Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/24/1990 . . -. AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East; Flft;h St;reet; Part; Angelss, WSBhlngt;on 98362 JANUARY 24, 1990 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of January 10, 1990 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. REZONE REQUEST - REZ 89(12)9 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES - BETWEEN OAK/CHERRY ~ Proposal to rezone property presently designated M-2, Heavy Industrial, to CBD, Central Business District. The property is located west of Oak Street, north of Front Street, between Oak and Cherry Streets. (This item is continued from the December 13, 1989, meeting ). 2. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA 90(01}106 - PORT OF PORT ANGELES, East end of Ediz Hook: Request for a permit to allow replacement of an existing float; the placement of a second identical float; and placement of 8 piling, located in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District. 3. REZONE REQUEST - REZ 90(01)01 - DOWNIE/GUND, Southeast corner of 8th and "Gfl Streets: Request to rezone property (5 lots) from RS-7, Single-Family Residential, to RMF, Residential Multi-Family. ~ 3. CITY OF PORT Request_to_allow association with -~~-- -".-- -~.~. ANGELES - SMA 90(01)107 - North Francis Street: the_development .0J six (6) parking spaces in the W~terfront Trail activity. -, V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE. PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS 1. Harbor Line Relocation Memo VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commi~~ion will not ~ommen~e a new hea~in9 behond 10PM. Any item not ~ta~ted p~io~ to that time will be eont~nued to the next ~egula~ meet~ng 06 the Commi~~ion, Feb~ya~y 14, 1990. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington January 24, 1990 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Cornell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Larry Leonard, Jim Hulett, Jerry Cornell, Bob Philpott, Donna Davison, Ray Gruver. Members Absent: Jerry Glass. Staff Present: Sue Roberds, Grant Beck, Brad Collins, Jeff Abram. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Philpott moved to approve the minutes of the January 10, 1990, meeting, with corrections as noted. Ms. Davison seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. IV PUBLIC HEARINGS REZONE REQUEST - REZ-89 (12) 9 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES: Proposal to rezone property presently designated M-2, Heavy Industrial, to CBD, Central Business District. Location: West of Oak Street, north of Front Street, between Oak and Cherry Streets. (Continued from December 13.1989.) . Planning Director Collins was present as a representative of the Econimic Development Council (EDC) group which was formed to study the rezone proposal and submit a recommendation on the proposal for the Port property located between Oak and Cherry streets. Mr. Collins reported that the EDC Committee had met twice (January 11th and January 18th), and the meet- ings had been very productive, so far. The group expects to forward a report to the Planning Commission in mid to late February. Mr. ColI ins further s ta ted he would keep the Planning commission abreast of the progress. The EDC Committee requested the Planning Commission continue the rezone request hearing to the March 14th meeting of the Commission. Mr. Philpott moved to continue the rezone request to the March 14, 1990, meeting of the Commission at 7:00 P.M., City Hall. Ms. Davison seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 2 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA-90 (01) 106 - PORT OF PORT ANGELES: Request for a permit to allow replacement of an existing float: the placement of a second identical floati and placement of 8 piling, located in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District. Location: East end of Ediz Hook. (Continued from January 10. 1990.) Mr. Beck briefly described the proposal and reviewed the Department Report. Chairman Cornell opened the public hearing. Bill conley, P. O. Box 1350, Port of Port Angeles, stated the Department Report adequately described the proposal. He added that the Port has received a 50% matching grant for the proj- ect, so there is an urgency in proceeding with the proposal. No provisions will be made for overnight tie-up of watercraft: overnight tie-up will be discouraged. The floats will be 200 feet long in this proposal. There being no further public comment, Chairman Cornell closed the public hearing. Following brief discussion, Mr. Leonard moved to recommend the City Council approve the Shoreline Permit, citing the follow- ing findings and conclusions: Findings: 1. The proposal increases physical access to the shoreline in an Urban Environment, using an existing parking facility located on the northern edge of Ediz Hook. 2. No public resource agency has stated that the proposal would degrade the existing condition of marine resources in the area of the existing boat launch. 3 . The existing boat launch is heavily used demonstrated that it serves both local and needs. and has regional 4. The subject property is identified as Heavy Industrial (M-2) by the Port Angeles Zoning Code. This zoning district allows boat havens and marinas as a permitted use. 5. The location of the proposal does not conflict with future location of the Port Angeles Waterfront Trail is identified as an area of public access by unadopted Harbor Resource Management Plan. the and the 6. