Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-22 PC Agenda Packet AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street June 22, 2016 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting of June 8, 2016 IV. FAÇADE AND SIGN GRANT APPLICATIONS 1. The Jig and Lure – 826 Boathaven Drive V. STAFF REPORTS VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII. ADJOURNMENT C OMMUNITY & E CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 June 8, 2016 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Matt Bailey, Brian Hunter, Duane Morris, Andrew Schwab Members Absent: Chad Aubin, Elwyn Gee, John Matthews Staff Present: Nathan West, Scott Johns, Ben Braudrick, Public Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Hunter opened the regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Schwab moved to approve the Minutes of May 25, 2016 with date corrections. Commissioner Bailey Seconded the Motion, and all were in approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Façade Grant 16-03 Coyote BBQ Pub Assistant Planner Ben Braudrick gave a presentation detailing Façade and Sign Grant FSG 16- 03 for Coyote BBQ Pub. Commissioner Schwab asked if Station 51 being included in the PADA letter was a separate action. Assistant Planner Braudrick replied that it was separate, but that at the design review meeting both applications were addressed. Commissioner Morris asked if the equivalent area of reader board would be removed. Assistant Planner Braudrick responded that it would be the equivalent. Commissioner Schwab inquired whether Station 51 was included in this grant request. Assistant Planner Braudrick replied that Station 51’s application had been tabled to ensure the business owners could include more façade and sign work into their grant. They should be applying again soon for a grant for a larger amount of funding. Commissioner Bailey disclosed that he is a local sign maker and had done sign work for the owner of Kokopelli Grill and The Coyote BBQ Pub Therefore he wanted to recuse himself from the vote. Community and Economic Development Director Nathan West responded to the request by stating that, because this was not a quasi-judicial or legislative decision, and only a grant, that it might not be necessary to recuse himself. He reviewed options for postponing a vote until after the second item on the agenda in hopes that Commissioner Matthews might arrive to allow for quorum. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 2 Commissioner Bailey stated that he hadn’t been contacted by the applicant and thought he could add insight to the conversation about the sign grant. The remaining Commissioners stated that they had no problems with Commissioner Bailey voting on the grant. Chair Hunter suggested they move the decision to later in the agenda. Director West agreed. Chair Hunter moved the decision to after the second agenda item. 2. Proposed Amendments to City Wetlands Protection Ordinance Associate Planner Scott Johns read a memo to the Planning Commission addressing changes made to the ordinance, and four issues that came into question during the previous meeting on May 25, 2016. Commissioner Bailey asked for clarification on the “hardship” that was mentioned during the presentation. Associate Planner Johns replied that the changes would only work for new applications. Commissioner Bailey continued by asking if a property owner of an undeveloped parcel would need to abide. Associate Planner Johns responded that the owner would be subject to the regulation to a reasonable point. Director West added that Associate Planner Johns had contacted local wetland professionals about the changes to the buffering delineations, and that the professionals relayed that there were no concerns, but a property might be affected by additional buffer requirements. Chair Hunter asked whether the buffer distances were from the State. Associate Planner Johns responded that they were. Director West made it clear that the reasoning behind the higher buffer for higher density, and the new definition for rural and urban densities was the much larger impacts that high density development has on wetlands. People are attracted to and use wetlands for recreation. Chair Hunter asked about the responsibility of the environmentally constrained property. Associate Planner Johns responded that the wetland cannot be impacted in any way. Buffers can be reduced to 25 feet and averaged in other areas of unaffected property. 15.27.070(F) includes a table in the ordinance that compensates for the amount or percentage of property that is affected by a wetland and its buffer. The City must allow for reasonable use. Chair Hunter responded the he understood that those decisions on reasonable use would be made by the Courts. Commissioner Schwab asked about the changes in the memo and if they had been changed from the previous reading. Associate Planner Johns responded that all four had been kept or placed into the current version of the ordinance. If the Commission was so inclined, they could remove any of those if it was in their interest. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Morris asked about the definition of a Qualified Wetland Professional or Scientist. Associate Planner Johns responded that the definition included a Wetland Scientist in training, but that a person under that title would need to be working onsite with a Certified Wetland Professional. Commissioner Schwab stated that he would be comfortable with a motion that specifically directed staff to ensure that the ordinance is in line with State Requirements. Associate Planner Johns made it clear that the definition for a professional came out of the guidance for small cities document from the Department of Ecology. Commissioner Schwab stated that he felt that the definition was applicable. Commissioner Bailey agreed. Commissioner Schwab made a motion to accept the second option from staff proposed for the definition of a qualified professional. Chair Hunter seconded, and stated that he felt the development community knows that nothing is set in stone when it comes to development requirements. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Schwab made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Wetlands Protection Ordinance, with the inclusion of any further grammatical changes from staff. Commissioner Morris seconded. Director West asked for clarification on whether that recommendation included the previous motion to accept the second option for the definition of a qualified professional. Commissioner Schwab agreed that this was the intent. The motion passed unanimously. Façade Grant Director West stated that this was specifically a consideration for a grant award, and recommended the Commission move forward. Chair Hunter stated that he felt that, although he supported the signage, he felt that the entirety of reader board should be removed. Director West responded that it was within the power of the commissioner to condition the approval of the grant. Commissioner Morris agreed with Chair Hunter. Commissioner Schwab felt that it is hard enough for local businesses with signage restrictions, and that traditional reader boards are not as intrusive as more modern reader boards. He stated he could not support a motion to remove the reader board entirely. Commissioner Bailey