Loading...
Minutes 02/09/1994 . e 1e AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 February 9, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL ill. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES: Meetings of January 26, and Special Meeting of February 2, 1994. IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) APPEAL: 1. APPEAL OF SEPA DETERMINATION - KRAUSE: Appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued with regard to a request for a conditional use permit to allow an auto/body paint use in the Arterial Commercial District. V. PUBLIC HEARlNGS: 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 94(01)01 - RICHMOND. 507 East First Street: Continued public hearing for consideration of a request to permit an auto/body paint use in the Arterial Commercial District. 2. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA 94(02)138 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES. Municipal Pier: Request for a shoreline management permit to allow construction of a boat moorage facility, located in the LI, Light Industrial District, as part of the City's Municipal Pier service. VI. OrnER CONSIDERATIONS: 1. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT:' ZCA 93(2)04 - GERMAN. Residential Single-Family Districts. City-wide: Request to amend the Planned Residential (PRD) District Chapter of the Port Angeles Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 1709, (Zoning) as amended. (This item was referred to the Commission from the City Counci1.) Members: Bob Winters, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice Chair; Bob Philpott; Orville Campbell; Roger Catts; and Carl Alexander and Linda Nutter. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Director; John Jimerson, Associate Planner; Sue Roberds, Office Specialist, David Sawyer, &IJior Planner. . '. . Planning Commission Agenda VII. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VID. STAFF REPORTS IX. REPORTS OF BOARD MEMBERS X. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence penaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Depanment at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be allowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (S minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (S minutes) for proponents and opponents will be heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Board, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 February 9, 1994 7:00 pm I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Winters called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Bob Winters, Linda Nutter, Carl Alexander, Cindy Souders, Bob Philpott and Orville Campbell. Commissioners Excused; Roger Catts. Staff Present Brad Collins, John Jimerson, Sue Roberds, Bruce Becker and Craig Knutson. Public Present; Mr. Don Mcinnes, Darlene Schanfeld, Donna, Carl and Tessa Richmond, Doug Margolis, Dave Milligan, Dan Kursch, Tim German, Cate Sheffield and David Noonan. ill. APPROV AL OF MINUTES IV. Commissioner Philpott pointed out a name correction in the Public Present section of the minutes, and Commissioner Souders noted that Conclusion B, Page 8, should read to not with the public welfare. Commissioner Alexander moved to approve the January 26, 1994, minutes as amended. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Commissioner Philpott pointed out a name correction in the Public Present section of the minutes, and Brad Collins noted a correction on Page 5, that the "Council may wetHd prefer not to take a stance on school concurrency..." Commissioner Alexander moved to approve the February 2, 1994, minutes as amended. Commissioner Nutter seconded the motion, which passed 3-0, with Commissioners Philpott, Souders and Campbell abstaining. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) APPEAL: APPEAL OF SEPA DETERMINATION - KRAUSE: Appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued in regard to a request for a conditional use permit to allow an auto-body paint use in the Arterial Commercial District. . . . h,' Planning Commission Minutes February 9. 1994 Page 2 of 13 Chair Winters opened the meeting and explained that the proceeding was for consideration of an appeal of the City of Port Angeles SEP A Responsible Official's Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the Richmond Conditional Use Permit. He explained the proceeding protocol and that the Commission's Clerk, Sue Roberds, a Notary Public, would swear in each person giving testimony. Brad Collins was sworn in and presented testimony as to the documents that were used in determining that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the environment, thus, issuance of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). Mr. Collins thoroughly reviewed the February 9, 1994, Department Memorandum in fesponse to the ten comments of appeal. He stated that the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA) has permitting authority for such a use to ensure that air quality standards are met. Mr. Collins responded to Commissioner Alexander that cities are not expected to duplicate.. such expertise as is available from OAPCA but can rely on such agencies whenever possible to provide guidelines and standards which these other agencies are responsible to enforce. The State Department of Labor and Industries is responsible for employee health and safety and has indicated that a paint booth is an improvement to the existing operation as it provides filtering, better ventilation and air movement, and a reduction of explosion. The City's