Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/10/2002 "--, 01 ~: ~! ...... .J . FORT,ANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA. PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street April 1 0, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER 7 p.m. ll. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of March 27, 2002. IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING: REZONE ~ REZ 02-03 - PORT ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT - School District-owned properties located adjacent to the Port Angeles High School to be rezoned from RS-7. Residential Single Family to PBP. Public Buildin~s and Parks. (Continued discussion from March 13,2002 public meeting.) OLD BUSINESS: PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS - MCA 01-02 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES, City-Wide: Suggested changes to the City's sign, parking, environmental, subdivision, and zoning regulations (Titles 14-17). The changes were largely recommended by the Citizens Code Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council in 2001. (The public hearing on this issue was closed on March 27, 2002.) V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ~. STAFF REPORTS ~I. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII. ADJOURNMENT . PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Linda Nutter (Chair), Chuck Schramm (Vice), Fred Hewins, Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Mary Craver, Rick Porter PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins, Director; Scott Johns, Assoeiate Planner; Sue Roberds, Assistant Planner. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 Apri!10, 2002 7:00 p.m. ROLLCALL Members Present: Bob Philpott, Fred Hewins, Chuck Schramm and Rick Porter, Len Rasmussen Members Excused: Mary Craver, Fred Norton Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Scott Johns Public Present: Scott Brodhun APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Philpott moved to approve the March 27,2002, minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Porter and passed 4 - 1 with Commissioner Rasmussen abstaining due to not being seated on the Commission at that time. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE - REZ 02-03 - PORT ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT - School District-owned properties located adjacent to the Port Angeles High School to be rezoned from RS-7. Residential Single Family to PBP. Public Buildings and Parks. (Continued discussion from March 13,2002 public meeting.) Commissioner Hewins noted that a new staffreport had been prepared since the March 13, 2002, meeting specifically addressing only the Port Angeles School District rezone where originally it had been combined with a staff report for various Municipal Code Amendment proposals. Chair Schramm reminded members that a previous staff report had been read into the record on March 13, 2002. He polled the Commissioners who agreed that they did not need the new staff report read into the record at this time. Chair Schramm then opened the continued discussion indicating that Scott Brodhun, representing the Port Angeles School District, was present to respond to any questions that may not have been previously answered. In response to a question, Scott Brodhun, Port Angeles School District, 216 East Fourth Street, stated that the subject lot on the west side of Maple Street is used for overflow parking in association with the school activities, the subject east lot is used for storage, and the Peabody and Park Street property has long been used for classroom activities. The subject east lot on Maple was acquired in the past three years. The other two subject properties have been owned by the School District for some time. Mr. Brodhun responded to Commissioner Rasmussen that the subject east lot on Maple Planning Commission Minutes Ap,.illO, 2002 Page 2 . Street was purchased because of its proximity to the High School. Prior to its being made available to the School District, it had not been planned for acquisition under any long range planning process. Its proximity to the High School made it a logical purchase. . . Commissioner Porter noted that he knows Scott Brodhun and his family but felt that he could act fairly on the rezone proposal. No one in the audience objected. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Hewins moved to recommend approval of the rezone proposal citing the following 14 findings and 6 conclusions: Findings: 1. The Port Angeles School District, requested a change in the Zoning map designation of property from Residential, Single Family (RS-7) to Public Buildings and Parks (PBP). 2. The proposal consists of three building sites that are owned by the Port Angeles School District and used for associated school activities. 3. The three locations are found immediately adjacent to the Port Angeles High School site, located at 304 East Park Avenue, and are described as follows: Parcel #1 is located in the 3000 block of Maple Street along the east side of the street directly south of the school maintenance building and is developed with a residential structure and garage; Parcel #2 is located just north and west of Parcel #1 along the west side of Maple Street and is undeveloped~ and Parcel #3 is located at the southwest comer of Park and Peabody Street and is developed with a large converted residential structure. Parcels #2 and #3 have been under the ownership ofthe school since prior to 1995. Parcel #1 was purchased in 1998-99. Parcel #1, although appearing to be residential in nature, is used for storage. Parcel #3 has been used as an auxiliary schoolroom for many years. 4. The site is located in the South Central Planning Area of the City between Park Avenue and Viewcrest Street along Maple Street. The area is designated as Residential (R) on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. 5. Properties surrounding the subject sites are zoned Residential Single Family (RS-7) with the exception of the School District properties which are zoned PBP. The residential properties are mostly developed. A church use is located south ofthe area on Viewcrest Street. 