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 15.08 PAMC, requires that the Planning Commission provide notice and hold a pUblic hearing on shoreline permit applications. PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 3 . 7. The Port of Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official has issued the proposal a Determination of Non-Significance which has been reviewed by the City of Port Angeles. 8. The subject property has been used as a boat launch for 25 years. 9. The City of Port Angeles provides approximately 200 vehicle and boat trailer parking spaces on the northern Edge of Ediz Hook. Conclusions: A. The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Shore- line Master Program. B. The proposal is consistent with the Waterfront Trail Plan and the unadopted Harbor Resource Management Plan. c. Public notice and hearing, as required by the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW, has been done by the City of Port Angeles. . D. The Portis issuance of a Determination of Non- Significance for the proposal is final and fulfills the City I S responsibilities under the state Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Mr. Hulett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REZONE REQUEST - REZ-90(01}01 - DOWNIE/GUND: Request to rezone property (5 lots) from RS-7, Single-Family Residential, to RMF, Residential MUlti-Family. Location: Southeast Corner of Eighth and UG" Streets. Mr. Beck described the proposal and reviewed the Department Report, answering questions from the Commissioners regarding spot zoning. Chairman Cornell opened the public hearing. . Pat Downie, 1538 West Eighth street, representing the owner, referred to the comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives which relate to this rezone application, as listed in the Department Report. The Comprehensive Plan Goals cited were: "A community where development and use of the land are done in a manner that is compatible with the environment, the characteristics of the use and the users." "A community of viable neighborhoods and variety of opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages, characteristics and interests. II Residential Policies Nos. 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 were noted, as well as Land Use Objectives Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6. PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 4 . Mr. Downie further stated that investigation of the rental housing opportunities in Port Angeles indicated that out of 200 properties managed by Landmark Properties, there was a vacancy of 7 units; out of 175 units managed by Doug Wood properties, there was a vacancy of 2; indicating a dire need for adequate rental housing within the city. Mr. Downie said the applicant does not seek expansion of the CSD-C2, Community Shopping District to the site, due to a more intense variety of uses which would be allowed in that dis- trict. Residential MUlti-Family is more restrictive in building requirements, and more closely fits the intent of the applicant for development of the site and is more compatible with the residential environment. Mr. Downie also noted that the proposed site is immediately opposite the largest park in the City, and adjacent to Eighth Street, a city arterial. He said the proposed development would generate approximately 237 vehicle trips per day, which is a less than 10% increase for the area. In closing, Mr. Downie noted the need for multi-family housing in the City, and that the need has been acknowledged in the past, is evident now, and the project would help relieve that need. . Frank Robinson, 1310 West Eighth Street, a neighboring prop- erty owner, stated no objection to seniors living in a multi- family unit project in the area, but felt that a family development would bring more cars and congestion to the area than would be desirable. He also stated he would not want a three or four-story apartment structure to look at. Chairman Cornell explained to the audience that a rezone proposal is not project-specific. A rezone can allow anything within the district to be constructed at the site, and the Commission and Council do not have the authority to restrict the character of the proposal, only the densities, setbacks, etc. Roger Nielsen, 1311 West Ninth street, a neighbor, was opposed to the rezone request due to negative impacts on the families on West Eighth and Ninth streets (the 1300 block, specific- ally). He stated there would be no more territorial views, no privacy, the property would be devalued, and the estab- lished residents should not have to give up their quality of life. . Mrs. Nielsen, 1311 West Ninth street, stated concern over the neighbors in Park View villas possibly not being aware of the proposal and the intrusion of the proj ect into their neighbor- hood. She noted Park View villas I quality of development, and questioned whether the occupants would appreciate a multi- family development adjacent to their site. Richard Page, 918 South "GII Street, a resident to the south of Park View Villas, stated that when the Park View Villas PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 5 . site was being planned, it was noted at public hearings that the site would be a one-time project. Mr. Page stated this residential area has already absorbed as much Residential Multi-Family as it can take. He noted that parking has been a problem during the construction, with the streets lined with cars at all