agreed. Commissioner Schwab related that reader boards were an allowed type of signage in the Central Business District, and the business could move forward without the grant if restrictions were placed on it. Commissioner Bailey stated that the reader board type of sign is slowly going away. It’s hard to find and order. He asked if there was any way to make the reader board more attractive. He Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 4 suggested framing the sign with trim. Commissioner Morris stated he was in favor of the option. Commissioner Schwab added that the item could be tabled until a further meeting so that the applicant could be involved in the discussion on conditioning the grant award. Director West stated that the Commissioners could also make a motion at this meeting and the applicant could return at the next meeting and ask for an amendment to any condition that is placed on the grant award. Staff’s workload is overwhelming right now and if there is a way to move forward that can satisfy the Commission at this meeting, staff may not have to draft a new recommendation for a later meeting. Commissioner Bailey Motion to approve Façade and Sign Grant FSG 16-03 on the condition that the reader board is framed out and modified with trim. The Motion passed 3-1, with Commissioner Schwab in opposition. Commissioner Schwab clarified that the approval was tied to additional changes to the reader board. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Bailey apologized for being absent last week. Chair Hunter asked about the whereabouts of the new Planning Manager. Director West responded that this week the new manager had the opportunity to come for public meetings related to the comprehensive planning process. She would be starting on June 27. STAFF REPORTS Director West let the Commissioners know that Associate Planner Scott Johns was retiring and invited the Commissioners to a going away party for Scott at June 17th at 10am-12pm Commissioner Morris related that he knew that Associate Planner Johns was heavily involved in trees and that he would be greatly missed Chair Hunter related that he felt that Associate Planner Johns was always helpful and responsive. Director West made the Commission aware of the discussion the Council had the previous night concerning the Comprehensive Plan. The Council discussed the Lauridsen Boulevard alternative route. There was a motion made to remove all references to Lauridsen Blvd in the Plan before approval. There were three public comments heard concerning the Comp Plan at the meeting and a motion was made concerning the military presence in the community. There were comments Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 5 about the Eclipse Industrial Park. And finally, council asked staff to incorporate a matrix concerning progress of implementation. Chair Hunter stated that he was concerned about Council not realizing that any development would need to move through the Commission and Council before it was implemented. He asked what the concern with the military presence policy was related to. Director West stated that there was a diversity of opinions, ranging from a need for it to be stronger, others that it should be loosened, and others that history of a strong presence should be respected. Commissioner Schwab asked about local planning course availability. Director West stated that there would be opportunity in the future, and that all of the trainings were online as well. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Ben Braudrick, Secretary Bryan Hunter, Chair PREPARED BY: Ben Braudrick TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ben Braudrick, Assistant Planner DATE: June 22, 2016 RE: Façade and Signage Competitive Grant Application RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Façade and Sign Grant Applications listed as FSG 16-07 in the amount as follows: APPLICATION (zone) ADDRESS GRANT AMOUNT 16-07 The Jig and Lure (IH) 826 Boathaven Dr. $6392.50 Facade $289.50 Sign DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS A Façade Grant application was submitted to the City on June 3, 2016. The application was reviewed by planning staff and found to meet the application criteria. The project is located in the Industrial Heavy (IH) zone. Staff’s recommendation is based on the following evaluation criteria that are outlined in the grant documents, including: • Outside contribution over and above the required match • Present condition of existing façade or sign • Expected increase in assessed value of improvement • Historical preservation • Context in the neighborhood • Ability to proceed with project • Other project-specific relevant factors The Façade Grant criteria provides for grants of up to $10,000 for a façade improvements and $1,000 for sign improvements. ATTACHMENTS A. Staff Evaluations B. Application materials DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Façade and Sign Grant – The Jig and Lure June 22, 2016 Page 2 ATTACHMENT A STAFF EVALUATION Applicant: 16-07 The Jig and Lure Location: 826 Boat Haven Drive (IH zone) Request: $289.50 for Signage Improvements and $6,392.50 for Façade Improvements Evaluation: An application for improvements to both signage and the façade of the recently repurchased “Fishman’s Wharf”. The owners have renamed the restaurant “The Jig and Lure” and have successfully rebranded to give the business a bold, retro look that will attract the attention of passersby along Marine Drive. Work to the façade includes installation of gooseneck lighting on the front façade and repainting the north and east faces of the building to include maritime themed stenciled silhouettes. Signage will be painted onto the north and east facades and will remain within to IH, Industrial Heavy signage allowances. Although all painting will occur concurrently, the applicant has estimated that façade and signage represent 90 and 10%, respectively, of the total area to be painted. Staff recommends the grant award amount of $289.50 toward the cost of sign improvements that are estimated to be $579.00 and $6,392.50 towards the cost of façade improvements that are estimated to be $12,785.00. Jig and Lure Fish Company FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGET: 826 Boat Haven Drive Lighting Number Product Cost Total Cost Goose-neck LED wall lights 15 $154.00 $ 2670.00 Installation Labor: Botero & Sons $(Prevailing Wage) $ 4607.00 Subtotal $ 7277.00 Painting (façade is 90%) Number Product Cost Total Cost Paint and paint supplies from Angeles Millworks $ 1908.00 Prep and repair supplies $ 465.00 Labor (81) $(Prevailing Wage) $ 2835.00 Subtotal $ 5208.00 Facade Materials Cost .................................$5,043.00 Facade Labor Cost .......................................$7,742.00 Total Facade Cost ........................................$12,785.00 Painting (signage is 10%) Number Product Cost Total Cost Paint and paint supplies from Angeles Millworks $ 212.00 Prep and repair supplies $ 52.00 Labor (90) $(Prevailing Wage) $ 315.00 Subtotal $ 579.00 Total Signage Materials Cost .......................$315.00 Total Signage Labor Cost .............................$264.00 Total Signage Cost .......................................$579.00 Community and Economic Development Department–Façade and Sign Grant Application Budget Example 3/13/2015