6. The purpose of the PBP zone is "A zoning designation for publicly-owned property, or property not suitable for development by reason of its topography, geology, or some unusual condition or situation. Much of the land so designated may best be left as "green belts.1t Schools and school related uses are permitted in the PBP zone. 7. The Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed with respect to the proposed rezone. The most relevant goals, policies, and objectives are as follows: Growth Management Element Goal A; Land Use Element Goal A; Policy A.2; Objective A.l; Goal B; and Utilities and Public Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 3 . 8. A.l.;Goa1 C; and Policy C.l. Per Section 17.96.100 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code "In determining if an amendment to these regulations is needed, the City Council shall give due consideration to the proper relationship of such amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the entire Zoning Regulations; it being the intent to retain the integrity and validity of the zones herein described and to avoid any isolated spot zoning changes in the Zoning Map." 9. Parcels #2 and #3 have been owned and have functioned as a part of the High School campus for many years, since prior to 1995. A change of use in Parcel # I occurred in 1998-99 when it was purchased by the School District to be added to the High School campus. . 10. The Public Works and Utilities Department, Fire Department, and the Building Division of Community Development have made no comments on the proposed rezone. 11. The City's State Environmental Policy Act Responsible Official issued a Determination of NonSignificance (#974) for the proposal per WAC 197-11-355 on March 8, 2002. There are no environmentally sensitive areas located on or adjacent to the subject property. Subsequent development of the properties would require compliance with various chapters of the Port Angeles Municipal Code as it applies. 12. Public Notice was placed in the Peninsula Dailv News and the site was physically posted on February 20,2002. Notice ofthe intended action were sent by U.S. Mail to surrounding property owners on February 15, 2002 identifying a written public comment period terminating on March 7, 2002. No comments were received as a result of the public notification procedures. 13. This site specific rezone application is limited to one "open record" public hearing before the City Council. The meeting before the Planning Commission is not a public hearing, and oral public testimony cannot be taken. According to R.c. W. 36.70B, Local Project Review ("The Regulatory Reform Act"), the Planning Commission shall hold a public meeting, which may include an informal hearing, and make a reconunendation to the City Council. The recommendation is to be based solely on the information contained in the official file which includes any written public testimony that was received by March 7, 2002. 14. A City-wide rezone of properties for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map was approved in 1995. Parcels #2 and #3 were owned and operated in association with the High School use in 1995 when the rezone was done. Parcel #1 was purchased during 1998-99. Conclusions: . 1. The application is for a rezone only which addresses all potential land uses allowed within that zone and not approval for any specific, subsequent development that may be an allowed land use according to the Zoning Code. Plolll1ing Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 4 . 2. Rezone REZ 02-03 for the Port Angeles School District is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically with Growth Management Element Goal A; Land Use Element Goal A; Policy A.2; Objective A.I; Goal B; Utilities and Public Services Element Goal A; and Capital Facilities Element Goal A; Policy A.I; Objective A.l; Goal C; and Policy C.l. 3. The Comprehensive Plan accepts that districts may be composed primarily of residential uses of a uniform density and that a healthy, viable district should be composed of residential uses of varying densities which may be augmented by subordinate and compatible uses. Schools are compatible uses in areas designated residential and consistent with the desired urban design of the City. 4. The rezoning of Parcel #2. 'and #3 was overlooked in 1995 during a City-wide rezone of inappropriately zoned properties. A change in use occurred for Parcel #1 in 1998-99 when it was purchased by the Port Angeles School District to be used in conjunction with other High School campus activities. Given the school use and ownership, the rezone is not a spot zone. 5. The City's action on Rezone REZ 02-03 is consistent with established procedures for amending the Zoning Code as specified in PAMC 17.96.100. . 6. Rezone REZ 02-03 is in the public use and interest by accommodating the needs of the community's High School activities. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion which passed 4 - 0 with Commissioner Rasmussen abstaining due to his not being seated on the Commission during the previous discussion and meeting. PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS - MCA 01-02 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES. City-Wide: Suggested changes to the City's sign, parking, environmental, subdivision, and zoning regulations (Titles 14-17). The changes were largely recommended by the Citizens Code Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council in 2001. (The public hearing on this item was closed on March 27, 2002.) . Chair Schramm opened the continued discussion on the amendment proposals. Community Development Director Collins reviewed the A-frame sign discussion from the previous meeting which was still under consideration as a decision was not reached at the March 13, 2002 meeting. Detailed discussion began with regard to the different types and applications of A-frame signs. It was decided that real estate open house signs are a form of A-frame sign as they are freestanding and not attached to either the ground or a structure in many cases. Mr. Collins noted that, at present, real estate open house signs escape Code enforcement by practice as they are generally placed and taken down within the same day and are difficult to administer as long as they are not placed on the City's rights-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 Page 5 . Fol1owing extensive discussion as to what is an A-frame sign and where they might be of value to business owners and the general public, Director Collins noted that the proposed amendment is intended to clarify sign issues, not make them more confusing than they