Loading...
Minutes 03/09/1994 . . . AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 March 9, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER D. ROLL CALL ID. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES: Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 16, 1994 and Special Meetings of February 23, and February 24, 1994 IV. SHORT PLAT APPEAL: 1. KEY - SHP 93(06)04 - Mt. Aneeles Road: Appeal of a condition of approval relating to water system improvements. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PETITION FOR ANNEXATION - RONE' - ANX 94(02)01: Petition for annexation of approximately 37.96 acres of property located east of Golf Course Road between Lindberg and Maddock Roads. (The applicant has requested continuation of this petition hearing.) VI. OLD BUSINESS: 1. PROPOSED CAPITAL FACllJTIES ELEMENT AND PLAN AND OTHER POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GOALS AND POLICIES. (Continued Commission consideration. The public hearing was closed on February 23, 1994.) 2. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 93(12)04 - GERMAN. Planned Residential Developments: Proposed modification to Chapter 17.70 (Zoning) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code as it relates to Planned Residential Developments. (This item is referred to the Commission from Council's March 1 meeting.) Members: Bob Winters, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice-Chair; Bob Philpoll, Orville Campbell; Roger CallS; Carl AleXllnder and Linda Nutler. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Director; John Jimerson, Associate Planner; Sue Roberds, Office Specialist, David Sawyer, Sr. Planner. . . . VD. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Vill. STAFF REPORTS IX. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS X. ADJO~T All correspondence pertaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. PUBUC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Infonnation 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 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 March 9, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Alexander called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. ll. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Bob Philpott, Carl Alexander, Orville Campbell, Cindy Souders and Linda Nutter. Commissioners Excused: Bob Winters Staff Present: Brad Collins, David Sawyer, Sue Roberds, Ken Ridout and Bruce Becker. Public Present: Dave Milligan, Tim German and David Noonan . ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Campbell moved to accept the February 16, 1994, minutes as presented by staff. Commissioner Souders seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Following a recommendation made by Mr. Collins, Commissioner Philpott moved to continue review of the February 23 and 24, 1994, minutes to the April 13, 1994, meeting. It was recognized that the minutes were still in a working draft form with the major notations and amendments having been incorporated in the draft Comprehensive Plan to be presented to the Commission later in the meeting. Commissioner Nutter seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. IV. SHORT PLAT APPEAL: KEY - SHP 93(06)04 - Mt. Angeles Road: Appeal of a condition of preliminary short plat approval relating to water system improvements. . Brad Collins reviewed the Department memorandum and explained that the applicant is appealing one of the five conditions (Condition No.4) of approval of the preliminary short plat which requires extension of a six or eight-inch watermain to the property. The condition is necessary to provide adequate water supply and fue protection as determined by the Public Works and Fire Departments. The applicant requested that the short plat be approved with a two-inch line; however, a two-inch line is not large enough to support a fire hydrant or to meet the future supply needs of the vicinity but would provide adequate supply for the proposed short plat. The Public Works Department indicated a two-inch line would suffice for the present time if the applicant entered into a non-protest PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 1994 PAGE 2 . L.l.D. agreement for future upgrade to the line. The applicant's property is bounded on two sides by the County. Mr. Collins stated that part of the problem is the irregular City boundary which crosses a main utility and street corridor (Mt. Angeles Road). The situation speaks to why we avoid these types of irregular boundaries when reviewing annexation proposals. He then answered questions from the Commission on the short plat appeal process and noted the procedure is not a public hearing. Ken Ridout, Deputy Director, answered Commissioner Souders that there is presently a two-inch watermain north of the property. He confirmed that at some point in the future when the six or eight-inch watermain is required, the proposed two-inch watermain would have to be replaced with a larger line to serve an increased area. The Commission concluded that placement of a two-inch line at present only to be replaced at a point in the future would require the applicant to pay for the improvement twice when it could be accomplished once. Mr. Collins added that this was one of the reasons for staffs original condition of approval. . Bruce Becker, Fire Marshall, clarified that if a fire hydrant is to be located five hundred feet