT, Wa. Dept. of Ecology,
USFWS, ..EP A, Ducks .Unlimited, lAC, Clallam
Conservation District, (ongoing)
Dungeness River Dike reconfiguration:
Lower river Estuary restoration, .schoolhouse
Bridge Replacement, Corps Dike
setback/removal (2002-2005)
Canyon Creek Dam Removal and Fish Hatchery
Dike Setback (2002)
DHAFT
.
Makah. Quileute. and Hoh Tribes; and other organiz<ltions. such
as the North Olympic Salmon Coalition and the Pacilic Coast
Salmon Coalition.
The Lead Entity Group created a Technical Review Group and a
Technical Advisory Group. These groups review project
proposals and have completed the Limiting Factors Analyses for
\VRIAs 18. 19 and 20.
Dungenesss River Restoration Workgroup. formed in 1996.
completed Recommended Restoration Projects for the Dun!!.cness
River in 1997. This document has been adopted as policy
guidance for river management by the Dungeness River
\1al1agem~l1t Team;
JimmyComeLately Workgroup. formed in 1997. is working toward
a model restoration project on JimmyComeLately Creek which
will have application across the Hood Canal summer chum ESU.
Lake Ozette Steering Comminee. comprised ofNMFS. Clallam
County. Olympic National Park. WDFW. the Makah and
Quileute Tribes. and landowners is conducting an analysis of
limiting factors in the within the basin.
.
reduct ion. water use. elc) hahllal
restoration project lists that an.:
prioritized within and across
watersheds
The central theme of the above actions and activities is the reliance on watershed
planning into the future. In order for watershed planning to be successful both in terms
of recovery of salmon populations and in responding to the requirements of the ESA the
watershed planning groups must exist well beyond the,planning stage and into the
implementation stage of planning. Only in this way will local jurisdictions and
organizations take responsibility for actions that occur in their watersheds. It is the
willingness and ability to take responsibility for local actions which effect local citizens
that leads to fundamentally better and more integrated decision~making in regards to
competing natural resource~based land uses and actions (Le. habitat restoration, habitat
protection, development, timber harvest, salmon harvest, flood hazard reduction, water
use, etc.) over time, and the only means to retain a measure of local control of the
natural resources in the region.
.
New Urban and Rural Development
The NMFS proposallis~s twelve issues that, if satisfied by 'Io.cal.governments, will exempt
new urban and rural development activities from the ESA Section 9(a) take prohibitions.
By satisfying these twelve points, local jurisdictions cail demonstrate that they have
programs and activities (either existing or planned) in place that protect the habitat and
populations of the threatened salmon. Landowners. potential developers, and the
jurisdictions controlling new development will benefit by 'assurance that their actions,
approvals. and maintenance practices are consistent with ESA requirements. They will
also be protected from third-party lawsuits that might be initiated due to their activities'
alleged impacts on the threatened species.
.
Page70f21
197
DRAFT
2. Avoid stormwater discharge impacts to water quality and quantity or to the
hydrograph of the watershed.
3 Require adequate riparian buffers around all perennial and intermittent
streams, lakes or wetlands.
4. Avoid stream crossings by roads wherever possible, and where one must be
provided, minimize impacts through choice of mode, sizing and placement.
5. Protect historic stream meander patterns and channel migration zones; avoid
hardening of stream banks.
6. Protect wetlands and wetlands functions.
7. Preserve tbe hydrologic capacity of any intermittent or permanent stream to
pass peak flows.
8. Landscape to reduce need for watering and application of herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizer.
9. Prevent erosion and sediment runoff during construction.
10. Assure that water supply demands for the new development can be met without
impacting flow needed for threatened sa 1m on ids either directly or through
groundwater withdrawals, and that any new water diversions are positioned
and screened in a way that prevents injury or death of salmonids.
11. Provide all necessary enforcement, funding, reporting, and implementation
mechanisms.
12. The development complies with all other state and Federal environmental or
natural resource laws and permits.
B. The city or county...will provide NMFS with annual reports regarding
implementation and effectiveness of the ordinances, including-any water quality
monitoring information the jurisdiction has available, an aerial photo (or some
other graphic display) of each urban d~velopment or urban expansion area at
sufficient detail to .demonstrate the width and vegetative condition of riparian set-
. backs, success of stormwater retention. and other techniqu~s; and a summary of
any flood damage, maintenance problems, or other issues.
C. Prior to determining that city or county ordinances...are adequate, NMF:""S will
publish notification in the Federal Register announcing the availability. of the
ordinances.. Jorpublic review and comment. The comment period will be not
. less than 30 days. if new information indicates need to modify ordinances:~. that
NMFS.has previously found adequate, the city [o~lcQunty...will work with NMFS .
to draft appropriate amendme.nts and NMFS will...determine whether the .
modified ordinances....are\adequate. If an any time NMFS determines that
compliance problems or new information show that the ordinances or guidelines
are not achieving desired habitat functions, or where even with the habitat
characteristics and functions originally targeted, habitat is not supporting
population productivity levels needed to conserve the ESU, NMFS will notify the
jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction does not make changes to respond adequately to
Page9of21
198
.
.
.
D~il""FT
..'..... '..',' 'Wi..' ".".'
"? "",:"
.
As for other Future Conservation Measures, ClaU~m County is committed to pursuing
and implementing these activities. We know that the citizens of the North Olympic
Peninsula are strongly committed to conserving and protecting the salmon, and thuswe .
have full faith that we will be able to implement the future conservation measures as
predicted. The following pages present the Clallam County's proposed actions. The
actions will be in effect while site-specific watershed plans are completed through the
watershed planning process. This section also outlines major future conservation
measures that jurisdictions will undertake.
Issue 1. A void inappropriate areas such as unstable slopes, wetlands,
areas of high habitat value, and similarly constrained sites.
Amplifying Information from NMFS
None.
Ongoing Conservation Measures
Future Conservation Measures
I Update Clallam County Shoreline Master
, Program and Shoreline Code for
conformance with the Critical Areas Code
and ESA (200 I )
.
Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (1989)
Clallam County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (1992)
County-wide Planning Policies (1993)
! Clallam County Comprehensive Plan and sub-area Plans
i (1995)
I
I State Wetland Integration Strategy Report (1995)
I Clallam County Shoreline Code Am,endl'l1ent (1997)
I
i
Ii Clallam County Critical Areas Code (1999)
Critical Areas GIS Mapping and Updates
( 1992,1995,1999,2000)
Dungeness River.Greenway ~Ianning
(1994)JimmyComeLately Restoration related acquisition
, Jamestown S'Klallam, WDFW, and lAC acquisition
. projects throughout Jamestown U&A
Completion of Clallam County acquisition policy (2000)
Issue 2. Avoid stormwaterdischarge impacts to water quality and quantity
, or to, the hydrographof the lI!at~rshed.. .. . ,
.
Amplifying Information fromNMFS
"Preserve, or move stream flow patterns (hydrograph) ~Ioser to the histor:jc peak flow
and other hydrograph characteiistics of the watershed.iThrough a combination of
reduction of impervious surfaces, runoff detention, and other techniques development
can achieve that purpose within its portion of the'watershed. Other development design'
Page II of 21
199
DRAFT
Ongoing Conservation Measures
Future Conservation Measures
.
State Wetland Integration Strategy Report ( 1995)
Clallam County Critical Areas Code (1999)
. Class I Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
:\rcas (Habitat Management Plan Reqllir~J within
200' of Crit ical Habitat for
Thn:atenediEndangered Species)
. Restoration of degraded buffers required
. i\ljllatic Habitat Conservation Area Buffers
. Wetland Buffers and Wetland Variance Criteria
. Geologic Hazard (Channel Migration Hazard,
Ravine, Marine Bluff) protection standards,
buffers and Variance Criteria.
Integration of Limiting Factors Analysis with Watershed
Planning under 2514 0000-2004)
Update Clallam County Shoreline Master Program and
Shoreline Code for conformance with the Critical Ar~as CoJ.:
and ESA (200 I )
Issue 4. Avoid stream crossings by roads wherever possible, and where
one must be provided, minimize impacts through choice of mode,
sizing and/or placement.
Amplifying Information from NMFS
.
"One method of minimizing stream crossings and disturbances is to optimize transit
opportunities to and within newly developing urban areas. Consider whether potential
stream crossings can be avoided by access redesign. Where crossings are necessary,
minimizing their impacts by preferring bridges over culverts; sizing bridges to a minimum
. . '
width; designing bridges' and culverts to pass at least the 1 DO-year flood and assoCiated
debris,'and'meet WDFW criteii~; '~ssu.ring regular monitonng,andmaintenahee,Qve, r the'
long term; and prohibiting.closing over of any intermittent or perennial,stream. WoFWs
Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, March 3, 1999 provides an excellent framework
for action." (NMFS) ..
Ongoing Conservation Measures
Clallam County Comprehensive Plan and sub-area Plans
(1995)
Clallam County Critical Areas Code (1999)
. New road crossings ofa typed stream requires a
Variance from code.
. Rural Road Standards (200-200 I)
WRIA 18,19.20 Limiting Factors Analysis describing
Page nof 2.1
200
Future Conservation' Measures
. .
Update Clallam County Shoreline Master Program and
Shoreline Code for conformance with the Critical Areas I
Code and ESA (200 I )
I
Ongoing infrastructure projects such as the Jimmycomelately \
Rridge. Rurlingame and Schoolhouse Bridges on the '
Dungene.ss and c,u!VertrePlacement such as Jamestown Road II'
(Cassalary Creek), Spath road (Manrioni Creek), Whitcomb-
Diimmel Road (Tassel Creek), Nordstrom Road and
Wasankari Roads (Salt Creek), and Hoko-Ozene Road
DRAFT
.