already are. Staff is asking for a clear set of guidelines by which to administer sign issues. Staff is not asking to prohibit signs that are currently allowed by this amendment but is asking that the City's only established set of detailed guidelines for signs, those found in the Central Business (CBD) sign regulations, be officially applied to other areas of the City as well. The CBD sign guidelines provide clear definitions, prohibitions, exemptions, and temporary use situations that are not described in other zones thereby making it a matter of interpretation in a lot of cases as to what is prohibited and what is exempt. The existing sign information found for zones other than the CBD are at least 30 years old and have not been reviewed for clarity. They are very vague and allow for much interpretation. Commissioner Hewins was concerned that certain established sign uses for signs commonly found in most automobile-oriented zones such as the CA, such as banners, pennants, and flags for automobile dealers, would be prohibited if the CBD sign regulations are adopted for the entire City. Director Collins stated that there may be sign prohibitions found in the CBD that are not appropriate for all zones because the CBD is pedestrian-oriented. Those prohibitions do not have to be extended to other zones, but the bulk of the CBD sign code is a good working tool that can readily be adapted to other zones and will enable staff to provide clear direction in sign applications. . Lou Haehnlen, Building Official for the City of Port Angeles, reiterated that staff is asking that an established set of rules be adopted Citywide so that the administration of sign applications will be clear both to staff and to the public. At this time, signs are being handled without a clear set of rules. Chair Schramm identified that staff is asking that a set of regulations be instituted for application City-wide that will allow the consistent administration of sign regulations without so much interpretati on.. Commissioner Porter was concerned that we don't create a law to support a law that we don't understand. On that note, Director Collins said that we already have the law but the wording is out dated and doesn't clearly define what are prohibited signs and what signs are exempt City wide. Should we be extending the same sign rules defined in the CBD because we don't have clear direction elsewhere, or should we stop trying to interpret the regulations and put in place a more finite set of rules that everyone can understand? In extending the definitions of the CBD sign ordinance City-wide, with a few changes in the prohibited signs, the status quo will be retained as far as allowable sign area in other zones. Commissioner Philpott supported providing staff with the clear direction that is being requested. Lengthy discussion followed as to what staff is really asking for, and it was agreed that the CBD sign regulations do provide direction not currently available in other zones. . Commissioner Hewins continued discussion as to the A-frame sign issue. It was agreed that A- frame signs placed outside ofthe rights-of-way and no higher than 30" high with 6 square foot . . . Planning Commission Minutes Apri/10, 2002 Page 6 maximum per side should not pose a vision or traffic concern. Businesses appear to be in favor of such signs, and one sign per physical location would not seem to present any negative impacts. Commissioner Rasmussen suggested that the exemption section found in the CBD sign regulations be extended City wide but that the prohibitions section should be reviewed zone by zone to ensure compatibility. He suggested defining A-frame signs as freestanding or detached signs to enable maximum flexibility to staff for enforcement. Commissioner Hewins disagreed and suggested that prohibited signs be left grouped as they are with the exception of specific signs prohibited in the CBD, such as banners, flags, and pennants, which are commonly found in automobile-oriented zones. Most other signs prohibited in the CBD would appropriately be prohibited City-wide. By a poll vote, the Commission agreed. Staffwill bring revisions to the proposed amendments as discussed to the regular meeting of April 24,2002, for final review. In discussion of exemptions permitted under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) found in WAC 197-11-908 for actions proposed in environmentally sensitive areas, Commissioner Hewins asked if staff knows of other jurisdictions that have adopted any of the exemptions. Staff was not prepared to answer the question but will report back with that information. Director Collins began a lengthy review and a detailed list of proposed purpose section amendments for each zone within the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that the Citizen Code Advisory Committee asked that the purpose sections be amended for each zone to provide a more positive statement as to the intent of each zone. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. STAFF REPORTS Staffwe1comed Commissioner Len Rasmussen to the Commission. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Schramm asked if the City had given any thought to working with the Port of Port Angeles on developing a municipal golf course on those properties that the Port and the City own which are more or less in the area of the landfill and airport. Director Collins indicated that, while the City is not pursuing a golf course plan at this time, it would be possible to work with the Port if such a proposal were to be put before the City. He agreed that other communities have successfully reclaimed landfill for municipal recreational activities; however, at this time, the City's proposal for redevelopment of the landfill property is planned to be more for utility purposes than recreational purposes. Commissioner Schramm encouraged a recreational use if possible which would benefit the entire community. . . . Planlling Commission Minutes April /0, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Hewins noted that the new taxi business located in the 800 block of West Eighth Street is becoming a traffic hazard with vehicles crossing West Eighth Street while turning into the site. Queuing occurs which backs traffic up to the bridge. Staff will look into this. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10: 1 0 p.m. L!Aar.~~ Charles Schramm, Chair Brad Collins, Secretary PREPARED BY: S. Roberds