Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/25/1981 . III . e. PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington February 25, 1981 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brewer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Jean Thompson, Colin Bennett, David Brewer, Patrick Downie, Richard Anderson, Milton E. Ranta Members Absent: Charles Whidden Staff Present: Paul D. Carr, Dan VanHemert, Louise Frost APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Anderson moved to approve the minutes of the February lIth meeting as submitted. Mr. Downie seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. IV HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE HEARING ~ RALSTON. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a duplex. Lo- cation: West of "1815 East Third Street. (Con- tin"ued :fr-om Pebr"u"ar-y 1"1,198 L) Mr. VanHemert reviewed the staff report; Chairman Brewer " opened the public hearing. John Webb, representing the applicant, provided a rebuttal to the staff report and explained that the site was good for a duplex for a number of reasons, including the use is not detrimental to surrounding properties; would be in the best interests of the City; there is a need for this type of housing; it would not only preserve but possibly lessen population density; and the duplex will allow for more quality in construction. If the portion of the unused unopened alley to the north were included in the site, the area would be 10,400 square feet. Mr. Downie asked for .clarification of the status of the alley and was told that the eastern portion had been va- cated. Although the applicant had considered vacating the alley, they would have to allow City access for sewer main- tenance, so did not pursue it. Planning Commission February 25, 1981 Page 2 . Louie Torres displayed a map of the property, showing the alley as it now exists and as it has been vacated, and submitted photos of the area. He spoke to a number of issues, including his opinion that the lO,500 square-foot figure for a duplex was arbitrarily established at a' iliot and a half. One duplex would be of better quality con- struction than two single-family houses; and since two single-family houses could be built anyway and a duplex would not hurt anyone, it should be granted. Chairman Brewer closed the public hearing. . Mr. Bennett asked staff about the status of the alley. Mr. Carr said the alley was not part of the application, therefore, no research was done. Mr. Downie asked for an explanation concerning duplexes in single-family areas. Mr. Carr explained that the lot area for duplexes was established in part to insure compatibility in a single- family area and is not arbitrarily a lot and a half. In response to a question, he noted that the impact on popu- lation and traffic is very similar for two single-family houses and for a duplex. Mr. VanHeIDert observed that one of the tests of a conditional use is compliance with the zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bennett moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a duplex, subject to the maintenance of ease- ments for extension of the sewer and water, and gave the following findings: 1. The City will be better served by one duplex as opposed to two small houses. 2. The City should seek more innovative housing in this period of high land costs. 3. The alley abutting the parcel ~o the north will never be used for alley purposes. Mr. Ranta seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. . PARKING VARIANCE - TE~~ILL. Request for reduc- tion in off-street parking spaces from 53 re- qui~ed for expanded restaurant/living quarters to 7 spaces. Location: 408 South Lincoln St. (Remanded from City CO'uncilon' 'change in proposal.) Mr. Bennett excused himself from consideration of this matter on the appearance of fairness and left the hearing room. Mr. Carr reviewed the new proposal. Mr. Anderson asked how many parking places presently existed on the site, and was told that at this time there are no designated parking spaces. . Planning Commission February 25, 1981 Page 3 Chairman Brewer opened the public hearing. Brooke Taylor, representing the applicant, pointed out that the present proposal was a substantial reduction from the original application. The applicant has already made many improvements on this building. At this time there is no parking on the site; and if "the building remains as it is, there will never have to be any parking on the site. The new proposal does not involve significant expansion of the restaurant. There are presently 86 seats; the proposed private dining room in the basement would accommodate 30. The proposed" apartment is for the applicant and her family. The present restaurant is heavily utilized by people em- ployed or shopping in the area, as well as by the many resi- dents of thenear~by senior citizen housing project. No major traffic expansion is anticipated, as the only change would be the private dining room in the basement. Mr. An- derson observed that many times he has been unable to find a parking space available on Lincoln Street between 