from both of the proposed lots, the habitable structures on those lots would be required to have residential sprinklers. A fire hydrant needs to be within two hundred fifty feet;, with a flow of 1,000 gallons a minute if habitable structures are not sprinklered, and within five hundred feet with a flow of 500 gallons a minute if the structures are sprinklered. Mr. Key realized that he could not get a six-inch line to his short plat and asked the Fire Department if they would accept a P.D.D. fire hydrant. The Fire Department responded that if Public Works did not have a problem with the use of a P.D.D. fire hydrant, one could be used if within the previously stated acceptable distances with appropriate water flow. It might be more feasible for the applicant to extend the P. U. D. fire hydrant closer to his property. For clarification, Mr. Collins noted that the east side of Mt. Angeles Road is in the city, while the west side is in the County. In response to Commissioner Catts, Ken Ridout answered that the P.D.D. does not extend waterlines into the City. The P.D.D. has agreed to extend its line approximately five hundred feet from where it exists to the southern edge of Mr. Key's property, which is the City's boundary in that location. . Johnie Key, P.O. Box 2151, Port Angeles, WA, stated that he has an agreement with the P.D.D. to meet the City's fire flow requirements. If the line needs to be extended more than five hundred feet, the P.D.D. will also add an additional hydrant. He will install a six inch main in the short plat area where it meets Mt. Angeles Road which would then be used if an L.I.D. is established at a point in the future in order not to have to disturb the road surface at that time. The original approval requirement would require extension of a six inch watermain 1354 feet to support future development, which is cost prohibitive. Following detailed discussion with the applicant and staff on the economics and estimated future activity in the subject area, Commissioner Souders felt conditions were such that concurrence witb the Planning Department's modified Condition No.4 is in the best PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9. 1994 PAGE 3 . interest of the parties involved in this situation. She moved to recommend the City Council grant the appeal with Condition No.4 amended to read as follows: "Prior to rmal plat approval, the applicant shall provide any off~site utility easements needed for extension of water service to the site. Water service shall be from a six or eight inch watennain unless the applicant enters into a non~protest L.I.D. agreement for future upgrade of the waterline, extends the two-inch watennain to serve the short plat, and provides a P.U.D. fire hydrant accessible to the City's Fire Department located within five hundred feet of both lots in the short plat. Any homes shall be provided with residential sprinklers." Commissioner Catts seconded the motion which passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARING: PETITION FOR ANNEXATION ~ ANX 94(02)01 - RONE': Petition for annexation of approximately 37.96 acres of property located east of Golf Course Road between Lindberg and Maddock Roads. (The applicant has requested continuation of this petition hearing.) . Chair Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. Collins noted for the record that the applicant had requested continuation of the petition consideration to the April 13, 1994, meeting. There being no one present to speak to the issue, Commi"-Sioner Nutter moved to continue the hearing to April 13, 1994, 7 p.m., City Council Chambers. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Chair Alexander indicated that the remainder of the agenda would be reordered in order to consider the GERMAN ZONING CODE AMENDMENT prior to further consideration on the draft Comprehensive Plan. There being no objection from the audience, the agenda was so ordered. VI. OLD BUSINESS: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ~ ZCA 93(12)04 - GERMAN. Planned Residential Development CPRD) Chapter of the City's Zonin& Re&ulations: Proposed modification to Chapter 17.70 (PRD) Chapter of the Port Angeles Municipal Code as it relates to Planned Residential Developments. (This item is referred to the Commission from the City Council's March 1 meeting.) Commissioners Souders and Campbell, having been absent from the December 8, 1993, meeting at which this item was originally discussed, reported that they had spent considerable time reviewing the tapes and felt qualified to join in the deliberation at this time. . Chair Alexander noted that the February 15, 1994, memorandum from the applicant stated that "... the proposed changes were misrepresented by staff'. Chair Alexander then questioned the applicant as to if he felt the current staff report materials adequately represent the proposed change(s) as it currently exists. Mr. German answered that he found the current (March 9) staff report materials acceptable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 1994 PAGE 4 . Mr. Collins reviewed the Department's March 9, 1994, Memorandum and provided visual displays to review the issues and ramifications of the proposal. The displays showed the differences between open space requirements of traditional yard requirements and PRD's and how the proposed amendments would alter them. Staff recommended the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve an amendment to allow a definition of a PRD for single-family planned residential developments. Staff proposed language to Section 17.70.011 Definitions: "PRD's that are composed of single-family lots, common usable open space and recreation facilities." Such language doesn't preclude in its definition PRD's where common usable open space and recreation facilities benefits could be derived. It doesn't require common usable open space and recreation facilities, but it does allow that they could be part of the single-family PRD. . The applicant's proposed wording to Section 17.70.050 Standards "All Mixed Use Planned Residential Developments... " is not recommended by staff because the wording is confusing as to what a mixed use is. Staff does not agree that the wording 11.. and none of which will be credited in the setback areas required along the exterior property lines of the PRD" should be struck from the current requirement. Working with the applicant prior to the last City Council meeting, staff agreed to language that is similar to the proposed wording: "Sin~le-family PRD's that have a minimum lot size equal to or greater than the underlying single-family residential zone and a provision of maximum lot coverae:e of no more than 30 % will be exempt from the open space requirement provided required recreation space must not be located within the setback area." The intent is that the underlying zone is a single-family zone. Staff agrees with the applicant that the minimum lot size taken together with the maximum lot coverage of no more than 30 % will result in a development that has the same amount of open space as a traditional subdivision in the individual lots. What is changed from the traditional subdivision and current PRO requirements is that there is less need for roadway improvements and common recreational area. The applicant states that the amendment would result in more lot design flexibility. The final amendment to Section 17. 70.090(E) Ap.,plication, would result in the loss of the site specific development approval in the PRD process. The proponent's amendment would rely on the CCR's (Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions) to specify development design. Staff believes that CCR's like private covenants are an administrative quagmire. Approved building footprints are more enforceable. The current ordinance already allows for administrative review of up to ten percent for flexibility. Permitting such a broad amount of flexibility gives away the importance of site specific design. Such design can allow a neighborhood to be comfortable with a development that is below minimum traditional subdivision standards allowed in PRD's. The Commission took a break at 8:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. . Tim German, 2025 West Twelfth Street, argued for the wording "and when applicable" to be added to Section 17.70.011 Definitions. He argued that the definition which would read as amended I1(G) Single-family planned residential developments: PRD's that are composed of single family lots and. when applicable. common usable open space and recreation facilities" would leave the possibility to either have or not have common usable PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 1994 PAGE 5 . open space and recreation facilities if desired. In response to a question from the Commission, Brad Collins indicated that staff could accept the proposed wording if the Commission desires. However, if you do not eliminate the open space requirements, you would not want the wording in your definition. The proposed changes in Section 17.70.50 deal with two distinct issues. The PRD process allows the neighborhood a great deal of input as to how the neighborhood will develop. The applicant is held to his promises and therefore the character of the neighborhood can be defined with some assurance. Mr. German stated that there is confusion in the comparison between open space in a PRD and that in a conventional subdivision. Lot coverage in a PRD is different than in a traditional subdivision because in a traditional subdivision lot coverage does not include roadways and walkways, where in a PRD it could. The intent is to make a PRD comparable to a traditional subdivision in lot coverage but to also allow for flexibility for the developer to be able to keep promises made to the neighborhood. There is open space in the proposed PRD amendment. The amendment allows for the open space to be removed from the common area and put back into an individual lot. . Mr. German discussed in detail with the Commission recommended wording to Section 17.70.090(E) allowing only in single-family PRD's that building setback lines be considered rather than building footprints. To encourage use of the PRD process a certain amount of success has to be achieved by the developer. It is difficult to project what will sell in future years. By predetermining where the building envelopes will be, restrictions are made on future development of the site. CCR' s can be used to enforce development within the PRD as well as strict building footprints. Speaking as a developer, a conventional subdivision is much more cost effective than a PRD; however, a PRD allows the neighborhood to have input and assures quality neighborhood developments. Mr. German stated that he has no objection to staffs proposed wording that adds "single- family residential zone" to Section 