Issue 6. Protect wetlands and wetlands functions.
Amplifying Information from NMFS
"Protect wetlands and the vegetation surrounding them to maintain wetland functions.
Design around wetlands for their positive habitat, water quality, flood control, and
groundwater connection values, providing adequate buffers. Retain all existing natural
wetlands," (NMFS)
Ongoing Conservation Measures
Future Conservation Measures
Statc Wetland I ntegration Strategy Report ( 1(95)
Clallam County Critical Areas Code (1999)
. Landscape and Watershed-based Functional
Assessment Unique to Clallam County Wetlands
Watershed Planning under ESHB 2514 to maintain hydr\llog~
of watersheds (1999-2005)
Update Clallam County Shoreline Master Program and
Shoreline Code for conformance with the Critical Areas Codt:
and ESA (200 I )
. Restoration of degraded buffers required
. Wetland Buffers and Wetland Variance Criteria
. Critical Areas GIS Mapping and Updates
( 1992,1995.1999,2000)
.
. EPA-funded Wetland Function Educational
Project (2000)
, -,,'
,
Issue 7. Preserve the hydrologic capacity of any intermittent or permanent
stream to pass peak flows.
Amplifying Information from NMFS
"Lo~1 ordi.nances sho~ld-as$urethat, ata_mirlimu'm, tne flood Management ,
Performance Standards of Title 3 of Metro's Urban ~rowth Management Functional Plan
are applied to all development in urban expansion areas, together with any other steps
needed to protect hydrologic capacity. In CQmbinat,ion with the buffer or set-:bac!< '
provis'ions above, this means' that fpr new, 'Iarg~ deveJQPlTlents, fill :or-dredging should
never occur ul1less in conjunction With a necessary stream crossirlg." (NMFS)
Ongoing.Conservation Measures
Futur~ Conservation Measures
.
. Aquatic Habitat Conservation Area Protection Standards
Creation of clearing and grading code, (2000) !
,
Adoption of County-wide storm water standards (2001) I!
Cooperation with City of Sequim in Storm water
Planning for Bell Creek Basin (2001-2003) I
"
!:
Clallain County Critical Areas Code (1999)
. Adoption of 1992 Washington Department of Ecology
Storm\\'atcr manual for urt:as affected by Critical Areas
Code
Page Ijof 21
201
DRAFT
and Standards for small parcels (2000)
Watershed Plannlllg (() minimize stormw;
impacts (Ongoing)
Issue 10. Assure that water supply demands for the new development can
be met without impacting flow needed for threatened salmonids
either directly or through groundwater withdrawals, and that any
new water diversions are positioned and screened in a way that
prevents injury or death of sa/monids. '
Amplifying Information from NMFS
None
Note: Regulation of water withdrawal from ground or surface waters is within the
regulatory control of the Washington State Department of Ecology in this state.
Regulation of water diversions (for the presence and adequacy of fish screens) is the
responsibility of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The primary task
of the current watershed planning councils in WRIAs 17 ,18,19, and 20 is to focus on the
issue of water conservation and supply.
Ongoing Conservation Measures
Future Conservation Measures
Sequim Bay Early Action Watershed Plan (1990)
Dungeness River Area Watershed Management Plan (1994)
Dungeness-Qui\cene Plan (1995)
Sequim-Dungeness Groundwater Protection Strategy (1994)
Port Angeles Area Watershed/Comprehensive Plan (1995)
Dungeness River (USFS) Watershed Analysis (1995)
Dungeness Groundwater Protection Strategy (1995)
Dungeness River Water Conservation Projects (1996-present)
Sequim-Dungeness Hydrogeologic Study with USGS (1997-
present)
WRIA planning under ESHB 2514 for ~IAs I 8 (Dungeness
and Elwha), 19 (Lyre-Hoko), and 20 (Sol Duc - Hoh)
(1999 - 2003)
It is expected that entities such as Dungeness RiV.
Management Team, Elwha-Morse Managemen
Team, and WRIAs 19& 20 will be ongoing into the
foreseeable future.
Issue 11. Provide all necessary enforcement, funding, reporting, and
implementation mechanisms.
Amplifying Information from NMFS
.
Page 170f21
202
DmAFT
.
GMA requirements for consistency (approved water
source) prior to issuance of building permits (1993)
Better coordination across jurisdictions. especlall) cities and
counties. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Washington Department of Ecology. US Army Corps of
Engineers. and NMFS and USFWS lhemselves,
Road Maintenance
The proposed standards in the 4(d) rule can be broken down into three general areas.
The first is the setting of regional standards for road maintenance. Washington State
DOT has been in negotiations with NMFS and USFWS in regards to these standards.
The second is a sch~dule and means of tracking training for road crews to implement
these standards. The third is the development of a "guidebook" for road maintenance
that is specific to given road segments (Le. when to maintain the ditches to cause the
least damage to aquatic resources, culvert maintenance schedules, management
restrictions around wetlands adjacent to the road, etc.).
Amplifying Information from NMFS
The proposed 4(d) rule states what road maintenance issues must be addressed before
NMFS will certify local road maintenance activities as ESA-compliant. The following
excerpts from the 4(d) rule presents these road maintenance issues.
.
A. The take prohibitions... do not apply to road maintenance activities provided that:
.
1. The activity results from routine road maintenance activity by... county or city
employees that complies with the Oregon Department of Transportation's
Maintenance Management System Water Quality and Habitat Guide (June, 1999).
2. Neither pesticide and herbicide spraying nor ODOT dust abatement are included
within this exception, even ifin accord with the state's guidance.
3. Prior to implementing any changes to the 1999 Guide the Oregon Department of
Transporta~oriwill pr~vide NMFS,a copy oftheproposed'change for review and
approval'as"~ithiri thisexceptiorl: ' " . ' ,,' '." " ,,' ,
B. Prior to, approving any change in the 1999 Guide, ,NMFS will publish 'notification in the
Federal Register announcing'the availability of the draft changes for public review and
comment. Such an announcement will provide for a comment period on the draft '
changes of not less than 30 days.
C. Any city or a county in Or~gon desiring its routine road'maintenance activities to be
within this.exception first enters a m~mq~andum of agreeme~t.with NMFS committil)g
to apply the management practices in the guide, detailing,'how it w'i11 assure adequate
trai'ning, tracking, and reporting, including 'how it will control and 'narrow ,the
circumstances in which a practice will not be followed because it is not "feasible,"
.practical," or "possible" and' describing in detail any dust abatement practices it
requests to be covered.
D. On a regular basis, NMF.S will evaluate the effective~ess of the program in protecting
and achieving habitat function commensurate with conservation of the listed salmonids.
With a full-time staff person at NMFS dedicated to coordination and communication
rage 19{)f 11
203
204
DRAFT
Appendix:
General Habitat Management Plans and Guidance for Threatened Species of
Salmonids in Clallam County
The attached document explains recommended habitat management plans for
development activities within and adjacent to Critical Habitat for threatened salmonid
species within Clallam County. The recommendations are intended as "boilerplate"
habitat management plans which would be accepted by Clallam County as qualifying for
"no net loss of critical habitat" when submitted in conjunction with other required reports
and actions such as drainage/erosion control plans, geotechnical reports, and meeting
all other standards of Clallam County Code.
Page 210f21
.
.
.
I _U
DATE:
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
<,:;'.'-~:'-,':-,
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
June 6, 2000
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk/Management Assistant ~
Opinion Survey Regarding City Council Term Limits
At the May 16, 2000, City Council meeting, the decision was made to seek public input on the
matter of term limits for City Council members. It was agreed that an opinion survey would be
conducted by using an insert with the utility bills.
The Council suggested that the survey include a statement opposing term limits, as well as a
statement in favor of term limits. The statement opposing term limits was prepared by Councilman
Wiggins, and the statement in support of term limits was provided by Carl Alexander, Jr. A copy
of the statements is attached for your review, as well as a copy of the return card to be submitted to
the City Clerk's office.
As of June 2, 2000, the opinion surveys will be mailed with all of the June utility bills. The return
cards can be returned with utility payments, by separate mail, or by delivery to City Hall. Weare
asking that all opinion cards be returned no later than Monday, July 31,2000. We will, therefore,
be able to share the results with the City Council at its meeting of Tuesday, August 1,2000.
Attachments
""""
205
/'~:::'\
i I-< 1
~ ell J
',(-),-
-fl',
,D)
'......~..'
208
.
.
.
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITY DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
APRIL 2000
WATER DEMAND
~
<
o
in
z
0",
::lz
< Q.
l.!l::l
w~
l.!l
~
w
>
<
JAM FEB MAR APR 1II4V JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOY DEe
c 1999 .2000
RAINFALL
...J
...J .
cc'"
...!!!
zu
~ ~,
D 1999
.2000
_ 10 Yur AVflfage
AVERAGE DAILY WATER DEMAND
iLAST YEAR TO DATE (MG)
ITHIS YEAR TO DATE (MG)
2.88 !
2.861
RAINFALL DATA
:10 YR AVG. TOTAl TO DATE
ITHIS YR TO DATE (IN)
iRECORD HIGH THIS MONTH
lRECORD LOW THIS MONTH
, 11.151
6.071
4.08!
0.12!
SEWER/STORM SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
'SEWER SYSTEM JETTED
:STORM DRAINS JETTED
!SYSTEM TV INSPECTED
,
, MONTH (FT)
25.502
300
550
YR. !
26.510'
511 ;
5501
'TOTAI:l:ANOFILL DISPOSAl
W
It:
=- _so_
........