7:30 and 8 AM. . Mr. Ranta asked if there had ever been any parking for the restaurant, and Mrs. Terrill replied no. Chairman Brewer asked if the degree of parking reduction was a major point; and Mr. Carr responded yes. "The Code requirements for restaurants appears to be appropriate. Even if the patron- age remains 80% walk-in, there will be increased demand for parking. In response to Mr. Downie's question, Ms. Terrill said she had ten employees working two different shifts, five per shift. Mr. Downie then asked how many additional employees would be required to serve the proposed private dining room, and was told that one more would probably be sufficient, as the dining room would be used only for private meetings. Mr. Taylor said that some groups use the restaurant's back room now for private meetings. These would be moved into the basement private dining room, thereby opening up addi- tional area on the main floor for regular trade. Mr. Downie asked if the dining room in the basement was more important than the living space upstairs. Ms. Terrill said she spent so much time "on the premises she would prefer to live there, rather than commute. Mr. Downie then suggested that perhaps making living space upstairs would be better than to expand into the basement. . Chairman Brewer asked how the remodeling of a pre-existing nonconforming building could render it not in compliance with the off-street parking requirements. Mr. Carr explained that the present proposal" is to remodel and expand a pre-existing . Planning Commission February 25, 1981 Page 4 building which does not conform to the parking Code. Minor repairs which do not expand the usable space would not cre- ate this problem. Chairman Brewer then asked if remodeling of the building, without increasing the area, would be per- mittedj and Mr. Carr said basically yes. Mr. Anderson asked if a basement could be put under the building if it did not contain any restaurant use. Mr. Carr said it was possible; but the present proposal was for a dining room and storage area; and given the proposed im- provements in the basement, it would require very little re- modeling to use it for restaurant purposes. Mr. Downie opined that it was inconceivable that anyone would spend $20,000 for a basement to support an 85-year-old building without being able to use the area. . Considerable discussion of the present and future use of the Court House and its parking areas followed, including the possibility of cooperative parking between the appli- cant and the County, which would entail combined hearings on both matters. Additional discussion on the lack of on- site parking for some restaurants and related uses in the Downtown elicited the information that the Downtown Park- ing Association provides the required parking for those uses. Mr. Taylor asked who was expected to use the parking areas on the streets. Mr. Carr explained that the primary pur- pose of the curb-to~curb area of a street right-of-way was for moving traffic. Parking may be permitted there until it creates a hazard. Mr. Downie asked Ms. Terrill if she would suffer financial injury if this matter were continued; and she said she would not. Chairman Brewer closed the public hearing. Mr. Downie moved to continue this matter to March 11th to allow a realistic evaluation of the County parking lot at Fifth and Lincoln, keeping in mind the requirements imposed on the Court House by the City. Mrs. Thompson seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. V PLANNING STUDIES 1. ShortPl"a"t" O"rdin"anceRevision . Mr. Carr introduced Jack pittis/ Public Works Director, who presented information regarding levels of improvements on subdivision, both long and short, and illustrating what is happening in other areas of the State. This information . . . Planning Commission February 25, 1981 Page 5 prompted considerable discussion on the part of the Commis- sioners and Mr. Pittis and Staff; which concluded in the Commission requesting other communities' ordinances and further examples and the decision to include the general populace in the next discussion on March 25th, so their in-put can be obtained. 2. Home Occupations' Utility Rates In view of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Carr suggested that this matter be discussed on March 25th. . VI COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None VII STAFF REPORTS None VIII REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS Mrs. Thompson, Messrs Bennett and Downie and Chairman Brewer had none. Mr. Anderson: Observed that the Locomo sign has been moved off the sidewalk. Mr. Ranta: Thanked Staff and the Commission for the plant sent him while he was in the hospital; he appreciated it. IX ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at lO:03 PM. Paul D. Carr, Secretary Chairman Tape condition: Satisfactory LF CITY or PORT ANGI:LES AJ'TI:ND!\NCr. ROSTI:R . . :::i~~:'1~~~9: ~~f;S: ~st:~t , Date: . = , ,9, ;n--1;L i ; { t I I - . . ADDru:SS/AG!:NCY NM\1E :-1?V~? ~/ tV'.. . '0 .; \I . . ~ , -- -----~-....._r___ i I r . i , ~..! .b.."~ ~ I , .1 I J I I J j . I __J I i -..-. I . i . .. 1 . t .