17.70.050. He expressed concern, however, that in speaking of usable open space which must be used for recreational purposes where "none of which will be credited in the setback areas required along the exterior property lines of the PRD. to The problem with this restriction is that it adds 20% open space to a development. Therefore, the density is limited because the remainder of the development (buildings, roads, utility, parking) all have to be within the remainder of the site (50%). On the one hand the offer of bonus densities is made, and then removed with this restriction. The promised densities are unachieveable with the requirement. Creative use of the setback areas could include uses which could be considered as a buffer, such as a walking path, if allowed to be used as open space. The current PRD standards result in 5,000 square foot lots or smaller due to the common usable open space requirement. . Following lengthy, detailed discussion between the Commission which included the applicant, Commissioner Souders stated that the PRD allows development to an urban density with protection of critical areas. Common usable open space and open space are two different elements. Common usable open space does not include impervious surfaces, which are not part of the lot coverage, and doesn't equal someone,s back yard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 1994 PAGE 6 . Open space can afford opportunities for many residential structures to comingle without affecting each other in the same manner as if there was open space to buffer the structures. Commissioner Souders then moved to recommend amendment to Section 17.70.011(G) as proposed by staff; 17.70.050 proposed by stafft leaving in the wording "and none of which will be credited in the setback areas required along the exterior lines of the PRD" adding the sentence "Sinele-family PRD's that bave a minimum lot size equal to or ereater to the underlyine sin&le-family residential zone and maximum lot coveraee of no more than 30% may use exterior setback areas as part of its common usable open space provided required recreation space must not be located in the exterior setback area." She clarified that this would only allow use of the setback areas for (non-recreational) common usable open space in single-family PRD's. Section 17.70.090(E) to be amended per the applicant's request adding the wording "... dimensions of buildings or buildine setback lines in the case of Sinele- Family PRDts..." Commissioner Catts seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Campbell wished to clarify his concern that under the proposal it is still possible to design a PRD that can use smaller lot sizes than the underlying zoning. The current PRD standards allow great flexibility. . Mr. German indicated that under the proposal, single-family PRD's that must have minimum lot sizes equal to the underlying zoning plus the 30% open space will mean the PRD will result in densities that are lower than allowed by the underlying zoning district. PRD's will then never be used. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Alexander added that if you don't give the exemption from the open space requirement then it is too restrictive for any developer. Commissioner Souders agreed but concluded that, without the minimum lot size wording as proposed, the (subdivision) regulations should not be allowed to change. She would not concur with exemption from any open space requirement for PRD's. Brad Collins added clarification for the Commission concerning open space requirements for PRD's. Up to 15% credit can be achieved under the proposed language in the exterior setbacks, which is what was originally recommended to the City Council on December 8, 1993. Chair Alexander and Commissioner Nutter expressed concern that all of the ramifications of the proposed amendment are not evident at this point. They were hesitant to proceed. Commissioner Catts withdrew his second, and Commissioner Souders withdrew her motion, as they agreed with Chair Alexander and Commissioner Nutter. . In response to a question from Commissioner Campbell, Chair Alexander explained that the applicant has modified his original proposal. The City Council referred the issue to the Commission for a recommendation on the modification. Commissioner Campbell expressed concern that a model ordinance might be modified because of a particular sitution or a particular developer's problem. The Planning Commission's recommendation of December 8, 1993, had merit and addressed at least PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9. 1994 PAGE 7 . one of the proponent's concerns which was appropriate but did not damage the integrity of the remainder of the basic PRD ordinance which ' addresses the needs and concerns of this type of development. The proponent has introduced some very good points, but there may be other methods to deal with building footprint restrictions than what is being proposed. Brad Collins offered wording to Section 17.70.090 which might address design review standards and be acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Nutter moved to forward the Commission's December 8, 1993, recommendation to the Council for favorable consideration. The motion died for lack of a second. It was the general concern of the Commission that the PRD Ordinance is being taken apart piecemeal. . Following further discussion and counsel from the Chair and staff as to how to proceed at this point, Commissioner Campbell moved to recommend the City Council amend Sections 17.70.011 (G) and 17. 