times, and asked Mr. Downie if the owner, who owns more residentially zoned property to the west of Park view villas, is planning to expand west, as well. Louie Torres, 1620 West 13th street, noted that the area that is now Park View Villas was once a wetland, without much view until it was cleared for this project site. He did not feel the Park View Villas area was a pristine or quiet hide-away, as had been described by the neighbors. The park atmosphere draws a lot of people with activities throughout the year and would be used by residents of the proposed multi-family development as their recreation spot, thereby lessening the impacts of the mUlti-family proposal on the surrounding properties. Mr. Torres spoke in favor of the project and stated that the site has considerable merit. . Randall Sexton, 1321 West Ninth street, stated concern over the traffic, as younger children walk the streets in this area to the elementary school. He also noted that the surrounding homes would have a view of the site, and a stark wall is far less desirable than that even of a cleared lot. He also stated concern over devaluation of property in the area if the site were to be developed as multi-family. Don Rudolph, 1013 East Third street, spoke in favor of the project proposal, noting the low availability of rental units in the City, and that low availability drives rents up and is of concern to those who are renters and who are not able to own their own homes. . Pat Downie stated, in answer to some of the questions raised, that he had discussed the project with the managers of Park View Villas. He noted that the Park View villas site is a $10 million investment and that Mr. Gund would not devalue his project by developing a project on adjacent property which would cause devaluation of the site. He stated that Mr. Gund will protect his investment and the neighborhood by building a like quality project on the site. He also noted that he had inquired of the County Assessor's office (on December 7, 1989) as to policy regarding assessment of mUlti-family housing. Policy is to value properties in an area as to present use, regardless of a multi-family proposal in the area. He did not feel the Residential Multi-Family proposal would devalue existing properties. He stated it is not an inherent rule that mUlti-family will reduce property values. Much of the fill material on-site is not for on-site use, but will be used for the Park View villas landscaping, thereby reducing the grade of the project site as it is now, to more street level. A residential multi-family development on this PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 6 . site could be built to 35 feet tall, by Code, where a single- family residence could be 30-feet, thereby an increase of only 5 feet, he said, would be permitted. The maximum lot coverage would be the same, and the setbacks would be further restricted in the RMF District. Mr. Downie further noted that based on negotiations when Gund Plaza/Park View villas was proposed and the project approved, Mr. Gund agreed that he would relinquish the property at Eighth and "1" Streets necessary to meet Public Works Depart- ment requirements and plans for improvement to that intersec- tion. Plans for improvement to the Eighth/uI" intersection are for upgrade to the intersection when the commercial development at Gund Plaza is underway, thereby improving the traffic flow and safety for the area. He stated that as far as he is aware, there is no further development or expansion proposals/plans at this time west of the Park View Villas/Gund Plaza area for property owned by Mr. Gund. . Ann Nielsen stated her concern that there is a difference in the assessed valuation of residential property in the area as opposed to the selling price. She also noted that her pre- vious concern was that the residents at Park View Villas know of the proj ect proposal, not just the managers. She asked the Commission to consider the people first, and the use of the land in the area second. Mr. Robinson further noted the traffic concern in the area, and that Eighth street is very busy at this site. Richard Page noted that Gund Plaza was constructed with a variance to allow a height increase and a parking variance to allow parking reduction. He also was concerned over the traffic from Shane Park in the area at the site. There being no further public comment, Chairman Cornel1 closed the public hearing. The Commission took a lO-minute recess. The meeting recon- vened at 8:50 P.M. . The Commission discussed at length the questions posed in the public hearing. Views, traffic congestion, traffic hazards to children walking to school, were discussed, as well as the similarities in lot coverage, height, setbacks, and parking requirements in the Residential Single-Family (RS-7) and Residential MUlti-Family (RMF) Districts. It was determined that the project itself would determine the property valuation or devaluation of residential uses in the area. It was also noted that the apparent success of the Park View Villas site would indicate that the area is beginning a transition phase and can support higher intensity uses. The close proximity of Shane Park was noted and that it would well serve the PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 7 . recreational needs of a mUlti-family development at this area, thereby lessening the impact to surrounding areas. There was considerable discussion regarding the need for mUlti-family housing in the city, as well as spot zoning versus strip zoning. It was stated that the qualifying factor in a spot zone may be whether the use would be a public or private benefit. It was the consensus of the Commission that the public would benefit from a rezone at this site. Mr. Leonard moved to recommend approval of the rezone as proposed, citing the following findings and conclusions: Findinqs: 1. The property and adjacent areas to the south and east are currently zoned RS-7, while property to the north is zoned PBP and property to the west is CSD-C2. 