Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/17/1993 . . . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 Special Meeting February 17, 1993 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of January 27th and February 10, 1993 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. REVIEW OF DRAFf COMPREHENSIVE PLAN V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. 8T AFF REPORTS VII. REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION Vill. ADJOURNMENT 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 (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents 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 Planning Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. Planning Commission: Cindy Souders, Chairman; Larry Leonard; Bob Winlers; Roger Cans; Bob Philpott; Ray Gruver; William Anabel. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Office Specialist; David Sawyer, Senior Planner; John Jimerson, Associate Planner. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMl\flSSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 February 17, 1993 7:00 P.M. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Souders called the meeting to order at 7:18 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Bob Philpott, Bill Anabel, Larry Leonard, Ray Gruver, Cindy Souders and Bob Winters (arrived at 8:05 P.M.) Commissioners Excused: Roger Catts Staff Present: Brad Collins, David Sawyer, Sue Roberds and Bruce Becker ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Following review of the January 27, 1993, minutes, Commissioner Philpott noted that clarification was needed to page 2, under Norma Turner's testimony, indicating her opposition to weakening of the no oilport policy. On page 3, Everett Winters' testimony was clarified that his concern was that Penn Street would become a well known crosstown route no matter how it was signed. Mr. Collins noted the December 13, 1992, minutes were actually the January 13, 1993, minutes. Commissioner Leonard moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion which passed 5 - 0, with Chairperson Souders abstaining due to her absence at the meeting. The February 10, 1993, minutes were then reviewed. Commissioner Philpott corrected the address of Art Bradow to be 2405 West Eighteenth Street. Commissioner Anabel seconded the motion which passed 5 - 0 with Ray Gruver abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 17, 1993 PAGE 2 OF 7 IV. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF PROPOSED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Chairperson Souders noted letters from Gary and Grace Jensen, Chris Muir, Pat Milliren and an additional copy of a letter from Wendy Clark, Clallam County Department of Community Development (the letter was previously distributed to the GMAC in early December, 1992.) Chairperson Souders explained the public hearing procedure to those in the audience and opened the public meeting. Rich James, ClaUam County Senior Growth Management Planner, 223 East Fourth Street, represented the County. He stated Clallam County's concern over a communication problem and a lack of coordination between the City and Cla1lam County in the adoption process for the draft Comprehensive Plan. A cursory review indicates there are many policies that would have a marked impact on areas under Clallam County's jurisdiction. The County specifically would ask that the Planning Commission request a full review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan goals and policies by Clallam County and delay action until such time as that review has been made. He also asked that the County be asked to review the draft EIS and that the draft Comprehensive Plan be reviewed for consistency with the County-Wide Planning Policy. A review of the County-Wide Planning Policy indicates there are several areas which might need to be addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. There are a few policies in the proposed Plan which are inconsistent with the County-Wide Planning Policy. A brief review of the transportation element indicates that a further review for compliance with the Growth Management Act is required. Clallam County wants the Planning Commission to know that they have concerns with the draft proposed Comprehensive Plan. Good communication is desired. Commissioner Leonard asked Mr. James if he was aware that the City's Growth Management Advisory Committee (GMAC) has been working on this revision for the past two and one-half years and did the County ask to be included during that time? Mr. James answered that he was aware of the process but had not been personally asked to participate in a review. Mr. James reiterated that the County's desire is to be asked to review the policies as they are completed. Commissioner Leonard stated that there has .been ample time for input over the past two and one-half years. Mr. James restated that the County was not asked to provide any input. Chairperson Souders added that as a member of the City's GMAC, she contacted one of the Commissioners on three different occasions beginning early in July, 1992, and asked to make a presentation to the County on the proposed Comprehensive Plan policies as . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 17, 1993 PAGE 3 OF 7 recommended by the GMAC. Her offer was never acknowledged. Commissioner Gruver asked Mr. James what kind of time frame the County proposes to conduct a review of the City's material. He noted that David Stalheim, the County's Planning Manager, and Commissioner Duncan have been to at least two, if not three, public hearings on the proposed Plan. Mr. James answered that a timely review would be given by the County and could take approximately one month. He added that some issues he sees as needing County review are a crosstown route, ferry congestion, traffic demand management, level of service in the transportation element, transit and an issue on density. Chris Muir, 214 West Second Street, read two statements from Lower Cherry Hill residents who could not attend the meeting. The first was from A.R. Anderson, 127 West Sixth Street, who objected, as residents of the Lower Cherry Hill area, to a proposal to downzone the area and designate it as an .historical district. The second from Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Schwagler, J. & J. Construction, 233 Alice Road, stated their objection as property owners in the area to a downwne of the Lower Cherry Hill area and to its designation as an historical district. . Mr. Muir presented the Commission with a colored map depicting land uses and supporting documentation of the development in the Lower Cherry Hill area. He stated his desire as a property owner in the Lower Cherry Hill area that the district remain zoned as it is and has been for decades. The area is developed as a mix of high density and single-family homes. The previous suggestion by a member of the public to downzone the area at this time and create an historical district would cause great hardship to many people who have made the area their home and those who have made investments in the area based on its long-standing wning designation. Chad Jones, 620 South Laurel Street, a Lower Cherry Hill property owner, objected to downzoning the area. Those sites developed as apartment/high density uses, of which there are many in the area in question, would suffer great financial hardship in the event of a disaster such as a fire, as the zoning could preclude reconstruction of the existing mulit-family uses. People would be displaced without hope of returning. Such a proposal would cause a true hardship to owners and renters alike. . Lorraine Ross, 418 East Front Street, reiterated testimony from previous meetings that a crosstown route needs to be designated to manage traffic. The City should put in place the mechanism to relieve the traffic gridlock which regularly occurs along the main traffic corridors. One or more routes and/or proposals should be looked at but not necessarily decided upon immediately. White's Creek must be crossed to provide an alternate traffic route. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 17, 1993 PAGE 4 OF 7 Guy Lund, 114 West Fifth Street, stated his opposition as a property owner in the Lower Cherry Hill area to any downzone of the high density area or to create an historical district. The development which has occured has been due to the zoning designation of the area which was set many years ago. The zoning and land use designation should remain unchanged at this point and left to develop as it has for the past many years. Investments have been made in the area based on the current zoning designation. Those investments would be severely impacted if downzoned. Mary Lou Paulson, 1845 East Lauridsen, asked for an explanation of the crosstown/alternate route proposal. Will the public have additional opportunity for input on the Commission's recommendation? . David Sawyer, Senior Planner, explained the land use and circulation maps and noted that the proposals are at this point recommendations from the GMAC. He described the three crosstown routes under consideration which consist of two truck routes and a local alternate route along Lauridsen Boulevard east across White's Creek to Penn Street and Highway 101. No signage is planned which would direct traffic to a local alternate crosstown route(s). Mr. Sawyer answered that the proposals are recommended by the GMAC at this time. The Council will conduct additional public hearings on the Commission's recommendation. Bruce Becker, 1311 E. Lauridsen Boulevard, said he would like to see the proposed truck routes better identified. Following discussion with Commission members, Mr. Becker was satisfied with the explanation concerning the truck routes as they were depicted on the circulation map. Tom Mitchell, 14th/Lincoln Streets, asked who decided there is a need for an alternate crosstown route? Brad Collins answered that three years ago the City conducted a survey of nearly every household in the City which indicated that a large majority of residents/property owners are in favor of an alternate crosstown route. The GMAC then studied where in the City such a route would go. Mr. Mitchell said that traffic in Port Angeles seems to be relatively light other than in only a few areas of town. He does not believe there is a need for an alternate crosstown route. . Gale Snell, 727 S. Alder, asked who would pay for an alternate crosstown route. If approved with state funds, the City may lose the ability to control the route's design and/or placement. Such a route should not be considered near schools. White's Creek in the Lauridsen Boulevard is quite wide and deep and a crossing at that point would be very costly. White's Creek was crossed at Fifth Street in the past, and would be less of an engineering feat. Considering that a new fire station, the City's only, is planned for Fifth Street, Fifth Street would be the most logical crosstown route if one was desired. A bypass with state money is more logical, not a crosstown route. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 17, 1993 PAGE 5 OF 7 Ken Schermer, 738 West Sixth Street, indicated he is a member of the GMAC. He reaffirmed the GMAC's intent is to designate a local alternate crosstown route, not a bypass around town. Such an alternate route has been an issue of discussion at the City Council level for 12 to 15 years. (Commissioner Winters arrived at this point 8:05 P.M.) Doris Doyle, 1317 E. Lauridsen Boulevard, questioned the need for a local alternate crosstown route in a City that experiences less than 1 % of growth per year. Practically speaking, a route on Third, Fourth or Fifth Streets would be more logical where a crossing of White's Creek would be less expensive because the span is more narrow. The number of homes, elementary school, college and nursing home on Lauridsen Boulevard make the Boulevard a very poor choice. Jennifer Paulson, 1845 East Lauridsen Boulevard, suggested restriction of parking on one side of Front and First Streets during peak traffic hours. She stated her concern that a crosstown route would