70.050(B) as originally recommended by the Commission on December 8, 1993, to add a defmition for single-family planned residential developments and to allow the non-recreation portion of the common usable open space to be located within the exterior setback areas of single-family PRD's only. Also that Section 17.70.090(E) be revised to read "Preliminary site plans showing existing and proposed contours at five-foot intervals, location and principal dimensions of buildings or buildine setback lines in the case of sinele- family PRD's (provided that when only buildinl: setback lines are required then the CCR's will establish required architectural desien review). open space, recreation areas, parking areas, circulation, landscape areas, subdivision platting and general arrangement," citing the following fmdings and conclusions: Findin~: 1. Comprehensive Plan Residential Goal A, Policy No.6 states that planned unit development and planned residential development techniques should emphasize the overall density of the development rather than individual lots or dwelling units. 2. The proposal is to modify Chapter 17.70 PAMC by adding a defmitioD for Single-Family PRD's, amending the development standards for common usable open space, eliminating the requirement for common usable open space in Single-Family PRD's, and allowing for building setback lines for single-family PRD's. 3. The purpose of Chapter 17.70 is to encourage design flexibility, conserve natural amenities, allow for innovative residential development, and result in a residential environment of higher quality than traditional lot-by-Iot development. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 1994 PAGE 8 4. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the proposal on November 15, 1993. . Conclusions: A. As recommended, the Zoning Code Amendments are in the public use and interest. B. As recommended, the Zoning Code Amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, specifically those found in Finding No. 1. C. As recommended, the Zoning Code Amendments are consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.70 of the Port Angeles Muncipal Code. D. The proposal to eliminate the requirements for common usable open space in single-family PRD's is inconsistent with the intent of Chapter 17.70 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion. The question was called for and passed 4-2, with Commissioners Alexander and Nutter voting in the negative. . Chair Alexander added that his negative vote was because it is a mistake to amend the PRD Ordinance in a piecemeal manner. Any revision should be approached in a more systematic manner. A good start for systematic review would be at the time of review of development ordinances subsequent to adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Nutter agreed and added that she did not feel comfortable with the section dealing with setback lines. More specific plans to ensure the intent of the PRD are needed for thorough review; setback lines are not enough. .., The Commission concurred that this action would not preclude further review of the PRD regulations. The time being 10:15 p.m., Commissioner Campbell moved to continue with the remainder of the agenda items until 11 p.m. Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PROPOSED CAPITAL FACILITIFS ELEMENT AND PLAN AND OTHER POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO THE DRAFf COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GOALS AND POLICIES: (Continued Commission consideration. The public hearing was closed on February 23, 1994.) . Commissioner Catts indicated that he had listened to the tapes of the February 24, 1994, meeting from which he was excused, and would therefore be taking part in the discussion and decision. Brad Collins commended the efforts of David Sawyer for his exceptional work in putting the material together for the Comprehensive Plan. . . ~. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9. 1994 PAGE 9 David Sawyer stated that there are still some technical holes in the document, some graphics are not in the document, some figure numbers have changed, etc. Staff is still checking the material for compliance with the Commission's specific wording. Chair Alexander asked that the wording dealing with school concurrency be reworked to clarify the six year provision and a task force. Staff will reword the policy. The Commission offered minor corrections which will be worked into the document. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Souders moved to recommend approval of the document as corrected. Commissioner Nutter seconded the motion which was passed unanimously. Brad Collins noted that findings and conclusions should also be added to the motion of recommendation for approval. Commissioner Catts moved to adopt the following findings and conclusions in support of the Commission's recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan. Findines: 1. The State's Growth Management Act mandated adoption of a Comprehensive Plan consistent with the State's Growth Management Act. 2. The proposed draft plan replaces the City's Comprehensive Plan prepared in 1976. 3. The City was in the process of updating the 1976 Comprehensive Plan prior to the State's mandated update. 