< :1
a:: e.o ~
w'" '
1I.~
~ -w~
W
....
co. RES. HAUL
w
l.!l
<
III
::l~
..J ~.;,
~ 5
~ ~ w
.... -w
U
W
..J
W
LANDFILL ANNUAL TONS
,
:AAYONIER DEMOliTION REVENUES (97+98+99]
ITHIS YR TO DATE (TONS)
I
i
$590,318 i
13,6461
MOREPTOO.WK4.05I1812OOO
TEMPERATURE
JAM FEB MAR
JUl AUO IEP OCT MOY DEe
01999
_ 10 Year Average
.2000
ELECTRICAL USAGE
~ RB ~ AM ~ ~N ~L A~ ~oc, MOY ~
c 1999 _ 2000
209
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITY DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
APRIL 2000
aot~Okl ~"'o~
~ -~
if_
,~.~".
.1
WATER
. Mainbreaks: 2 2" mainbreaks
. Meter change outs: 18
. One 2" watermain replacement
. Replaced 3 fire hydrants
. Relocated 1112" double-check valve for Parks
. Staff (1) attended Basic Electrical Training workshop
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
. Staff (1) attended Basic Electrical Training workshop
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
. Submitted biosolids permit applications to EPA and DOE
. Submitted biosolids permit application to CC Environmental Health
. Met with landowners in the biosolids program
. Rayonier began using the leachate pump system on 413100.
. Installed new rake arm teeth and shock absorbers on the FMC trash rack
. Annual primary clarifier inspection
. Completed plumbing on Final Clarifier #2 for summer algae control
EQUIPMENT SERVICES
. #131 Digger Derrick, replace head gasket
. #162 Light Dept. Manlift, replace head gasket
. #1890 Parks Mower, repair real axle drive unit
. #1894 Parks Mower, repair fuel system
. #1899 Parks Mower, repair st~ring & mowerdeck clutch
. #1905 Refuse Collection truck, repair alternator, brakes & other
. #1907 Refuse Collection truck, speedometer, hydraulic system
. #1911 Refuse Collection truck, repair cooling system, loader arm, wiring
. #1915 Landfill Compactor, repair brakes
LIGHT OPERATIONS
. Reconductor Craig Avenue to three phase
. Responded to wind related outages
. Completed 4th & Peabody underground upgrade
. Replaced service poles in various locations
. Completed training on Daishowa 69kv line switching
. Annual training on BPA at their switch yeard
. Augered earth samples at Albert substation for PCB testing
. Upgraded lighting at Corp Yard and Fire Hall
2M0110,~
SOLID WASTE
RECYCLING:
. Presentations made at Neah Bay and Monroe Elementary
. Presentation for Wal-Mart's Green Team Earth Day Town Meeting
. Spoke on KONP regarding 90 Gallon Conversion
. Guest on KONP Open House regarding 90 Gallon Conversion
. Annual Benefit Dump Day
COLLECTIONS:
. Andy Hart completed Compost Facility Operator Training
. Attended PNW Regional SW Syjmposium
. Presentation to Council on County SW Management Plan
STREET
. Pothole Patch as needed
. Install plastics in downtown area
. Alley repairs at 4/5 alley West of Golf Course Road
. Concrete restoration for sewer/water cuts
. Assist Solid Waste collections with heavy containers
. Remodel at Fine Arts Center
. Assist with Benefit Dump Day at Landfill
.
ENGINEERING & PERMITS
. Airport Road Realignment permitting
. Carnegie Library, Phase II support
. 8th Street Design support
. Elwha Dam removal mitigation support
. ) & I Pilot Program Support
. "A" Street/Grant Avenue watermain design
. Downtown Waterline/Sidewalk Replacement, Phase II design
. Gateway Design support ..,
Landfill Cover Project Bid Advertised
. Paving Program Design. .. ... ..
. Attended NT) Semina~on requirements for federally funded projects
. Laruel Street Slide Repair RFP prepared
.
.
.
.
1IIRIU...r....JaaI.
JAN. I"l:t:l. MAK. At-'K. MA. JUNl: JULY AUu. ;'l:t-' I. Ul,;1. NOV. Ul: ;':UVU YIU HI}!}! YIU
-NI:W
MODULAR / MOBILE 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
ValuE $0 $0 $49.900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38.000
SINGLE FAMILY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
ValUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $380,265
MUL TI-FAMIL Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
ValUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $386.362
ACCESSORIES 2 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7
ValUE $8,400 $26,387 $100,242 $36,420 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34.787 $88.526
-NI:W
RETAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ValUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
HOTEUMOTEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Valu $0 $0 $0 $0- $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OFFICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ValUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
DRINKINGIDINING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ValUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
AUTO/SERVICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Va/u $0 . . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ValuE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- NI:W "
SCHOOLS/HOSPIT ALS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ;
Valu $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CHURCHES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ValUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RECREATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ValUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .. . $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
It ALT.
RESIDENTIAL 25 24 51 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 133
ValUE $195,594 $203,542 $157,078 $134,023 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $399.136 $637.830
COMMERCIAL 10 13 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 22
ValUE $147,880 $85,663 $103,100 $22,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $233,543 $1,354.411
PUBLIC 0 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11
ValUE $0 $370.000 $48,500 $8,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $370,000 $2,341,671
DEMOLITION / MOVE 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9
ValUE $1.500 $7.000 $0 $1,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8.500 $117.500
IUIMLo:t
SLOG PERMITS 40 43 68 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 186
taNST.vALUE $353,374 $692.592 $457.820 $202,143 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,503,786 $5,344,547
R I W CONSTR. 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11
Revenue $370 $0 $45 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $415 $710
NEW WATER SERVo 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9
$0 $0 .. $0 $0 $0 . ......... $0 $2.133
Revenue $2.133 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,278
~SEWER SERV~ . . 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10
....... -- '. . ... $0 $3.003
Revenue $3,003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,822
.....THER PERMITS 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 30
OTtfJilR riERMI't REV. . $5;506 $ci .. $45 $ci $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $5,551 $25,810
_ 51 PERMITS SUBMIITED 46 PERMITS ISSUED WIIN 1-5 DAYS 5 PERMITS NOT ISSUED. WAITING FOR PAYMENT 90% COMPLETE
.
.
.
212
~--
.
.
.1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
May 10, 2000
7:00 p.m.
ROLLCALL
. Members Present:
Linda Nutter, Fred Norton, Bob King, Chuck Schramm, Mary
Craver
Members Absent:
Bob Philpott, Fred Hewins
Staff Present:
Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Dan McKeen
Public Present:
Jerry Miller, Harry Kneller, Michael Kisman, Lucienne Kirk, Arthur
Wilmot, Heather Wilmot, Beryle Middleton, Carroll Reid, Gene
Middleton, Janet Drysdale, Chuck Drysdale, Steve Moriarity,Bob
McCartney, Betty Uhrich, Peri Arnnette, John and Telene Duysharb,
Landon and Sherry Kimbrough, Coline Collins, Chuck and Mary Lou
Paulson, Jennifer Ken, Floyd Taggert, Steve Sanderson, S. Powell,
R.H. Warolin, EInor Reid, Carlos and Mardell Xavier, Kathleen
Burgess, Olive Brooks, Barbara Thompson, Margaret Anderson, Claire
Steinman, Joyce Downen, Dolores Dulaney, M.B. Stolley, Mary Otto,
Bev Jacobs, Judi O'Neill, Florence Humpal, John Swedstedt, Marcella
Miller, Chuck Mullin, Tim German, Robert and Deanna Martin, Allan .
Harrison, Neale Frothingham, Dave Flodstrom, Pat Walker, Don
Dundon, Shirley Stenger, Craig Miller, Perry Jenna, Jennifer Kim,
Carroll Reed, Harvey Nettle, Carlos Xavier
Staff noted that Commissioners Hewins and Philpott would not be in attendance as they had disclosed
appearance of fairness issues regarding the agenda item to be discussed at the April 26 meeting. Vice
Chair Nutter opened the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CommIssioner Schramm noted a typographical error in the last paragraph on page 2 - "of 45%)"
should be "to 45%". Finding 9 on page 7 should be corrected to read "The applicant is
proposing to remove three smaller boathouses in the Boat Haven to stay under the maximum
square footage of covered over-water structures allowed by the Shoreline Master Program t6
pr6vide a 16tati6n fur the rte6nstruded b6ath6USt". Page 13, 7(b) would be more
understandable if amended to read "Up to three dogs and cats, instead 6f 6Dly tw6, may be kept
outdoors..." Commissioner Nutter asked that on Page 2, fourth paragraph, the first sentence
be amended to read "Commissioner Nutter did not see that even with the agreements ... there
is no certainty that if the association decides there is no need for transportation service they
can't vote it out." On page 6, first sentence, change "The committee is aware of the tandem
21'3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 2000
page 2
-----'"
-, -1
bicycle rally but neither she nor the committee itself is B6t involved in the event.'.'
Commissioner Norton moved to approve the April 26, 2000, meeting minutes as amended. Th
motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver and passed 5 - O. '
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 00-03 - GERMAN (lIighland LLC). 1702 Melody
Circle: A proposal to establish a substance abuse treatment facility in an existing structure
located within the RHD, Residential High Density zone.
Vice Chair Nutter opened the continued public hearing by encouraging all those present to sign in so
they can be recognized. She stated that persons who intend to provide testimony must sign in and
acknowledge that their testimony is truthful to the best of their knowledge.