Fire Department has determined that the proposed modification of the facility will not create any undue burden on its ability to provide emergency services. Commissioner Campbell asked if enough comments have been received to detennine the effects of fume release. Mr. Collins responded that OAPCA is aware of the proposal and the DNS and did not assume lead agency responsibility Of challenge the issuance of the DNS. They did not suggest any mitigation measures due to potential adverse impacts. He considered that enough response has been given to determine that a DNS is appropriate for the proposal. If OAPCA feels that mitigation measures are needed, they can require conditions or fefuse the necessary permit. Commissioner Nutter commented that although odor may not be present, toxins can still be present in the emissions. Commissioner Alexander asked Bruce Becker, Fire Marshall, if there are other similar uses located in this zoning district. Bruce Becker, Fire Marshall for the City of Port Angeles, was sworn in and indicated that to his knowledge there are spray booth operations at Chris' Auto Body, Red Rall's Ford dealership, Spencer's Auto Body, Alderwood's, near the Airport, and at the Port Angeles High Schoo1. (All but two of those are located in the same zoning district as the proposed) . Mr. Collins called upon Carl Richmond, to offer testimony. Carl PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 3 OF 13 . Richmond, 30 Champion Road, was sworn in. Mr. Richmond submitted a letter from Landmark Property Management, Inc. to Chair Winters and stated that the proposed upgrade of the present operation will provide a much healthier working environment for himself and any employees. The environment is a concern to him, and he feels a responsibility to do whatever he can in his position to reduce hazardous emissions as much as possible. Chair Winters read the letter (datedPebruary 9, 1994) from Landmark Property Management, Inc., which stated that the author was not opposed to the proposal by Mr. Richmond. Mr. Richmond added that the materials he uses are readily available and are misused more than they are used properly. He explained the properties of various pollutants. The new paint booth will be reduced 1685 cu.ft. and will contain and filter the fumes. Mr. Richmond responded to Commissioner Philpott that there is no comparison between the proposed filtering system and the present system. At the time the present system was installed, it was considered very good, but the new system is far superior. Mr. Collins concluded by stating that the basis for the determination was not on the total operation of an auto/body paint shop but only on what the effects of the proposal would be from the change of operation. He encouraged the Commission to stay focused on that issue. . Miriam Krause, 511 East First Street, was sworn in. Ms. Krause submitted a petition with forty-five signatures from customers of the Spa who opposed the proposal to allow a spray booth next door. Ms. Krause referred to materials she submitted to the Commission. Painting is the highest damaging profession for an employee. She commented on a statement made that the booth is the best technology. The cost of the paint booth is between $7,000 and $10,000. She contacted a Portland company whose booth cost $180,000. That booth would turn off immediately when fIlters became plugged. The proponent's booth manufacturer indicated that use of the booth is not checked by the manufacturer, nor do they monitor filter replacement. Seventy-five percent of her clients have told her that they use the facility for health reasons. The Spa is a health facility, not a fitness facility Ms. Krause pointed out that the majority of the current auto/body use is spot repair. The booth will increase use of the site, and Mr. Richmond has indicated he would like to hire three or four employees in the future. In speaking with a Portland based auto/body paint shop, she was told that within two years there will be top coat paints that will not contain many toxins. The exhaust system of the proposed building vents directly toward the west (toward the Landmark Property Management, Inc. use). . Commissioner Philpott asked Ms. Krause if she is aware that if the conditional use is denied, the current use can continue. Ms. Krause answered that the current use has not bothered her, and she doesn't believe it will. She was given the impression that the building might become available for sale, and she intended to purchase it in that event. If the booth is approved, the filters will concentrate and expel the fumes to the outside '- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 4 OF 13 . air, which will affect her. There will be more fumes with the proposed system which will lay along the ground. The fumes will enter her establishment and affect her clients. Ms. Krause called upon Doug Margolis, 692 Strait View Drive, to testify. Mr. Margolis was sworn in and stated that he frequents the Spa for health reasons. Intensification of the current auto/body use is a major concern to him. He will cease frequenting the Spa for health reasons if the use is approved. The steam baths found at the Spa are quite old. It would be a shame to see the use discontinued. He asked how the toxic materials would be disposed of. Dan Kursch, 73 W. Quail's Lane, was then called upon to testify. After being sworn in, he stated that the Spa is a very old use. The milieu of the Spa is such that people go there for the physical, spiritial and psychological effects as well. It is not a