2. On December 26, 1989, the Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official issued the proposal a Determination of Non- Significance. . 3. Public notice of a public hearing was given by a publication in the Peninsula Daily News and by posting the subject site and surrounding areas. 4. If approved, the rezone from RS-7 to RMF would allow the development of an apartment building of up to 36 dwelling units, an increase in density of 30 units. 5. The surrounding area, with the exception of Park View Villas and Shane Park, is an area substantially developed with single-family dwelling units on standard Townsite lots. 6. Eighth Street is designated as a collector arterial street by Ordinance No. 1635. 7. The six Townsite lots of the rezone area are currently vacant. 8. The rezone of six lots under one ownership includes only a portion of Block 255 to be designated as RMF. 9. Studies completed as part of the Daishowa EIS process indicate that multiple-family housing in Port Angeles has a low vacancy rate, indicating the need for additional units. . 10. Data compiled for the DelHur rezone application, No. REZ- 89(07}5, indicates that there are 43 blocks in the city of Port Angeles zoned RMF, 4 of which are vacant and available for development. PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 8 . A. The proposal is consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan. B. Public notice, as required by the Port Angeles Zoning Code, has been given, and a public hearing before the Port Angeles Planning Commission has been held. C. The city's responsibility under the state Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, has been fulfilled. D. The interests of the general public in the City of Port Angeles would be served by approval of the rezone. Mr. Philpott seconded the motion, which passed 6 - O. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT HEARING - SMA-90(01)107 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES: Request to allow the development of six (6) parking spaces in association with the Waterfront Trail activity. Location: Foot of Francis street. . Mr. Beck synopsized the Department Report, explaining that the SEPA determination had been appealed but that in the opinion of Planning staff and the city Attorney, the appeal was not timely. The Planning Commission questioned staff as to the appeal process. Craig Miller, Box 550, Port Angeles, explained the SEPA appeal process under which he is appealing. Mr. Miller said the Planning Commission is not bound by the City Attorney's statement that the appeal is not timely, and the Commission can decide if the appeal is timely and can act on the appeal, if desired. He questioned whether the Department of Ecology also had authority on this issue, and if it is decided that the Department of Ecology is an agency with jurisdiction, then the DNS should have been issued under WAC 197-11-340(2), and the City would not act on the proposal for 15 days from the date of notice of the determination. Mr. Miller questioned the City's notice of the Determination of Non-Significance being issued, and stated that he did not know of the existence of the DNS until time for an appeal had almost passed. The requirements for notification of issuance of a Determina- tion of Non-Significance were discussed, as well as the option of hearing the appeal and/or not acting on the permit. . Following considerable discussion on the merits of considera- tion of an appeal at this point and/or not acting on the permit pending further investigation of the appeal process, Mr. Gruver moved to concur with staff that the appeal was not timely in this case, citing the following findings and conclusions: Findinqs: PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 9 . 1. The Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance on December 27, 1989, for issuance of Shoreline Permit No. SMA-90(01)107 for development of parking and access to the Port Angeles Waterfront Trail. 2. Section 15.04.280 (A) (1) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code allows any agency or person to appeal a final DNS within ten (10) days of the date the DNS is final. 3. The DNS was not issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2). Conclusions: A. The date of issuance for DNSs where there are no other agencies with jurisdiction and those not issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2), is the date the DNS is final. B. The 10-day appeal period of the final DNS, as provided by Section 15.04.280(A) (1) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code began December 27, 1989, and ended January 6, 1990. C. The appeal of the final ONS for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. SMA-90(Ol)107, filed on January 11, 1990, was not timely. . Ms. Davison seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Commission directed staff to review possible modifications of the notification procedures to include all parties of interest in cases where a DNS or DS is