Planning Director Collins noted that copies of the staffreports as well as past minutes were available
for the audience on the dais. Due to public concern raised over a recent article published in the
Peninsula Daily News regarding Planning staff's recommendation, it is important to note that City
staff have not recommended approval of Highland Courte CUP 00-03. The staff continues to have
reservations about the proposed site. The conditions contained in the May 10 staff report were
intended to identify mitigation measures which would address concerns and objections raised in earlier
staffreports and public testimony. Ten conditions were developed using statements and information
provided by the applicant in an attempt to address issues su, bjeet 10 the conditional use permit process.
The Planning Commission must determine if these and/or other conditions could make the propose
center compatible with the residential zone in which it is proposed. Staffhas not determined if these
or other conditions developed to mitigate specific concerns raised in the public record can be enforced.
Discussions with the applicant have not concluded, and staff is recommending that following the close
ofthe public hearing the Planning Commission continue its deliberation to the regular May 24, 2000,
meeting. Staff will provide a report on the legal enforcement of conditions proposed to ensure
compatibility with the senior development at the May 24 meeting.
Mr. Collins reviewed a (second) staff report prepared following the April 26, 2000, public hearing.
An attachment to the report contains an analysis of five comparable facilities and their impacts on
surrounding areas prepared on behalf of the applicants by Landon Kimbrough.
Mr. Collins responded to specific questions by commissioners with regard to definitions and
intentions contained in staff s report.
214
Commissioner Schramm expressed concern that nearly all of the letters written in protest of the
proposed action were written from an emotional level rather than from factual evidence. He asked if
staff provides counsel for persons who wish to voice concerns with regard to specific projects. Mr.
Collins answered that staff tries to provide general direction to persons who wish to respond to
particular applications or processes. It is not staff s expectation that a citizen who wishes to testify
will necessarily provide expert testimony. People are not discouraged from testifying although it is
staffs expectation that applicants will need to provide a certain amount of expert evidence in ord.
to make their case. There is not a set of guidelines as to what type of evidence is valid and which is
not. Commissioner Schramm asked that staff develop such guidelines to direct those who wish to
comment as to what type of information can be used to formulate decisions.
Planning Commission Minutes
May /0, 2000
Page J
.
Vice Chair Nutter noted the ground rules by which,th~meeting would be conducted and opened the
continued public hearing.
Bob McCartney, 1749 East Sixth Street, read a letter into the record identifying his doubts that
patients at the proposed Highland Courte facility would be only residents of the Port Angeles
community. He believed that patients would seek the services of the facility from many other areas
including out of state locations. He agreed with other speakers at the previous meeting who asked that
the permit be denied due to the inappropriateness of such a use in a retirement community.
Don Dundon, 701 Currier Court,.agreed with comments made by David Flodstrom at the April 26,
2000, meeting, where he stated that the conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCR's) of this
retirement community must be observed by residents and developers. Proposed Condition No.4 of
the conditional use permit approval poses a great concern to residents as the applicant has answered
that "to require a criminal background check would not be conducive to a recovery atmosphere, and
Highland Courte does not have the legal right to compel a criminal background check from every
applicant." This is not acceptable given the number of elderly and/or physically disabled residents
to the proposed facility. There are other potential uses for the building that would complement the
neighborhood. The proposed use does not.
.
Florence Humpal, 1702 Melody Circle #202, does not believe such a facility belongs in an elderly,
disabled, retirement community developed for a senior population. ~he expressed concern about the
potential of excess traffic in that a parking problem currently exists in the Highland Commons I
apartment area that is adj acent to the proposed site. The u.se does not belong in this type of residential
area.
Gene Middleton, 711 Elizabeth Place, represented a neighbor, Roy Varni, 1814 East Lauridsen
Boulevard, who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Middleton read a letter from Mr. Vami which
was in addition to the letter received from Mr. Vami and contained in staff s report. Mr. Vami noted
that the applicants are apparently so certain that the conditions of approval can be complied with that
they are already moving into the facility. The proposed facility is in violation of City ordinances
regarding uses in residential districts. Promises are not always kept when profit is involved. There
are no provisions for policing the conditions of approvaL . Applicants told residents in neighborhood
meetings that patients would be brought from as far away as Alaska. There are nine facilities within
one hundred miles of Port Angeles that currently offer inpatient care for chemical dependency. There
is no pressing need in this community for such a service. There is a greater need in Alaska as there
is only one such facility in the entire state.
Beryl Middleton, 711 Elizabeth Place is not opposed to treatment facilities ofthis nature, they are a
very needed service. She is concerned that the applicants are proposing this type of facility in a very
vulnerable senior retirement community where the sense of tranquility and security for the senior
population will be lost.
.1
Chuck Paulson, 1845 Lauridsen Boulevard urged the Commission to pay particular attention to the
Police Department report. Visitors to the facility cannot be controlled when they are not within the
facility and may be of the same persuasion as those seeking treatment in the facility. Such a use
leaves the entire senior retirement community in a very vulnerable position.
215
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10. 2000
Page 4
~l
Perry Jenna, 1703 Melody Circle agreed with the previous speakers and was concerned with the
potential for violent and sexual crimes as a result of the introduction of this type of use in a senior.
community. Many residents of the neighborhood are old and frail and live in fear of the possibility
of this facility in their neighborhood.
Jennifer Kim, 11 One. Horse Lane, spoke for her parents who reside at 1845 East Lauridsen
Boulevard. Her family is concerned that adults who seek treatment may not act like adults when
under the influence of chemical dependency and harm may come to residents of the neighborhood as
a result of the use in this location. She echoed all of the concerns ofthe residents voiced thus far in
opposition to the proposal.
Craig Miller, 230 East Fifth Street, introduced Landon Kimbrough, 270 Beckett Point Road, Port
Townsend, WA98368, who commented on some of the testimony presented. He stated that the
statistical figure of 3901 persons in Clallam County who may be suffering from chemical abuse is
from information provided by the Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (ASA). The report is a
biannual report prepared for the State of Washington. Ten to fifteen percent of the 3901 persons
addicted to some form of chemical abuse are expected to enter inpatient treatment facilities. He
explained the process used in providing the survey provided to the Commission. Not all inpatient
facilities operate the same so it is difficult to find good comparables. He identified four such facilities
that were similar to Highland Courte that were used in the survey.
Mr. Kimbrough responded to Commissioner Craver that the closest inpatient treatment center that he
is aware of is in Olalla, Washington, in Kitsap County. .
Mr. Kimbrough responded to several questions from Commissioner Nutter regarding inpatient and
outpatient services in Clallam County serving chemically dependent persons. He responded as to the
level of training for staff and that the facility would be licensed by the State of Washington as a health
care professional facility. Professional counselors require 2500 hours of experience, 45 to 90 hours
of schooling, and pass a test. Nine different chemical groups are termed as mood altering. All mood
altering drug-dependent persons will be treated at the facility. Patients will be evaluated each week
to assess their ability to function as outpatients ready for discharge. Opoidpatients do not do well in
this type of treatment facility and are screened out prior to admission. Patients are asked whether they
are opoid dependent but the center has no legal basis for doing background research on patients.
Clinical data is often available to indicate what a patient is addicted to prior to admission. There are
no other outpatient treatment centers being operated by Northwest Care Services, the proposed
operator of the facility, in the State of Washington.
In response to Commissioner Norton, Mr. Kimbrough stated that there are no patients being treated
- ,
at the facility at present. The facility has not received licensing. Mr. Bob Martin has an office at the
facility in order to have a local office from which to operate. The building is otherwise empty.
Commissioner Schramm asked how the facility would serve the direct neighborhood? Mr. Kimbrough
answered that the facility is intended to treat the needs of the entire community. In order to be
effective, treatment needs to be done locally so that families can participate in recovery. Mr..
Schramm stated that the applicants have identified patients to the facility as local professionals and
community leaders. He asked if local professionals might prefer to be treated outside of their local
community for anonymity reasons.
216
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10. 2000
Page 5
.
The Commission took a break at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
Bob Martin, P.O. Box 1934, Port Angeles, WA stated that the chemical dependency treatment center
services will not include detoxification and admission must be voluntary. The center will provide
services for adult, 18 and older, patient, and will not provide service to patients who have been
convicted of violent and sexual crimes. The length of stay is 21 to 28 days and cost $140 a day.
Visitors will only be allowed on weekends and will be screened to allow only those visitors who are
supportive of the treatment. From his experience, at the end of one year, the Highland Communities
neighborhood will realize that the Highland Courte treatment facility has been a very good neighbor.
An advisory committee is planned of approximately twelve members made up of direct neighbors and
community members. Conditions of approval for the facility are welcome to ensure the facility is
meeting the expectations of the neighborhood to address specific issues of concern.
Commissioner Craver stated that the biggest fear expressed by the neighbors is of patients with a
history of violent crimes and aberrant behavior. Without the ability for criminal background checks,
how can neighbors be assured that this type of patient will not enter the facility? Mr. Martin answered
that by and large interviews with family members, friends, and employers reveal background problems
of concern.
ei
In response to Commissioner Schramm, Mr. Martin answered that of the potential 3901 Clallam
County residents who may need this type of facility, approximately 50% can afford the treatment.
Residents will be private payor insurance pay patients~ In response to Mr. Schramm's inquiry as to
how the proposed facility will serve the immediate area:'Mr. Martin answered that the neighborhood
won't know they are there. There will be no adverse effects and will provide a sorely needed service.
The center will be licensed by the state as a for profit health care facility. Staff will remain constant
in trying to be resourceful in keeping the cost level as low as possible. Family members will not he
spending the night at the facility but will seek lodging elsewhere in town for the family weekend
counseling service once during the treatment.