fitness club. Although he does not use the Spa, if the use is allowed, he will not frequent the Spa in the future. He stated that he respects the small business owner, and his efforts to make his business better for himself, but the overall benefits versus the detriments need to be considered. The issue of pollution in the community needs to be addressed. He also asked how the toxins would be disposed of. . Cate Sheffield, 303 S. Fifth Street, No. H-61, Sequim, W A, was called upon to testify and was sworn in. She noted that some of the potential witnesses listed by Ms. Krause were members of the Clean Air Now group. She stated that in listening to the previous testimony, she was impressed with both the appellant and the earnestness of the applicant. She stated that the proposal would negatively affect air quality due to intensification of the current use. The Clean Air Now group has information which addresses concerns regarding the monitoring of air quality, she said. Chair Winters clarified that the applicant had testified that the current use allows for two cars to be painted at once, but clarified that the proposed use allows for only one. Darlene Schanfeld, 40 Victoria View, Sequim, WA, was sworn in. As a clinical psychologist who specializes in sleep disorders, Ms. Schanfeld stated that air pollutants can cause sleep disorders which can lead to other very deadly disorders. Small business owners should be supported. She urged the Commission to contact the Clean Air Now group, which has worked closely with the OAPCA, prior to making a decision on this issue. She stated that the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) is very poorly done, one of the poorest she has seen. The answers given by the applicant that indicate there will be no impact on marine life are wrong. The site is only one block from the waterfront, and certainly marine life will be affected. Paint disposal is an issue. She asked how paint would be disposed of. Ms. Schanfeld urged Commission members to do their own research and thoroughly review the material submitted by Ms. Krause for the hearing. Ms. Schanfeld responded to various questions posed by Commission members. . Chair Winters clarified that Ms. Schanfeld's testimony regarding the DNS being a very poor one referred to the SEPA Checklist, not the DNS document. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 5 OF 13 . Mr. Collins stated that he realized he was still under oath. The source for the statement that the proposed booth is the best technology came from OAPCA. He understood that paint booth units in general are the best available technology as opposed to the current situation, which is not a sealed situation. The primary concern at this point is the volume of toxic fumes before and after this change of operation. There is no evidence to suggest that the fumes will be greater with the change of operation, or that they would be great enough to constitute a probable significant adverse impact, or be beyond mitigation afforded by OAPCA requirements. Mr. Collins pointed out that the appeal matter is a quasi-judicial proceeding and that the Planning Commission should rely on the record in making their its decision. He also noted that the DNS is just a form required by state law. The SEPA Checklist prepared by Mr. Richmond is typical, not better or worse, for small project applicants, and as the SEP A Responsible Official, he considers corrections which are made during the review of the applicant's submittal. Mr. Collins called upon Mr. Richmond to further rebut. Mr. Richmond was reminded that he was still under oath, and stated that the main point is that at the present time, the proposed booth will totally contain fumes, the current use does not. Fumes will be virtually gone in the new use. The proposal will provide a healthier working environment for employees and himself. . Mr. Collins closed by stating that although he now has a better understanding of the sensitivity of The Spa customers, a DNS remains the appropriate action. The OAPCA requirements will address fume discharge. In response to a question from Commissioner Souders, Mr. Richmond answered that he will recycle used filters through the same service that currently recycles his paint thinning material. He further answered questions from Commissioners regarding the use. The current operation consists of 4845 cu. ft. of area. The proposed paint area will be reduced to 3160 cu. ft. In response to a question, Mr. Richmond explained the proposed exhaust system for the paint booth unit in comparison to that of the existing paint operation. In the proposed enclosed unit, fumes will be heated and blown out a raised stack, while currently the fumes are exhausted more at ground level. Ms. Krause stated that she was aware that she was still under oath, and testified that she believed the intensified use will adversely affect the general public. She stated concern over liability to her customers who would be breathing the more concentrated fumes. She added that she would like to see this small business owner do what he wants to do with his business, but in this instance, his proposal will affect many other people. Her business may not be able to continue if the proposal is approved. . There being no further testimony, Chair Winters closed the public hearing. Chair Winters called for a break at 9: 15 pm, and reminded those present that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 6 OF 13 . Commissioners could not talk about the proceeding during the break. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 pm. Chair Winters counseled the Commission that a decision could be made to modify, overturn, or concur with the SEPA Responsible Officials's determination. Commissioner Alexander stated that the DNS is a threshold determination as to whether the City should require an EIS for this proposal. The dividing line is whether more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probablity. That determines whether a major action is taking place.' He did not feel the Responsible Official's determination was in error. There are several like uses operating in the same zoning district at the present. The applicant is asking to continue his operation with a modification that is more environmentally friendly than the present arrangement. The OAPCA is the agency that will make the final decision on this matter and which is the agency that is able to determine whether there will be an air quality hazard in the operation of this facility. Chair Winters stated that he is deeply concerned about emissions and their effects on the general health of the public. However, in this case, evidence has not been presented which would indicate that OAPCA would not adequately and continually monitor the emissions from this facility. . Commissioner Campbell agreed that the evidence presented did not indicate that the . proposed use is more detrimental to the environment than currently exists. Commissioner Nutter felt that the proposed modification would be an improvement to the internal air quality but that more toxins would be directed outside than in the current operation. Commissioner Souders agreed. Commissioner Campbell stated that to agree he would need information which would prove the information submitted by the applicant was in error. Testimony and the information provided strongly suggests that the proposal will provide an improvement to the environment. It is a fact that The Spa use and the auto/body shop have co-existed for a good number of years. Commissioner Philpott stated that the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority is responsible for monitoring pollutants. It is conceivable that no more pollutants will be expelled than are at present and that the emissions may enter the air above her building, not directed toward the building at near ground level. Commissioner Souders moved to uphold the issuance of a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) in this instance, citing the following findings and conclusions: Findin2S: . 1. The City of Port Angeles received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of a building housing an existing auto body and . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 7 OF 13 paint shop. 2. A SEPA checklist was submitted on December 6, 1993, and the DNS was issued on December 14, 1993. 3. The applicant proposes to install a paint booth, either attached to the existing building, or located partially within the building. 4. Tbe site is located in the Arterial Commercial Zone District (ACD) where auto body and paint shops are conditionally permitted uses. 5. The comprehensive plan identifies the site as auto oriented commercial. 6. The land uses in the vicinity are predominantly commercial, with the exception of single and multi-family uses to the north and north east. 7. The business immediately to the east, called The Spa, provides a variety of health related services. 8. The site has been used as an auto body and paint shop for the past 30-35 years. Currently I the paint booth is located, and painting occurs, within the building. The booth vents are located on the west side of the building with stacks 16 feet high. 9. The Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official has reviewed the application, the environmental checklist, supporting documentation in the project file, the documentation submitted by the appellant. 10. The Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority was notified as an agency with jurisdiction. They responded with a letter received by the Planning Department on December 22, 1993, which stated the applicant must apply for, and receive a permit from that agency. No other comments were received during the comment period. 11. The appeal was submitted in a timely manner. Section 15.04.280 PAMC requires that appeals be made within ten (10) days of the date the DNS is fInal. In this case, the deadline was January 10, 1994. The appeal request was submitted to the Planning Department on January 10, 1994. 12. The City relies on the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA) to ensure standards for emissions are complied with. 13. The City requires pretreatment of any waste material discharged into its sanitary sewer system. 14. An industrial pretreatment survey will be required before a building permit PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 8 OF 13 . is issued. 15. There are other paint booths in operation in the City in the Arterial Commercial District (ACD). Conclusions: A. The proposal, as mitigated, is not likely to have a probable significant adverse environmental impact. B. Substantial weight has been given to the determination of the SEP A Responsible Official. Planner John Jimerson suggested rewording to Finding No.8. (as shown). Commissioner Souders agreed. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 'V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: . CONDmONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 90(01)01 - RICHMOND. 