Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/10/2000 '" . I, II. III. IV. . V. VI. . FORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street May 10, 2000 CALL TO ORDER 7p,m, ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of April 26, 2000. (CONTINUED) PUBLIC HEARING: 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 00-03 - GERMAN (Highland LLC)~ 1702 Melody Circle: A proposal to establish a substance abuse treatment facility in an existing structure located within the RHD, Residential High Density zone. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC STAFF REPORTS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-01 - LUND. East of Race Street between Fifth and Seventh Streets: A proposal to designate property currently identified as Low Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial (C). 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-02 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES: A proposal to amend the density for residential units in High Density Residential zones from a maximum of 43 units to a "density greater than 43 units per net acre." 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-03 - MORNINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT. Lindberg Road/GolfCourse Road: A proposal to change the designation of property located at the southeast corner of Lindberg Road and Golf Course Road from Low Density Residential (LOR) to High Density Residential (HDR). PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Fred Hewins (Chair),Linda Nutter (Vice),Bob King, Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Charles Schramm, Mary Craver PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins (planning Direclor), Sue Roberds (Planning Specialist) VII, REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS . VIII. . . ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Fred Hewins (Chair,), LindaNutter (Vice Chair);Bob King, Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Charles Schramm, Mary Craver PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins, Planning Director; David Sawyer, Senior Planner; Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 May 10, 2000 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Linda Nutter, Fred Norton, Bob King, Chuck Schramm, Mary Craver Members Absent: Bob Philpott, Fred Hewins Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Dan McKeen Public Present: Jerry Miller, Harry Kneller, Michael Kisman, Lucienne Kirk, Arthur Wilmot, Heather Wilmot, Beryle Middleton, Carroll Reid, Gene Middleton, Janet Drysdale, Chuck Drysdale, Steve Moriarity,Bob McCartney, Betty Uhrich, Peri Arnnette, John and Te1ene Duysharb, Landon and Sherry Kimbrough, Coline Collins, Chuck and Mary Lou Paulson, Jennifer Ken, Floyd Taggert, Steve Sanderson, S. Powell, R.H. WaroEn, Elnor Reid, Carlos and Mardell Xavier, Kathleen Burgess, OEve Brooks, Barbara Thompson, Margaret Anderson, Claire Steinman, Joyce Downen, Dolores Dulaney, M.B. Stolley, Mary Otto, Bev Jacobs, Judi O'Neill, Florence Humpal, John Swedstedt, Marcella Miller, Chuck Mullin, Tim German, Robert and Deanna Martin, Allan Harrison, Neale Frothingham, Dave Flodstrom, Pat Walker, Don Dundon, Shirley Stenger, Craig Miller, Perry Jenna, Jennifer Kim, Carroll Reed, Harvey Nettle, Carlos Xavier Staff noted that Commissioners Hewins and Philpott would not be in attendance as they had disclosed appearance of fairness issues regarding the agenda item to be discussed at the April 26 meeting. Vice Chair Nutter opened the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Schramm noted a typographical error in the last paragraph on page 2 - "of 45%" should be "to 45%". Finding 9 on page 7 should be corrected to read "The applicant is proposing to remove three smaller boathouses in the Boat Haven to stay under the maximum square foota2e of covered over-water structures allowed by the Shoreline Master Program to provide a loeation for the reeonstrueted boath6use". Page 13, 7(b) would be more understandable if amended to read "Up to three dogs and cats, instead of onl} two, may be kept outdoors..." Commissioner Nutter asked that on Page 2, fourth paragraph, the first sentence be amended to read "Commissioner Nutter did not see that even with the agreements ... there is no certainty that if the association decides there is no need for transportation service they can't vote it out." On page 6, first sentence, change "The committee is aware of the tandem . . . Planning Commission Minl/tes May 10,2000 page 2 bicycle rally but neither she nor the committee itself is ttttt involved in the event." Commissioner Norton moved to approve the April 26, 2000, meeting minutes as amended, The motion was seconded by Commissioner Craver and passed 5 - O. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 00-03 - GERMAN (Hi~hland LLC). 1702 Melody Circle: A proposal to establish a substance abuse treatment facility in an existing structure located within the RHD, Residential High Density zone. Vice Chair Nutter opened the continued public hearing by encouraging all those present to sign in so they can be recognized. She stated that persons who intend to provide testimony must sign in and acknowledge that their testimony is truthful to the best of their knowledge. Planning Director Collins noted that copies of the staff reports as well as past minutes were available for the audience on the dais. Due to public concern raised over a recent article published in the Peninsula Daily News regarding Planning staffs recommendation, it is important to note that City . staff have not recommended approval of Highland Courte CUP 00-03. The staff continues to have reservations about the proposed site. The conditions contained in the May 10 staff report were intended to identify mitigation measures which would address concerns and objections raised in earlier staff reports and public testimony. Ten conditions were