Mr. Martin described measures proposed with regard to on-site security as touch pad entryways with
alarm systems at the perimeter of the area. Staff will be on-site 24 hours a day and cameras will be
installed within the facility. In response to Commissioner Nutter, he could not say why the previous
Alzheimer's facility failed, but a high caliber chemical treatment facility nationwide will remain full
if its operational standards and services are reputable and affordable.
Tim German, 2025 West 12th Street, is a principal in the Highland Courte project. His mother lives
in the Highland Commons apartments, and he is not in the least concerned with her residency there
due to his research into the use that is proposed. People in the treatment center can be discharged
whenever they wish. Patients have a problem that they wish to be free of and will come to the facility
voluntarily to receive treatment.
ei
In response to Commissioner Schramm as to how the proposed use qualifies as a social service use,
Mr. German answered that the facility will be supporting outpatient services throughout the
community. He further responded to the inquiry as to why such a facility should be in this particular
neighborhood, Mr. German answered that the facility would result in less impact to the residential
neighborhood than another apartment.
217
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 2000
Page 6
~
Craig Miller, 230 East Fifth Street, speaking as attorney for the applicants, stated that a conditional .
use permit is a permitted use in specific zones with or without conditions. If conditions can be applied
to make a use compatible, then it becomes a permitted use. He took exception to wording iI1,staffs .
report of May 10,2000, that the proposed use must be found to serve the surrounding residential uses
to be compatible with the Residential High Density zone (RHD). Language in the City's
Comprehensive Plan indicates that "a healthy viable district should be composed of residential uses
of varying densities which may be augmented by subordinate and compatible uses." This conditional
use (CUP) must be Gonsidered by the same set of standards as every other conditional use that can be
permitted in an RHD zone, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and golf courses, to name a few. It is
an erroneous test to believe that the use must serve the direct neighborhood. The correct test is, can
this use be made compatible with the residential nature ofthe zone in whiph it located? There is no
hard evidence that this particular facility will cause an increase in police responses. The fears of the
neighbors are from a belief that problems will occur, but impacts have to be demonstrated by
evidence not opinions.
He referred to the court case Sunderland Services vs Pasco (127 Washington 2nd 782) a Washington
Supreme Court case. The case concerned a proposal to allow a group home crises residential center
for abused and neglected teenagers in a single family residential zoning district. The neighbors
questioned whether the children would be properly supervised and cited the high number of elderly
persons living in the neighborhood. The City of Pasco denied .the permit. The Supreme Court
overturned the city's decision because the decision was based upon fears of neighborhood residents
rather than objective eViden.ce. There is an important distinction between well founded fears and those .
based on inaccurate stereotypes and popular prejudices. A second case The Department of
Corrections vs the City of Kennewick, involved a work release facility in downtown Kennewick. The
neighbors testified regarding their fears as a result of work release which is a much more serious
concern than the proposed facility. The City denied the permit, and the denial was reversed by the
Supreme Court as the only opposing evidence were generalized complaints from displeased citizens.
Denial cannot be based on guesses.
The applicant is committed to a set of enforceable conditions thatwill deal with the concerns that have
been raised by the neighborhood. An open, working relationship with the neighborhood is a specific
goal of the management.
Commissioner Schramm read the definition of social service agencies from the City's Comprehensive
Plan. In responding to Commissioner Schramm's question as to how the proposed facility is similar
to those types of uses categorized as social service agencies, Mr. Miller stated that those categories
cannot be exclusive. The categories of social service agencies listed in the Comprehensive Plan are
examples of such uses and any facility that operates with the same characteristics must be treated in
the same manner. Commissioner Schramm noted that given that information, a day care center would
be treated the same as chemical dependency treatment centers.
In response to Commissioner Craver, Mr. Miller did not know if chemically dependent persons are
considered disabled by the State. Mr. Bob Martin answered from the audience "no". Commissioner
Nutter commented that she believes chemically dependent persons fall under the Americans with.
Disabilities Act (ADA).
218
The Commission took a break at 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10. 2000
Page 7
.
Steve Moriarity, 403 South Peabody, is an attorney representing an estate that adjoins the subject
property. The heirs are concerned that property values will fall as a result of a chemical dependency
treatment facility next door. He expressed concern that the conditions recommended by staff are not
verifiable or enforceable. There has been no convincing testimony presented that. background
screening will be adequate or legally permissible. The City's Police Department still has reservations
that such a use is appropriate in the proposed neighborhood. There is no doubt that such facilities are
needed, but this senior community is not appropriate.
Chuck Paulson, 1845 East Lauridsen Boulevard, requested that a business plan be reviewed that is
based on the average rate of stay to determine if a profitable operation is possible without failure of
such as that of the previous Alzheimer's facility.
.
Allan Harrison, 1834 East Fifth Street, opposed the facility. He believes that the reason for the
proposal is that the property owners failed in one endeavor and need to try something different to
recover their investment. The proposal is an unconscionable imposition on the quality of life in the
Highland neighborhood. Even with the conditions proposed by Planning staff, the Police Department
remains concerned about the proposal. The facility is not compatible with the zoning of the area.
When he recently purchased his property, he checked the zoning laws and concluded that he was
buying a home in a pleasant upscale neighborhood. He would not have made the purchase if he had
not thought the City would uphold the basic social contract between a citizen. and its government. It
should be up to those proposing to change the status quo to prove to the existing residents that the
proposed use will be compatible with their environment.
Michael Kisman, 1703 Melody Circle, was concerned about residents' rights in the neighborhood.
Security issues are a real concern. .Several Alzheimer's patients walked away from the supposedly'
secure facility. Why would someone think chemically dependent persons would not also be able to
walk away from the site Many residents in the area are in wheelchairs, are blind, and most are quite
elderly and frail. A recreational trail surrounds this retirement community. The population is very
afraid and would not feel comfortable using the trails and other recreational amenities that were
developed for the Highland Communities neighborhood anymore due to the proximity of the proposed
facility. The recreational use was promised to all residents when they signed contracts for the
apartments. It will be nearly impossible to adequately screen patients for previous crimes. Most
people will not be forthcoming with that information. It is possible that residents will choose to leave
the senior apartments because of the use and the owners will be left with empty apartments.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10. 2000
Page 8
.--l
under which the entire area was developed restrict the uses that are expected. Based on approve.
development plans, the residents purchased homes and rented apartments and expected that they
would live in a retirement community atmosphere. They may not have made the same decisions had
they not believed conditions were in place to ensure that result. Residents were promised a common
recreational area. Use of that area will not be as desirable for residents if the proposed use is
approved. He asked that the public hearing be continued to allow the public an opportunity to
comment on staffs proposed condition changes.
Carroll Reed, 1707 Lambert Lane, was very concerned about his land value. He asked if the surveys
submitted by the proponents for comparable facilities included sites located in retirement
communities, or were they all in more mixed neighborhoods.
Gerald Powell, 718 Elizabeth Place, did not believe the proponents' promises due to their many
broken promises made in the past.
Patricia Walker, 1815 East Third Street, does not believe the proposed facility will be successful as
the applicant's own testimony indicates the facility would serve about 10% of the approximately 3901
potential patients in Clallam County. There is no purpose for the proposal other than as a commercial
venture. It does not support the direct community. Commercial enterprises are not generally felt to
be compatible with residential land uses.
Heather Wilmot, 1840 East Lauridsen Boulevard, agreed with previously expressed statements that.
the proposed facility is inappropriate for the neighborhood. As a registered nurse who worked in an
inpatient chemical dependent facility in Corvalis, Oregon, she was sad to see that facility fail. There
were not enough people in the area with financial resources to pay for the use to continue. She
doubted that a for profit facility will be successful given the limited number of potential patients in
Clallam County.
Lucienne Kirk, 1703 Melody Circle #115, was overcome by the concerns of other residents in the
Highland Corinnons apartments for their safety and well being. She worked with chemical dependent
patients as a religious counselor in her professional life. She is concerned that the proponent's plans
keep fluctuating. Traffic is a concern to this adult community. Residents are very disabled and quite
frail. Such a facility will cause undue, unnecessary stress and anxiety to the senior community in
which it is proposed.
Gene Middleton, 711 Elizabeth Place, asked if the proponents could guarantee that the neighborhood
would not be subjected to impacts of runaways from the use. The police report included in the
Planning Department's staff report contained information that runaway incidents occur.
Harvey Nettle, 1803 East Lauridsen Boulevard, recently purchased a home in the neighborhood. He
would probably not have purchased the home ifhe had known of the proposal.
220
Steve Sanderson, 332 North Ridge View Drive, acknowledged that he submitted a letter to thee
Planning Commission regarding Northwest Care Services' management of the Garden Courte,
Highland Courte, and Dungeness Courte facilities. The letter had been altered in that the inside
address had been blanked out, and no one knew who had left it for the Commission. Because it was
therefore altered from its original state and submitted anonymously, staff did not transmit it to the
1--
.
.
.
~';{jfh!~!iJfF~~fW}r~i~::;:.'\~~~k;,'"" ~\",:,..::IT'::;'}H%{h;i';1~*~'-;~:%~';~i_%:
Planning Commission Minutes
May /0, 2000
Page 9
Commission. The individual who requested the information from DSHS wished to remain
anonymous but had asked for the report due to serious concerns about the management group. He
asked that the letter be submitted to the Commission. He also noted that (based on a resume submitted
on May 5, 1999) Mr. Martin has been in the admissions process 13 years not 23 years as previously
stated.
There being no further testimony, Planning Director Collins asked to clarify certain issues and minor
errors in the staff report. The discrepancy between five or four comparables, pointed out by Mr.