issued. . Chairman Cornell opened the public hearing. Craig Miller, representing Gerald Austin, stated that the Planning Department is both the applicant and the reviewer in this Shoreline Permit. He questioned the ability of the City to be both applicant and reviewer, stating that the reviewer cannot be dispassionate about review for its own proposals. Mr. Miller stated that Mr. Austin has a substantial interest in this site, and presented a letter (dated January 10, 1990, Exhibit 1) stating Mr. Austin's concern over private access through Francis and victoria streets to property he owns west of the project site, east of the Red Lion Hotel, and asked the Planning commission to reconsider appeal of the Determination of Non-Significance and refuse to act on the Shoreline Permit at this time. He stated the City did not look at other uses for the Francis Street site, other than the one proposed for the Waterfront Trail. He said appeal of the original Shore- line Permit, SMA-88(6)88, issued July 19, 1988, was to slow the proposed activity down and to encourage planning of the area better. Mr. Miller said his client wants it very clear PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 10 . that development of Francis street will have to give way to Mr. Austin's right to use Francis street as an access. If the City denies the use of Francis Street, the City would be denying Mr. Austin's right to access and constitutes a taking in this case, he stated. He added that this permit legiti- mizes what was done there, without a permit, by Mr. Cronauer, and is not legal at this point. Chairman Cornell asked Mr. Miller how the project proposed at this site by the City would affect Mr. Austin's property access. Mr. Miller said that the project has not been thoroughly analyzed in its impact to the public/private use of Francis street. He said that to continue with development of the site as planned may set a precedent for uses allowed in the area and eliminate Mr. Austin's access to his property. . Louie Torres, Olympic Development Planning, 662-1/2 West Sequim Bay Road, Sequim, was present, representing Terminal Land Co. Mr. Torres indicated that he believed the Depart- ment of Ecology is an agency with jurisdiction in this issue. Mr. Torres noted a letter to the Planning commission dated January 24, 1990, which he distributed to staff and Commission members. Mr. Torres asked that prior to any further action on the Shoreline Permit the City staff provide the Planning Commission and the public with information concerning poten- tial revisions to the City's Urban Waterfront Trail Plan to reflect methods of access at Francis street which use only available public right-of-way while conforming to the requirements of other relevant City plans and policies for access in many forms, including bicycle access; an assessment (per City Council motion of February 7, 1989) that examines the impacts associated with such to include, at minimum, alternatives for the use of Victoria street, access to Victoria Street for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, place- ment of fill on public properties, siltation and erosion concerns, revegetation plans, impacts on utilities, long-term maintenance of ramps and slopes, and what further developments or permits are needed, etc.; the needs, if any, for emergency or maintenance vehicle access, as well as future utility trunk line revisions or improvements; the potential for improved appearance, and the reduction of hazardous slopes or earthen mounds through a greater amount of regrading; and opportuni- ties for cost minimization. Mr. Torres read a six-page letter (dated January 24, 1990) (Exhibit 2) into the public record, as his client, Terminal Land Co., has a substantial interest in the site, and has had a lengthy association with the City regarding this site. The letter detailed the background of development proposals at this site, both public and private, as well as noting that the current Department Report for the Shoreline Permit does not make reference to the Port Angeles Harbor Resource Management Plan. Noted in Subarea 1 of the Harbor Resource Management Plan, under "Key variables and Issues", are: future demand and feasibility of a recreational . PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 11 . or commercial marina; and an extension of Francis street at this site, he noted. Mr. Torres said that his client, Terminal Land Co. (TLC) requests the City Planning Commission not take action on this permit application, pending provision of further information as previously requested to be provided by City staff. Mr. Torres stated that access for emergency vehicles to the Waterfront Trail had not been considered, nor access for the utility corridor, nor for the ITT Waterline if an emergency or maintenance work were needed. Mr. Torres stated that the issue here is of the best use of the rights- of-way. vincent cipriano, 416 East Ninth street, objected to the steps on the Francis street proj ect proposal. Mr. Cipriano is handicapped and noted that handicapped people also wish to use the Waterfront Trail at this location, and stairs would prevent easy access, in some cases. Mr. Cipriano stated that a handicapped access provision would better include possibly a ramp situation, not stairs. Harris Hindon, 3131 East sixth street, decidedly questioned the city's involvement in this activity on Francis street. He demanded to know what right the City had to develop this site, as proposed. . Chairman Cornell and Commissioner Leonard endeavored to answer Mr. Hindon's questions by reviewing some of the site proposal. Paul Cronauer, 303 Tumwater, stated that Terminal Land Co. is owned by his mother, not by himself. He gave further back- ground on Terminal Land Co. 