take business from the downtown. Jim Haguewood, 705 Cristman Place, stated that a crossing of White's Creek doesn't solve the congestion problems. Future annexations will require that City services be extended east of Ennis Creek. A southerly bypass is a better plan. Renee Cochran, 710 Scrivner Road, read information from a "Who's Who in 1992" publication which stated that vehicles arrive from the east, and exit to the east, and therefore felt that there is not a need for a bypass for the City. Port Angeles is not a thoroughfare but a destination area. A bypass south of Port Angeles would heavily impact that rural area. Brandon Kim, 1895-D Reddick Road, said that logging is a declining industry in this area and in the future log trucks probably won't be seen around town, so an expensive way in which to bypass the downtown with truck traffic might be a waste of money. There being no further comment, Chairperson Souders closed the public hearing. Mr. Collins polled the Commission for its opinion on a further public hearing. The result was 6 - 0 that an additional public hearing is not necessary in order to make a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission took a 15 minute break at 8:35 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 P.M. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 17, 1993 PAGE 6 OF 7 The County representative's request to delay action on the proposed draft Comprehensive Plan until the County could be formally asked to review the material was discussed. It was the consensus of opinion that the City has solicited comment from the County several times during the current review process and has shared material prepared to date with the County, that County Planning Manager, David Stalheim gave lengthy testimony at at least one meeting with written comment, and another County staff person (at a later date) provided written testimony. With the exception of the most current draft which is only two day's old, the County has had ample opportunity to study the material. Any oversight was purely unintentional. Commissioner Gruver suggested the County be formally invited to the February 24, 1993, meeting and be able to participate as they wish at that meeting. After further discussion, it was agreed that a letter would be sent to the County detailing previous communications, indicating continued opportunities to jointly plan, and expressing sorrow over any miscommunications between the City and the County. David Sawyer noted that the draft environmental impact statement should be ready for review by the February 24, 1993, meeting, and the County will most assuredly be asked to comment on the document, per state requirements. The Commission then began its continued review of the draft goals and policies beginning on page 23. Commissioner Leonard expressed his objection to the residential designations on the land use map (low, medium and high density areas). He felt the areas should be designated as residential, commercial and industrial only. The Commission then studied and discussed the proposed land use map. Clerical changes were noted and changes made to page 23 V. LAND USE ELEMENT: Densities were revised from Low Density Residential 1 - 9 units per net acre to be "up to 9 units per net acre"; Medium Density Residential from 10 - 15 to "up to 15 units per net acre"; and High Density Residential from over 15 to up "to 43 units per net acre". Page 23. add "but not limited to duplexes. II to Medium Density Residential. Page 24. add "as required by concurrency policy. II to Policy A .1. instead of "either prior ro or at the time of dc'..elopmeflt, Rot after. " Page 24. delete !!.a!!- before key factors and add comma after "for efficient circulation" in Policy B. 3. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 17. 1993 PAGE 7 OF 7 Page 25, Policy D.4, "All residential developments should be encouraged to preserve and capitalize on existing unusual, unique, and interesting natural features... n . Page 27, Policy E.2, "The City should continue to promote improvements to the traditional... in cooperation with downtown business merchants. associates. 8:ftd thc Mmft Street Pregram." Page 28, Policy G.4, (to be discussed with City Attorney for wording.) Page 32, Policy B.3, "The City should designate an alternateWe route for local cross- town traffic along Lauridsen Boulevard across White's Creek ultimately connecting with Highway 101. " Page 32, Policy B.4, II At a minimum, improvements should be made for the development of full access at Highway 101 and the Truck Route, improve the iHterseetien at Highway 101 and PiRe Street,,:. Itmprove(ments should be made to) the intersections at: of Lauridsen Boulevard at Lincoln and Peabody Streets:;: limprove(ments should be made to) the Lauridsen Boulevard bridge over Peabody Creek,:. B:REi amprovement should be made for the) develop(ment 00 a crossing over White's Creek,:.and improve theiRteroRange at Highway 101 and Gelf Course Reacl/PeBR Street. Page 33, Policy B.!3, change lIallocations" to II allowances " . Review of the material ended at page 33. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VI. STAFF REPORTS VD. REPORTS OF COMM1SSION MEMBERS Vill. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gruver moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 P.M. Commissioner Anabel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. . .' .~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 17. 1993 PAGE 8 OF 7 ~~ Bra Colhns, Secretary Cindy Souders, Chairperson PREPARED BY: Sue Roberds . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES /l. ~ /) Attendance Roster ~ /~ - \A/bA.~.) '-7Yl1'+~ T. fM' p~.-' ~"9- ype 0 eetmg mg ommlSSlon { ~~:tion ~.f~~:eif- ~it'ifa~~ Name E. u er-cif W (1,i;e~-) ~ \ e..- G~\ \>\ 0\-. . I 1 e fIJ vU ~ k:l:1 v U2.. '(v\ ',("G 0 . ~ 17~ ~-J-AJcJ I ~I ~ fS;LU 0 I I 1 ( ( " " Vlf?/J /2 1 c::) rmfl 51_ P a cr 'f D E - Lv.)- dJ ~ ~ -~) v q l&uyt#~ ,a . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of Meeting PlanninK Commission Date Location 321 E. 5th Street - City Hall . ~v. .