Kimbrough, is that the initial report contained five comparable facilities where the final report only
contained four. The evidence provided by the applicant is not seen as conclusive by the Police
Department to ensure that safety impacts can be adequately mitigated. The concern is that only
limited empmcal data has been provided. One of the main concerns staffhas is the enforceability of
conditions of approval, in particular restrictions on admissions. The burden of meeting conditions is
usually with the applicant, and there is a danger to that. It is staf.f s position that the treatment center
is not a residence, and so the similarity of this facility to a group home is the similarity between a
residence and a non-residence which may be more dissimilar. The common recreational area
throughout the entire community site was part of the original planned residential development and
remains a facility that is open not only to the residents but to the public as well.
There being no further testimony and following discussion regarding the need to continue the
public hearing, Commissioner Norton moved to continue the public hearing to the regular
meeting of May 24, 2000, 7 p.m. It was clarified that no new testimony would be heard at the
May 24 meetinl:. Only testimony regarding conditions would be considered. Commissioner
King seconded the motion, which passed 5 - O.
The Commission asked that the letter submitted by Mr. Sanderson be made available to the applicant
following approval of the City Attorney. If okayed, the information will be copied for the Planning
Commission and be available to the public.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Pat Walker, 1813 East Third Street, asked if other items (Items 2 and 3 under Staff Reports)
regarding proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will be continued to the next meeting.
Vice Chair Nutter noted that the item would be continued to May 24, 2000.
Mary Lou Paulson, 1845 East Lauridsen Boulevard, thanked the Commission for their time in
dealing with this issue and the thoughtfulness of their questions.
Arthur Wilmot, 1840 East Lauridsen Boulevard, wished to thank whoever provided the summation
of the previous meeting in the minutes that were prepared. This is very difficult to do, and they were
quite accurate.
Carlos Xavier, 1627 East Fifth Street, wished to echo that the Commission and staff are doing a great
job and they are supportive of the Commissions position.
221
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10. 2000
Poge 10
~
"'-_ J
STAFF REPORTS
1.
.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-01- LUND. East of Race
Street between Fifth and Seventh Streets: A proposal to designate property currently
identified as Low Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial (C).
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-02- CITY OF PORT
ANGELES: A proposal to amend the density for residential units in High Density
Residential zones from a maximum of 43 units to a "density greater than 43 units per
net acre."
3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT- CPA 00-03 - MORNINGSIDE
DEVELOPMENT. Lindberg Road/Golf Course Road: A proposal to change the
designation of property located at the southeast comer of Lindberg Road and Golf
Course Road from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential
(HDR).
Director Collins indicated that it was anticipated the (Year) 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
- -
would be heard at this meeting; however, due to the continuation of the Highland CUP application,
that was not possible. Those proposed amendments will appear on the May 24,2000, agenda as they
must be forwarded to the City Council for action in June. Discussion followed about the full May
24 agenda and the possible need for a May 31 special meeting.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
.
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
---H: ~~ ~
Brad Collins, Secretary
PREPARED BY: S. Roberds
.
222
.
el
e;
"""'~;;";~~+;':J':::,::.;,::,'h::\~>;j"d~~~;
'<("j:~:;:s,:;,~,"rt;;rf;:'i .
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
May 24, 2000
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Linda Nutter, Fred Norton, Bob King, Mary Craver, Chuck
Schramm
Members Excused:
(please Note: Fred Hewins and Bob Philpott arrived at 11
p.m.)
Staff Present:
Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Dan McKeen
Public Present:
Lorraine Ross, Lucienne Kirk, Claire Steinman, Dolores
Dulaney, Betty Uhrich, Mary Schroeder, John Duyshart, Jerry
Miller, Beryle and Gene Middleton, Patricia Walker, Mary
Lou Paulson, Katherine Burgess, Barbara Thompsen, Chuck
Paulson, EInor and Carroll Reid, Allen and Caroline Collins,
Dave Flodstrom, Chris Brotherton, Joel Miller, Bob Martin,
Allan Harrison, Jodi O'neal, Florence Humpal, Chuck Mullin,
Tad Price, Don Dunsdon, David Neupert, H. Brisbin, Craig
Miller, Heather and Art Wilmot, S. Kimbrough, Landon
Kimbrough, Ken Sweeney, Tim German, Olive Brooks,
Virginia McFrederick, Steve Sanderson, Robert and Deanna
Martin
APPROVAL OF MINUTE~
Having announced Appearance of Fairness issues at previous meetings regarding the
Highland Courte Conditional Use Permit, Chair Hewins and Commissioner Philpott were
absent from roll call and did not enter the building until following the conclusion of the
agenda item at 11 :00 p.m.
Commissioner King moved to approve the May 10, 2000, meeting minutes as amended
by Commissioner Craver with a correction on page 5, second paragraph, second
sentence "Without the ability for criminal background checks, how can neighbors be
assured that this type of patient will not enter the facility?" The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Craver and passed 5-0.
Vice Chair Nutter noted that the City Attorney asked for an Executive Session to discuss
potential litigation for a ten minute period. The Commissioners left the room. Planning
Director Collins returned after a ten minute period to announce the Commission would be
an additional five minutes. The Commissioners returned to the room at 7:20 p.m.
223
Planning Commission Meeting - May 24, 2000
Page 2
.;.::::~
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 00-03 - GERMAN (JIiehland LLC).
1702 Melody Circle: A proposal to establish a private chemical dependency
treatment facility in an existing structure located within the RHD, Residential High
Density zone. (Continued from May 10,2000.)
Vice Chair Nutter opened the meeting and asked for a staff report.
Planning Director Collins presented a staff report recommending approval of the conditional
use permit subject to thirteen conditions. There is agreement with the applicants that the
proposed conditions are appropriate and enforceable. The thirteen conditions of approval are
intended to mitigate concerns raised in public testimony and previous staff reports. Staff
confirmed that the letter written by the Department of Social and Health Services received
from Mr. Steve Sanderson at the May 10, 2000, meeting is a bonafide letter. Only the inside
address had been deleted to protect confidentiality.
Staff has determined since the May 10 public hearing that it is relatively easy to access
criminal background information through the Washington State Patrol WATCH (Washington
Access To Criminal History) computer system; however, only Washington State residents'
histories may be accessed. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) recognizes people
with chemical dependency as a protected class of citizens who have rights for social services .
which are necessary for their particular needs. This includes services that are provided in an
inpatient residential setting unless there is specific, well documented evidence of significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated. The City's Comprehensive Plan policies support
the provision of social services in residential neighborhoods in a manner that maintains the
character of the immediate neighborhood.
Mr. Collins indicated that three letters had been received following the May 10, 2000,
meeting which were not transmitted to the Planning Commission as the public hearing for
general testimony was closed following the May 10, public hearing. Only further testimony
specific to the proposed conditions of approval would be permitted following that meeting.
An explanation of the conditional use permit category "Social service agencies providing 24-
hour residential care" was given. The category was established to allow Serenity House, a
social service agency, to establish a facility to provide shelter for the homeless. At issue is
the distinction between a social service agency providing residential services, which is a
residential use such as a group home, and one providing social services, which is a non-
residential use such asa chemical dependency treatment center. The staff recommendation
is based on legal advice that the City cannot draw this distinction. It was noted that
conditions were modified or added in response to public comments about requiring criminal
background checks and about enforcing the conditions.
.
224
Planning Commission Meeting - May 24, 2000
Page 3
.
.!
.1
Commissioner Norton questioned the term "scholarship" as used to describe a program
proposed by the applicant to allow those in the community who might not otherwise be able
to participate to afford treatment. He asked about screening for coexisting disorders and how
compliance with the conditions could be verified.
Commissioner Schramm asked staff if the proposal in any way conflicts with the planned
residential development (PRD) approval issued for the initial Highland Communities
development of which the property is a part. Mr. Collins responded that the recreational
amenities developed as part of the PRD must not be compromised by the proposal. Those
recreational amenities must remain open and available to the public and to the residents of
the area, particularly Highland Communities. Commissioner Schramm asked how the
proponents could then guarantee that visitors to the treatment center won't also be availing
themselves of the recreational amenities at any time. Mr. Collins stated that the
responsibility for such a violation would be with treatment center staff, who would be
responsible for enforcement of visitor rules. If violations are reported to City staff,
appropriate action will be taken.
Commissioner Schramm questioned staffs interpretation of the City's Parking Ordinance
requirements that would require only 17 parking spaces for the proposed 50 patient treatment
center. Testimony was received that parking in the area ofthe senior apartments is maxed
out. He noted that a medical facility is required to provide one (1) off-street parking space
for each bed plus parking spaces for staff and visitors. There are only 29 spaces available
on the subject site; however the applicant did not address parking issues or ask for a parking
variance based on the policy that patients would be discouraged to drive to the facility on
their own. Mr. Collins answered that the treatment center's requirement for off- street
parking has been interpreted to be the the same as that of the previous Alzheimer's facility,
which was likened to a nursing home, and provided 17 spaces, or 1 space for each 3 beds.
City Attorney Craig Knutson responded to Commissioner Craver's inquiry as to how the
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) court decisions relate to the proposal. He stated
that the ADA does apply to persons with substance abuse problerp.s. They are considered to
be a protected class of people under federal law, and a number of court decisions have dealt
with that issue in the land use permitting context. Th~ courts are indicating that in order to
condition or deny a proposal for a facility that is designed to serve controlled substance
ab~sers, decision makers have to make sure that decisions are based on documented evidence
that is substantiated in the record of actual impacts. In developing conditions, staff tried to
establish conditions based on either evidence in the record or on agreements that the
applicants have made so those conditions will be supportable under the ADA. Specifically
with regard to issues such as public safety and decline in property values, court cases have
stated that perceived impacts are not supportable. Specific evidence needs to be in the record
that those impacts will occur.