4. There has been early and continuous public review which includes citizen input recorded through a public survey, public testimony, neighborhood meetings, and committee meetings. 5. More than six hundred people provided testimony in this process, and 1,473 households responded to the initial public opinion survey. 6. An environmental impact statement has been prepared for the document. 7. An EIS addendum which addresses the capital facilities element is being prepared and should be completed in April, 1994, prior to fmal action. 8. The Comprehensive Plan includes a capital facilities element and capital facilities plan which was lacking in the original document. 9. Annexation policies have been included in the Draft document and will be revised to recognize the variety of uses within the designated urban growth area. 10. Open space and recreation policies have been included in the Plan. . . ~. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 1994 PAGE 10 11. The Plan is adopted consistent with the Clallam County-Wide Planning Policy and meets the State's deadlines for growth management concurrency. 12. The City has met the requirements of the Growth Management Act in its adoption of the Interim Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Ordinance, the Wetlands Ordinance, the proposed Urban Growth Area Boundaries and the County-Wide Planning Policy document adoptions. 13. Development regulations are required to be consistent with the Plan. Conclusions: A. The City has met the requirements of the Growth Management Act in adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. B. SEP A environmental review has been completed. C. Tbe revised Plan is a reinforcement of the direction which began with the City's 1976 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion which passed unanimously. VII. COMMUNlCA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Commissioner Nutter noted that a Peninsula Section of the American Planning Association has scheduled a meeting for Planning Commissioners and Planning Officials on March 28, 1994, in Port Ludlow. Brad Collins commended the speakers who will be at that meeting and encouraged anyone to attend who is able. Chair Alexander asked that he be informed by March 18 of those who will be able to attend. VID. STAFF REPORTS Brad Collins asked that a special workshop meeting be scheduled for March 29,7 p.m., with the City Council and the Growth Management Advisory Committee for discussion on the Growth Management Act. Commissioner Nutter moved to schedule such a special meeting at 7 p.m., City Council Chambers. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Commission wholeheartedly thanked retiring Commissioner Catts for his service to the City as Planning Commissioner these past four years. Commissioner Catts responded that he thoroughly enjoyed his service and has been impressed with the individual personalities that make up the Commission. He thanked the individual members for their tirelessness and devotion to the City. IX. REPORTS OF COl\1MISSION MEMBERS Chair Alexander drew attention to the proposed long range agenda items planned for 1994-95. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 1994 PAGE 11 x. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. ~~ rad Collins, Secretary PREPARED BY: Sue Roberds 6~ ?/Vl,fL- Carl Alexander, Chair . AcrJONS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting o/March 9. 1994 Corrected Sheet 1. KEY SHORT PLAT APPEAL - SHP 93(06)04 - Mt. Aneeles Road: Appeal of a condition of approval relating to water system improvements. Council could choose to uphold the decision of the Planning Director requiring Condition No.4 as stated in the preliminary approval, reverse the decision by concurring with the recommendation of the Planning Commission as found in the March 9, 1994, minutes, or modify the conditions of approval. Findings and conclusions should be cited for the decision. 2. PETITION FOR ANNEXATION - RONE' - ANX 94(02)01: Petition for annexation of approximately 37.96 acres of property located east of Golf Course Road between Lindberg and Maddock Roads. (The applicant has requested continuation of this petition hearing.) . Council should open and continue the public hearing to May 3, 1994. 3. PROPOSED CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT AND PLAN AND OTHER POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GOALS AND POLICIES. (Continued Commission consideration. The public hearing was closed on February 23, 1994.) Council has a scheduled public hearing for this item. 4. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 93(12)04 - GERMAN. Planned Residential Developments: Proposed modification to Chapter 17.70 (Zoning) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code as it relates to Planned Residential Developments. Council should reschedule its public hearing on this item to April 19, 1994, in order to meet publication requirements. Thank you. . . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Planning Commission Attendance Roster Meeting Date: '/'J7a n ~ 9) /9!) i . ":(.{ .. :.; ......-. '...., .', ..:.......'_.. ..'.......:.:.::.::. ...:... .... .:.:-;. ... ..... . . . .... .. .:... NAMFJ':......,.. ,"." . .. ..APJ)R.E$~~.:.. · .. , : ~ .,..' ., ... .. . , . '.':..'.:. ,.... .i':' ,.: ..... :..:......:. .;.. . '.':.' .... .:. . .: - '. ... -"'~: '\~ ::; :::;:::. :. < \) ~..{p M" , iJ Mrj 'J~5 \.J f..Rn-.. 'S>T, PA .