's involvement at the site and on the original plans for development of the area and the prob- lems he had encountered in that development. He questioned the use of the term "ramp" in the public notice, when stairs are proposed to be reviewed. Mr. Cronauer stated that the current City plans do not serve the public's needs. Gerald Austin, 1305 East First street, stated that he needs access at this site for his property, which is east of the Red Lion Hotel and west of the proposed site. He stated that the City will not allow access off Lincoln street at the Red Lion location, and the Red Lion has expressed no interest in his property, which is adjacent to its hotel facility. Mr. Austin stated he has no access, other than Victoria Street. He stated that Victoria street is a City street and should be developed as access for his site. Mr. Austin stated that he is working with developers to sell his property, which could be developed as residential multi-family housing. . Mr. Collins indicated that with regard to the Department of Ecology having jurisdiction as far as the Determination of Non-significance (DNS) is concerned, the Department of Ecology had the opportunity to review the Shoreline Permit and checklist and made no comment. Mr. Collins stated that the PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 12 . City had followed the SEPA regulations, as set forth in Chapter 197-11 WAC. Mr. Collins noted the wording in the stipulation for a remand from the Shorelines Hearings Board of the State of Washington, noting that in order to expedite revision of Shoreline Permit No. SMA-88(6)88, the case was remanded to the City of Port Angeles for action by the city consistent with the stipulated order. It was further stipulated that following the remand, the City would seek approval to construct the improvements in the Francis and victoria street rights-of-way, which would include the improvements proposed by the revision of october 17, 1989, through the process of an application for a Shore- line Substantial Development Permit, which the city is hereby endeavoring to do. . In response to the statement from Mr. Miller that the City had begun construction activity prior to the 3D-day waiting period following the October 17, 1989, revision to Shoreline Manage- ment Permit No. SMA-88(6)88, he noted that under WAC 173-14- 040(6), there is no 3D-day waiting period for revisions to shoreline permits. Work may begin immediately. He further stated that the permit is for the City's use of the right-of- way and would not preclude other uses. The primary concern is for safe public access and protection of the area in this issue. Mr. Cronauer stated his concern is that ramps will not be provided, as the revision includes stairs down to the Water- front Trail at this site. Ramps were approved until October, 1989, when the Planning Director noted that the proposal should be "downgraded" to stairs rather than ramps, he said. Mr. Cronauer urged the City to look at the site for the City'S best interests, inclUding choosing the best option, and taking time to make it handicapped-accessible. Mr. Torres took exception to ramps versus stairs in the Shore- line Permit, noting that ramps are far more desirable for handicapped access, as well as other possible uses of the area, including bicycles. Mr. Collins noted that the activity is not intended to pre- clude Mr. Austin's use of his property. There being no further comment, Chairman Cornell closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed at length the issues stated during the public hearing. . PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 13 . Ms. Davison supported the public access to the Waterfront Trail as proposed, noting that the project would have the least impact on the environment in this area. It was noted that stairs are temporary and can be removed. There was discussion on future planning and uses in the area. Mr. Austin's access problem was discussed at length. Mr. Gruver noted that a ramp can be temporary also, and should be looked at as such, and not that the City is trying to infringe on public or private access rights in the area. Mr. Philpott noted that wording could be included to assure Mr. Austin's right of use and that the proposal presently before the Commission could be only temporary at this location. Ms. Davison moved to approve the Shoreline Permit as requested by the city, with the following conditions: 1. That lighting be provided in the parking lot area to be directed away from the residential uses at the site and patrolled to control objectionable evening activity. . 2. That private easement rights in the Francis and Victoria Street rights-of-way not be hindered; citing the following findings and conclusions: Findinqs: 1. The proposed access and trail will provide access to the Waterfront Trail, which is a separate, non-motorized vehicular and pedestrian path linked to other parts of the circulation system in the city, but separated from streets used by motorized vehicles. 2. The Francis street access to the Waterfront Trail provides numerous opportunities to view the Harbor, strai t of Juan de Fuca, Canada, and Mt. Baker. The access provides an unusual recreational environment compared to typical city park and sports fields and can be used by young and old residents from the entire city. 3. The proposal will provide a public access loop to the Waterfront Trail. . 