Commissioner Schramm repeated that the proposed facility may best be compared to a
medical facility rather than a nursing home for parking purposes. Furthermore, as this is a
new use in an existing structure where additional parking may be required, it would seem the
parking issue should be analyzed'prior to any decision on the proposed use. Mr. Collins
agreed that the Alzheimer's use was determined to be similar to a residential use. The
225
Planning Commission Meeting - May 24, 2000
Page 4
im~.
proposed use is not an identified use in the Parking Ordinance and so must be likened to one
that is. Mr. Schramm noted that people confmed to a nursing home are probably not going
to be driving, where those who have a chemical dependency problem probably are drivers
and may even drive themselves to the facility.
.
Commissioner Nutter asked if employee parking is factored into the 17 spaces required for
the center. Mr. Collins answered that nursing home parking requirements don't factor in
employee parking because it is believed that patients don't drive. Commissioner Schramm
suggested that a condition that patients may not drive to the facility might be appropriate.
Vice Chair Nutter opened the continued public hearing by encouraging all those present to
sign in so they can be recognized. She stated that persons who intend to provide testimony
must sign in and acknowledge that their testimony is truthful to the best of their knowledge
Additionally, testimony must be limited specifically to the conditions proposed for approval
of the conditional use permit, the Sanderson letter from the Department of Social and Health
Services, or the letter from Mrs. Mardel Xavier in regard to the proposed conditions.
Craig Miller, 230 East Fifth Street, attorney for the applicant, was prepared to answer
questions on behalf of the applicants. He stated that his clients are in agreement with staffs
report and recommendations. In addition to the provisions of the ADA, the project falls
within the provisions of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) which deals with discrimination in
housing similarly to the ADA. It is the applicant's determination to abide by the conditions .
as proposed. The applicants are subject to the obligations ofthe ADA to the extent that they
cannot discriminate in how service is provided to patients.
Condition No. 5 was originally written such that a criminal background check will be
obtained as soon as practicable. The wording as amended by staff indicates that a criminal
background check will be conducted under the State Patrol WATCH program prior to
admission of patients. The wording ties the center into a specific program that may be
phased out or lose funding. Furthermore, the management is concerned that when patients
present themselves for treatment it is often critical that they be admitted promptly and not
forced to wait for lengthy criminal background checks to be completed. It is quite possible
that hold ups could occur within the WATCH program due to backlogs, lack of funding,
internet problems, etc. The applicant will agree to the proposed wording of Condition No.
5 with the understanding that they are agreeing to a service that remains functional.
Mr. Miller does not believe the parking concerns expressed by Commissioner Schramm or
previous speakers is really valid as the City's Parking Ordinance has been reviewed by staff
and it has been determined that the existing off-street parking spaces are adequate for the
proposed use. "
In response to Commissioner Nutter, Deputy Police Chief Tom Riepe indicated that the
WATCH program, through the Washington State Patrol, can only access state residents'
files. Out-of-state patients would have to be researched through the Federal Bureau of .
Investigation (FBn which could take a couple of weeks.
226
~\1'~5i~'H:']1~NF'~r~~"/!:"':,;;:it,~,;,. :: ~',~-~*~!~\~~,,::~.~
Planning Commission Meeting - May 24. 2000
Page 5
.
With regard to Condition No.9, Commissioner Schramm asked Mr. Miller if a patient who
decides to leave could be detained? Mr. Miller answered that all measures would betaken
to encourage such a patient to remain in the facility but in reality, no physical force could be
used to detain such a person. Mr. Schramm noted that to ensure a patient is not easily
enabled to leave, whenever they so choose, a condition could be worded such that patient
vehicles ~~y not remain at the facility.
Lengthy discussion began regarding security and the restriction of visitors to weekends
between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. as identified in Condition No.7. The issue of use of the common
recreation area that joins the entire residential development including the subject site was
discussed. Although visitors will be prescreened and strictly informed as to permissible
visiting hours, it is possible that unauthorized situations will occur. Visitors will not be
admitted into the facility outside of authorized hours for visitation; however, it was agreed
that is would be no control outside of the facility.
Commissioner Nutter noted that residents of the Alzheimer's use were provided
opportunities for exercise within the facility. She asked if it would be a problem to restrict
patients from recreating outside of the facility. Mr. Miller responded that it would not be a
problem; however, if a particular patient is under undue stress and absolutely has to go
outside, it could be permitted on a one to one basis with an able staff member. This situation
will not be encouraged unless completely unavoidable for required treatment.
.
Commissioner Nutter stated thaCit would be desirable to be more specific in the formation
of rules regarding the reporting and meeting schedule for the proposed advisory board. How
often the board meets and a requirement that a report from the board be included in the
center's semi-annual report to the Planning Department would be improved measures.
In response to Commissioner Norton, Mr. Miller stated that the proposed advisory board
would be. advisory not supervisory. The board members could provide any information they
feel is appropriate. The semi-annual report will include information on number of patients
admitted, a description of the fact that background checks had been performed, and the
number of patients denied treatment as a result of those checks. Additionally, statements as
to how many patients voluntarily left the facility, where they were transported to and when,
how many patients were residents of Port Angeles, how "many scholarships had been used,
and verification that no minor persons had been admitted would be included in tb,e reports.
Noncompliance issues would be identified and measures to prevent such occurrences. The
reports will be reasonably detailed to determine compliance with the conditions of approval.
ei
Robert Martin, P.O. Box 1934, Port Angeles, W A responded to questions regarding policy
and procedures. He responded to the question previously posed by commissioners that
patients should be discouraged from bringing vehicles to the center. In the event that anyone
does bring a vehicle to the site, the vehicle would be locked, and the keys surrendered to a
staff member. Additionally, patients would be asked to contact a friend to remove the
vehicle from the site for the duration of treatment. Commissioner Schramm stressed that his
concern is that having a vehicle on site makes itmuch easier for a patient to feel that they
have the ability to leave or to store items in the vehicle that prevent effective treatment.
227
Planning Commission Meeting - May 24. 1000
Page 6
Additionally, someone who is out of control emotionally and intent on leaving the center
may leave in an erratic manner that causes hann to an innocent neighborhood resident based
on the patient's chemical dependency. Everything must be done to limit the possibility of
an innocent person being affected by the center's presence in the neighborhood. He strongly
recommended that patient vehicles not be permitted to remain on-site.
.
Mr. Martin provided a lengthy explanation of the measures that would be used to convince
a patient not to leave the treatment facility but to complete treatment. He has personally
been very successful in talking patients out of leaving centers where he has worked and
intends to train his staff in a likewise manner. Center staff are not legally able to detain
individuals who are determined to leave.
In response to Commissioner Norton, Mr. Martin stressed that the management intends to
provide opportunities for local residents to obtain treatment through a scholarship or
financial aid program. The management will endeavor to be creative in providing
opportunities for financial-assistance to local residents by absorbing some of the costs.
Mr. Martin responded to Commissioner Nutter that their service includes picking people up
from airports or bus stations. She asked what is determined by the ''Port Angeles" area? Mr.
Martin noted that he would consider the area to be the Olympic Peninsula area.
The proposed patient capacity has been reduced from 50 to 48 patients for per licensing
requirements. A total of five direct patient counselors will be on site from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Non-licensed manager staffwill be on duty at night. One medical director will be on staff
and will visit once a week. Licensed professional staffwill not be on duty after 5 p.m.;
however, all staffwill be continually trained in the treatment they administer.
.
Regarding Condition No. 13, Commissioner Nutter asked why semi-annual verification will
only be for three years. She suggested that the verification be extended in perpetuity for the
life of the use. Mr. Martin responded that internal physical incidents will be immediately
reported to the Police Department as there is a zero tolerance policy for such activity.
. In response to Commissioner Craver, Mr. Martin answered that the facility will be licensed
by the Washington State Department of Health with licensure for the treatment program
under the Department of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (ASA).
[The Commission took a 10 minute break at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30
p.m.]
228
Allan Harrison, 1834 E. Lauridsen Boulevard, cited from a court case referenced by Mr.
Craig Miller at the May 10 meeting regarding a similar proposal in another community. He
stated his belief that the court cases cited by Mr. Miller in support of the current proposal is
not pertinent to the current issue as they are not that similar. There would not be a need for .
so many conditions if the use were appropriate for the senior neighborhood. Vice Chair
Nutter reminded Mr. Harrison that only testimony regarding the proposed conditions of
approval may be discussed at this time. Mr. Harrison answered that the applicant's counsel
indicated the two particular court cases didn't allow the Commission to act on the feelings
.
.,
e,
\,~.,~, ~ r":~":;~~;i;:'W"'Y~'" I~\::~ ''7 ~^!. ' ~"i1~""-;j':~,t~\~f,"t,::r:~:r;r~.;,:
Planning Commission Meeting - May 24, 2000
Page 7
of residents but only on specific facts. He did not believe the cited cases were similar to the
current proposal and therefore the attorney's direction may be flawed.
Jerry Miller, 1703 Melody Circle, #211, noted that juvenile records may not be obtained in
criminal background checks. With regard to Condition No. 13, visitors have cars. There is
a very tight parking problem at the Highland Commons apartments now. Up to 50 cars could
be on the site during a weekend if visitors drive to the facility not counting employees.
Visitors and employees will not be allowed to park in the Highland apartment parking lots.
The streets will be overloaded and the calm, retirement nature of the area will be very
negatively impacted.