507 East First Street: Continued public hearing for consideration of a request to permit an auto/body paint use in the Arterial Commercial District (ACD). Chair Winters noted this public hearing is continued from January 12, 1994. Staff did not present an additional staff report but indicated that a copy of the original Department Report presented in January was available in the Commission's meeting materials. Carl Richmond, 30 Champion Road, responded to questions from the Commissioners. He indicated that he had already applied to the OAPCA for the appropriate permits and would finalize the process upon approval of a conditional use permit. Mr. Richmond stated that he would be willing to work with Ms. Krause if the opportunity presents itself. There being no further comment, Chair Winters closed the public hearing. Following discussion, Commissioner Campbell moved to approve the conditional use pennit as proposed with the conditions as follows: Conditions: 1. The spray booth shall comply with the Uniform FU'e Code, including provision of an approved automatic fire extinguishing system. . 2. A parking plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval to ensure the requirements of the Parking Ordinance are met. The applicant shall paint the parking spaces in accordance with the approved plan. . e. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 9 OF 13 3. The project shall meet the requirements of State and local building codes. Submit plans to the Building Division for approval. 4. The applicant shall submit a plan showing where cars at the shop for repair will be stored. Fencing and landscape plans shall be approved by the Planning Department for screening outdoor storage areas pursuant to Section 17.26.230 PAMC. 5. The electrical wiring shall comply with the City Electrical Code (Chapter 14.40 PAMC). 6. The applicant shall obtain a pennit from the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA) to ensure safe emissions. 7. The applicant shall pretreat any waste material discharged into City's sanitary sewer system. 8. The applicant shall complete an industrial pretreatment survey before a building pennit is issued. Findin~: 1. The request is to allow an expansion of a building housing an auto body and paint shop located at 507 East First Street. 2. The property is zoned Arterial Commercial (ACD). The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as auto commercial. 3. The site is improved with an existing building with roughly 3,100 square feet of floor area. The new paint booth would increase the building floor area by as much as 404 square feet. 4. A minimum of four parking spaces are required for the use. 5. There has been no previous Conditional Use Pennit issued for the use. The applicant has indicated the use has been at this site for 30 to 35 years, which predates the requirement for a C.U.P. 6. The land uses in the area are predominantly commercial, with the exception of single and multi-family uses located to the north and northwest. 7. Auto body and paint is a pennitted use in the LI and M2 zoning districts and a conditional use in the ACD zone. 8. The ACD zone requires screening of outdoor storage. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 10 OF 13 9. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the project which was upheld by the Planning Commission on appeal. 10. Several Comprehensive Plan Policies have been identified as being most relevant to the proposal including Goals Nos. 2 & 3; Commercial Policies Nos. 2, 7 & 15; Circulation Policy No. 18; Industrial Policies Nos. 5 & 7 and Land Use Objectives Nos. 1, 2 & 5. 11. The City relies on the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA) to ensure safe emissions. 12. The City requires pretreatment of any waste material discharged into its sanitary sewer system. 13. An industrial pretreatment survey will be required before a building permit is issued. 14. There are other paint booths in operation in the City in the Arterial Commercial District (ACD). Conclusions: A. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding auto oriented commercial uses and with the intent of the ACD zone. B. As conditioned, the Conditional Use Permit is in the public use and interest and is not detrimental to the public welfare. C. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan auto commercial designation and those policies listed in Finding No. 10 above. Commissioner Nutter seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Brad Collins informed those present that the decision is final unless appealed in writing to the City Planning Department within 15 days of the decision. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA 94(02)138 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES. Municioal Pier: Request for a shoreline management permit to allow construction of a boat moorage facility, located in the LI, Light Industrial District, as part of the City's Municipal Pier service. John Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Chair Winters opened the public hearing. \ Scott Brodhun, City Parks and Recreation Director, stated that the existing float system is in a state of disrepair. The area is subject to exposure of northeasterly swells . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9. 