4 . The proposal does not convert the shorel ine resources into irreversible uses or detrimentally alter the natural conditions of the shoreline and has minimal impact on the shoreline area itself. PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 14 . 5. The proposal is an implementation of the city's adopted Urban Waterfront Trail Plan, which is a bicycle and hiking path that provides public access to the water and links to the rest of the city's circulation system. 6. The proposal provides development and expansion of recreational areas on Port Angeles Harbor. 7. The proposal is an extension of a public beach area in an Urban Environment which occurs in an existing City right-of-way. 8. The access, recreation area, interpretive signage, and parking are improvements that facilitate public access to the shoreline, which reflects a design attention to the importance of environmental quality and natural resources of the existing shoreline area by developing within areas that have already been altered by man. . 9 . The parking area and access to the Waterfront Tra il provides significant recreational opportunities for joggers, walkers, bicyclers, and passive recreational activities, such as sight-seeing, picnicking, beach- combing, nature walks, fishing, birding, and observation of marine commerce in the Harbor. The construction of the parking and access areas will significantly increase the recreational facilities within the City of Port Angeles. 10. The city of Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official has issued the proposal a Determination of Non-Significance. 11. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 15.08 PAMC, requires the Planning Commission provide notice and hold a public hearing on shoreline permit applications. Conclusions: A. The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Shore- line master Program, specifically General Regulations C. 2 and C.5; Land Use Elements D.2, D.4, and D.6; Natural Systems Element E.l.a; and Recreational Use Regulations F.19.a-d. B. The proposal is consistent with the city's comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan. C. The proposal implements the city's adopted Port Angeles Urban Waterfront Trail Plan. . D. The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically Circulation Policies Nos. 7 and 10; Parks & Recreation policy No.3; and Urban Design Policy No.2. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 15 E. Public notice and hearing, as required by the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW, has been completed by the City of Port Angeles. F. The city's issuance of a Determination of Non- significance for the proposal is final and fulfills the Ci ty' s responsibilities under the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. G. This permit for parking in association with the Waterfront Trail activity is recognized to be temporary in nature. Mr. Gruver seconded the motion. In the discussion that fol- lowed, wording for the second condition was requested from the City Attorney. The Commission noted that staff should modify the required notification procedures to include all parties of interest in cases where a determination may be issued. Following further discussion, due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Gruver moved to table further consideration of this Shore- line Permit request to the February 14, 1990, meeting of the Commission at 7:00 P.M., City Hall. Mr. Hulett seconded the motion, and requested that the Public Works Department and Parks Department have a representative at the February 14th meeting. The question was called and passed unanimously. V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VI STAFF REPORTS Harbor Line Relocation Memo Staff noted the January 19, 1990, memo from the Planning Department regarding the Harbor Line relocation information requested by Commissioner Leonard. The memo was a brief overview of the process to relocate the Harbor Line. The process is described in chapter 79.92 RCW and Chapter 332-30 WAC. Also attached to the memo was a copy of the applicable State regulations dealing with the issue, prepared by the Port of Port Angeles' attorney for the Port Board of Commissioners' use. Mr. Collins noted that the "housekeeping measures" committee was not ready to continue with recommendations on the projects they are considering at this time. Information on contract rezones, as requested by Mr. Philpott, is being prepared for the City Council for the February 6, 1990, meeting. A copy will be forwarded to the Commission. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1990 Page 16 VII REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Leonard moved to cancel the January 31, 1990, special meeting between the Planning Commission and City Councill which meeting had been called for as a work session, to be held at the Tudor Inn. Ms. Davison seconded the motion, which passed 5 - 1, with Mr. Gruver voting IfNayll. Mr. Collins requested another training session(s) be scheduled in the near future. VIII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:51 A.M. \, ~ lins, Secretary PLAN.267 e. CITY of PORT ANGELES ATTENDANCE ROSTER ,ol,t1 NN\"c;. TYPE OF 1'1EETING DAlE OF 11EETING LCCATIOO NAME: . PLANNING COMMISSION /~~- 9.0 CITY HALL ADDRESS: WtL-. /tJ S~ ~tkJ4~ P4 / 3J / t{/ ~ti::L P /4. f3by ~JO ~.4- )0, "& . "