Lucienne Kirk, 1703 Melody Circle, expressed concern on the issue of patient vehicle
parking. She does not believe patients should be allowed to leave their vehicles in the center
parking area as duplicate keys are not uncommonly hidden in vehicles and access won't be
that difficult. She agreed with Commissioner Schramm's earlier concerns and was gravely
concerned for the safety of handicapped and elderly residents who may not be able to get out
of the way of an angry patient wishing to leave the center site. She thanked the Commission
for their attention to the matter.
Joel Miller, 46 Fairburn Road, Montesano, WA representing his mother, Marcella Miller,
719 Currier Court, believes the current conditions are largely unenforceable and the'report
from the Department of Social and Health Services. does not put the past management
procedures ofthe parent company's Alzheimer facility operations in good light. He asked
that the Commission carefully review the conditions of approval and put some enforcement
measures in them.
Don Dundon, 701 Currier Court, didn't agree with the applicant's assurance that parking
is adequate. People will be at high risk due to excess traffic and due to the mental stress of
the people being treated at the facility who may be in a hurry to leave. The senior nature of
the neighborhood is well established and was a promise of the developers who sold the
properties, and a requirement for those living there. When the facility is short of patients,
management will look further than the local area for patients, even out of state. There is no
way that Condition No.5 can be monitored. People will be hurt.
Al Collins, 1813 East Lauridsen Boulevard, noted that by the applicant's own admission,
Conditions Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 cannot or may not be met. He urged the Commission to
make the conditions enforceable.
Patricia Walker, 1815 East Third Street, asked what enforcement means will be imposed?
With regard to Condition No. 10, what is a reasonable number of patients from the Port
Angeles community? The number of adults within the City of Port Angeles and Clallam
County with a current need for chemical treatment of the kind proposed by the Highland
Courte facility under the conditions set forth in the Planning Department's staff report can
be estimated for the year 2000 as 63 for the City of Port Angeles' alone and 221 for Clallam
County. New needs per year are 0.5 for Port Angeles and 2.5 for the county. This
229
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
.-...
information indicates that patients will need to be brought from areas well out of the Port
Angeles/Clallam County/Olympic Peninsula area. Scholarships will not help as they.will
only add about 30 patients to the initial base number.
.
There being no further testimony, Vice Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schramm asked the City Attorney if there was anything discussed that would
change staff's recommendation or require further review before proceeding
City Attorney Knutson responded that some comments from speakers were related to the
proposed conditions and that if the Commission feels it appropriate, the conditions may be
revised. The proposed conditions are not the only conditions that could be imposed. They
could be improved upon. In response to previous questions regarding enforcement where
violations are reported, Mr. Knutson explained the procedure for enforcement through the
City Attorney's Office or Police Department.
Per the Commission's Bylaws, Commissioner Norton moved to continue with the
agenda as the time was beyond 10 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Craver and passed 5 - o.
The Planning Commission began an extensive review of the proposed conditions of .
approval. The conditions were analyzed one by one with regard to enforceability and
testimony that had been received. Following the lengthy discussion, which included the City
Attorney and Planning Director, and given the extent of the revisions to the proposed
conditions. Commissioner Schramm moved to continue action to a special meeting of
the Commission on May 31, 2000, 7.p.m., City Council Chambers. The Commission
directed staftto revise the conditions per the Commission's discussion and return with
those conditions at the May 31 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Norton and passed 5 ,;, o. It was specifically stated that there would be no more public
input. Mr. Collins noted that the Commissioners could still ask direct questions of those in
the audience.
Commissioner Schramm asked City Attorney Knutson to review the Planning Department's
parking interpretation for the use.
The Commission took a break at 10:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11 :00 p.m.
Chair Hewins and Commissioner Philpott joined the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT MCA 00-02 ADULT
ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES City wide: Consideration of adoption of .
regulations regarding adult entertainment business within the City limits. (Continued
from April 26, 2000.)
230
.'
.1
.1
.~.r"ffy.;';"I~>*/"f"",,~>r""l\'.~l'j:..;_,,<-",,~~~~~~:;;:,,~(!;),~~,.-
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
Chair Hewins opened the public hearing. There being no public to testify and given that staff
had asked the issue be continued to June 14, Commissioner Nutter moved to continue the
hearing to the June 14, 2000, regular meeting. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Norton and passed unanimously.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT - CPA 00-01 - LUND. West of Race
Street between Fifth and Seventh Streets: A proposal to change the designation of
property from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial (C).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-02 - CITY OF PORT
ANGELES: A proposal to amend the density for residential units in High Density
Residential zones from a maximum of 43 units to a "density greater than 43 units per
net acre."
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-03 - MORNINGVIEW
DEVELOPMENT. Lindberg Road/Golf Course Road: A proposal to change the
designation of property from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density
Residential (HDR).
Staff indicated that due to the complexity of the evening's first agenda item it was
anticipated that these issues would be continued to a special meeting scheduled for May 31,
2000.
Chair Hewins opened the public hearing. Commissioner Nutter moved to continue CPA
00-01, CPA 00-02, and CPA 00-03 to a special meeting on May 31, 2000, 7.p.m. City
Council Chambers. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver and passed
unanimously.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 00-09 -
CITY OF PORT ANGELES - Valley Creek Estuary Bridge: A proposal to
construct a 40' long bridge over the mouth of the estuary in the Industrial Heavy
zone.
Staff stated that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) review on this issue will take
a few more days to complete as the application is subject to an outside agency's (Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife) hydraulic permit. The applicant has agreed to a
continuation to June 14.
Chair Hewins opened the public hearing. Commissioner Nutter moved to continue the
public hearing to June 14,2000. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver
and passed unanimously.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
231
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 10
STAFF REPORTS
.
--
PARKING VARIANCE - PKV 00-01- MAVERICK DEVELOPMENT. 316
North Albert: A request for reduction of required parking from 58 spaces to 29
spaces for a residential multi family development in the Commercial Arterial zone.
(Referred from the City Council for possible reconsideration of new information.)
Director Collins explained that, following the Planning Co~ission's decision to deny the
parking variance application on May 10, 2000, the applicants exercised their right to appeal
to the City Council. At the City Council's May 16,2000, meeting, the applicant's legal
representative Dave Neupert stated that additional effort had been put toward meeting the
'. Planning Commission's original concerns. The Council referred the item to the Commission
for analysis of the new information. Mr. Collins asked ifthe Commission wished to discuss
the matter with the applicant at this time. Staff does not believe a public hearing is necessary
for the requested reconsideration as no public was in attendance at the three prior meetings
and the information is to address the Commission's previously stated concerns.
In addressing whether or not a public hearing is required for consiCleration of the new
proposal, City Attorney Knutson stated that it is not necessary tocohduct another public
hearing to consider the applicant's additional information. Staffs recommendation is that
the revised information be considered and a decision forwarded to theGity Council per their
request.
.
A member of the audience Lorraine Ross, 418 East Front Street, stated that she was involved
with the development of the senior apartments at the comer of 5th /Peabody and 2Dd/Peabody
and she remembered that a parking reduction to one half space per unit was permitted.
Commissioner Schramm did not believe the revised information should be further reviewed
without a public heariilg particularly given the fact that the public is obviously interested in
the project as shown by Ms. Ross' presence. A public hearing should be conducted.
The Commissioners discussed the applicant's letter of appeal to the City Council and
expressed their dismay as to the statements made in reference to unfairness by the Planning
Commission during the public hearing.
Attorney Knutson noted that at Council's May 16,2000, on the applicant's appeal, staff
suggested that the applicant's new information be referred to the Planning Commission as
a co~esy. The City Council did not send the information back to the Commission for any
other reason.
In response to Chair Hewins, David Neupert, 403 Peabody Street, stated that although he
was not involved in the previous hearings nor in preparation of the letter of appeal to the City .
Council, he is currently representing the applicant in presenting refined information to the
City in an effort to obtain the needed reduction of required parking for the condominiums.
232
e
e
el
-':;':;n-,~-;," -:",~}'?);:1q:;",~}>tc. " '':,~'.~}''t~--~~,~~1;*,,,_,:%:
Planning Commission Minutes
Pagel]
The Royal Manor Condominium Association has voted in a perpetual requirement that
adequate parking consistent with the staffs recommendation and the Planning Commission's
previously stated concerns shall be provided. He asked to present a site plan to show that the
site will have 28 rather than the original 27 spaces on-site undercover. The number of units
will be reduced from 29 to 28 which will equal one space per unit. Per ADA requirements,
two of the reserve spaces will be for disabled parking. One disabled visitor space will be
provided as well as a designated loading zone. A signed lease ,with the property owner, Pettit
Oil, rather than the business owner, Bob Lovell, has been obtained for a month to month
lease of two off-site parking spaces across Albert Street for use by the occupants of the
condomiDiums. The bylaws have been amended to include an on-demand shuttle service for
use of the residents as well.
Commissioner King moved to reconsider the issue given the new information. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Norton and passed 4 - 3 with Commissioners
Hewins, Nutter, Schramm voting in the negative. (It was later clarified that Mr. King's
motion was to simply reconsider.)
Commis~ionerNorton moved to consider the application through the public hearing
process. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Schramm a.nd passed 6 - 1 with
CommissJonerCravervoting in the negative. Commissioner Craver commented that to
continuec:onsideration of the matter until the June 14 meeting only further delays this project
and the applicant has apparently gone to some lengths to address the earlier stated concerns.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:01 a.m.
1~
/'
/
//
l/;A ,"
Pred Hewins, Chair
~G..e9~
rad Collms, Secretary
Linda Nutter, Vice Chair
PREPARED BY: S. Roberds
233
"~ '}f'
.
.
.
234