1994 PAGE 11 OF 13 and westerly winds such that the existing concrete floats have been damaged beyond repair. Concrete floats cannot accommodate the varying tidal actions and environmental situations necessary to have a long life. The City has been awarded an lAC grant to perform the proposed work. The project will be completed this spring. The Department of Fisheries restriction prevents work in the water from March 15th to June 16th, so it is imperative that a decision be made in a timely manner on this permit request. Mr. Brodhun assured the Commission that steel piling w01Jld be used in this construction, not treated creosote piling. He also answered that by not placing the floats out until Memorial Day, and removing them by Labor Day, a good deal of future storm damage can be prevented. The new piles may last as long as 10 years if properly treated. Mr. Brodhun added that it is requested that two piling be permitted in the waterway to provide shallow water signage. Mr. Jimerson noted that the signage request is new information not included in the permit application. There being no further commentt Chair Winters closed the public hearing. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Philpott moved to recommend approval of the shoreline management permit as proposed, with the following conditions: Conditions: 1. Prior to commencement of the project, the applicant shaU obtain a water quality standards modification from the Department of Ecology, if needed. 2. Debris from construction and removal of the existing piles shall not be disposed of in the shoreline area. 3. The applicant shall submit revised plans prior to the City Council meeting which show the ordinary high water mark as it relates to the proposed construction and a cross section view of the floats and pilings. 4. The existing pilings shall be removed at or before the time of construction of the new facility. S. Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. 6. The applicant shall submit plans for Council review of the proposed signage. The Planning Department will review the proposal with regard to the Shoreline Master Program. Findines: A. The approval is for installation of new mooring floats, to be held in . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 12 OF 13 place by 16 new pilings as depicted on the plan prepared by Johnson Coastline Associates. B. There was a previous permit approved in 1978 for the boat and float plane moorage at this location. C. The site is zoned Central Business District (CBD). D. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance have been reviewed with respect to this proposal. E. The facility provides recreational access to the water. F. . The facility is physically linked with the Central Business District. G. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the proposal. Conclusions: 1. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, specifically General Regulations C.1, C.2 and C.7; Land Use Element D.4.b; Use Activities F.2.b., F.17. c., and F .19.a-d. 2. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goals No.3 & 4, Commercial Policy No. 10 Industrial Policy No.5 and Land Use Objective Nos. 1-3. 3. As conditioned, the proposal will not be detrimental to the shoreline. Commissioner Souders seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Jimerson noted that an amended site plan clarifying the request for shallow water warning sign age and piling must be presented to the City Council for approval. The change will be presented to the City Council at the February 15, 1994, meeting. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 93(12)04 - GERMAN. Residential Single-Family Districts. City-wide: Request to amend the Planned Residential (PRD) District Chapter of the Port Angeles Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 1709, (Zoning) as amended. (This item was referred to the Commission from the City Council in December, 1993.) Commissioner Souders noted that because she was not present at the December 8, 1993, meeting, she would not be taking place in the discussion. Ms. Souders was excused from the meeting. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 PAGE 13 OF 13 Commissioner Campbell noted that he was not present at the December 8, 1993, meeting, either. He abstained from participation in the meeting, but did not leave the meeting. Brad Collins explained that the Planning Commission was directed by the City Council to clarify the recommendation forwarded in the Commission's December 8, 1993, minutes. Mr. Collins referred to a summary provided by Commissioner Alexander, maker of the subject motion. The Commissioners unanimously agreed that the written summary submitted by Commissioner Alexander would provide the City Council with sufficient detail to explain the Commission's recommendation (December 8, 1993) to the City Council. Commissioner Nutter, the second .of the motion, concurred. Commissioner Alexander moved to reaffnm the recommendation by forwarding the clarification to the City Council. Commissioner Nutter seconded the motion, which passed 4-0. VI. COl\1l\1UNICA TIONS FROM mE PUBLIC None. VB. STAFF REPORTS Brad Collins suggested that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council asking the Council to refrain from making a decision on school concurrency until such time as the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan is complete. It was determined that the Commission would hold a special public hearing on February 23~ 1994, for final consideration of a recommendation regarding the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan Vill. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11: 15 pm. ~W' . a.... B' d Collins S r 'tary --G' ~~ Bob Winters, Chair PREPARED BY: Sue Roberds . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Planning Commission Attendance Roster Meeting Date: ~~aer ~ /9.9"1 .. . :.:..J~i~f:..::.. lJ- QuOu . . PA ?,ti