developed using statements and information provided by the applicant in an attempt to address issues subject to the conditional use permit process. The Planning Commission must determine if these and/or other conditions could make the proposed center compatible with the residential zone in which it is proposed. Staff has not determined if these or other conditions developed to mitigate specific concerns raised in the public record can be enforced. Discussions with the applicant have not concluded, and staff is recommending that following the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission continue its deliberation to the regular May 24, 2000, meeting. Staff will provide a report on the legal enforcement of conditions proposed to ensure compatibility with the senior development at the May 24 meeting. Mr. Collins reviewed a (second) staff report prepared following the April 26, 2000, public hearing. An attachment to the report contains an analysis of five comparable facilities and their impacts on surrounding areas prepared on behalf of the applicants by Landon Kimbrough. Mr. Collins responded to specific questions by commissioners with regard to definitions and intentions contained in staffs report. Commissioner Schramm expressed concern that nearly all of the letters written in protest of the proposed action were written from an emotional level rather than from factual evidence. He asked if staff provides counsel for persons who wish to voice concerns with regard to specific projects. Mr. Collins answered that staff tries to provide general direction to persons who wish to respond to particular applications or processes. It is not staffs expectation that a citizen who wishes to testify will necessarily provide expert testimony. People are not discouraged from testifying although it is staffs expectation that applicants will need to provide a certain amount of expert evidence in order to make their case. There is not a set of guidelines as to what type of evidence is valid and which is not. Commissioner Schramm asked that staff develop such guidelines to direct those who wish to comment as to what type of information can be used to formulate decisions. Planning Commission Minutes May /0, 2000 Page 3 . Vice Chair Nutter noted the ground rules by which the meeting would be conducted and opened the continued public hearing. Bob McCartney, 1749 East Sixth Street, read a letter into the record identifying his doubts that patients at the proposed Highland Courte facility would be only residents of the Port Angeles community, He believed that patients would seek the services of the facility from many other areas including out of state locations. He agreed with other speakers at the previous meeting who asked that the permit be denied due to the inappropriateness of such a use in a retirement community. Don Dundon, 701 Currier Court, agreed with comments made by David Flodstrom at the April 26, 2000, meeting, where he stated that the conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCR's) of this retirement community must be observed by residents and developers. Proposed Condition No.4 of the conditional use permit approval poses a great concern to residents as the applicant has answered that "to require a criminal background check would not be conducive to a recovery atmosphere, and Highland Courte does not have the legal right to compel a criminal background check from every applicant." This is not acceptable given the number of elderly and/or physically disabled residents to the proposed facility. There are other potential uses for the building that would complement the neighborhood. The proposed use does not. . Florence Humpal, 1702 Melody Circle #202, does not believe such a facility belongs in an elderly, disabled, retirement community developed for a senior population. She expressed concern about the potential of excess traffic in that a parking problem currently exists in the Highland Commons I apartment area that is adjacent to the proposed site. The use does not belong in this type of residential area. Gene Middleton, 711 Elizabeth Place, represented a neighbor, Roy Varni, 1814 East Lauridsen Boulevard, who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Middleton read a letter from Mr. Varni which was in addition to the letter received from Mr. Varni and contained in staffs report. Mr. Varni noted that the applicants are apparently so certain that the conditions of approval can be complied with that they are already moving into the facility. The proposed facility is in violation of City ordinances regarding uses in residential districts. Promises are not always kept when profit is involved. There are no provisions for policing the conditions of approval. Applicants told residents in neighborhood meetings that patients would be brought from as far away as Alaska. There are nine facilities within one hundred miles of Port Angeles that currently offer inpatient care for chemical dependency. There is no pressing need in this community for such a service. There is a greater need in Alaska as there is only one such facility in the entire state. Beryl Middleton, 711 Elizabeth Place is not opposed to treatment facilities of this nature, they are a very needed service. She is concerned that the applicants are proposing this type of facility in a very vulnerable senior retirement community where the sense of tranquility and security for the senior population will be lost. . Chuck Paulson, 1845 Lauridsen Boulevard urged the Commission to pay particular attention to the Police Department report. Visitors to the facility cannot be controlled when they are not within the facility and may be of the same persuasion as those seeking treatment in the facility. Such a use leaves the entire senior retirement community in a very vulnerable position. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 10. 2000 Page" Perry Jenna, 1703 Melody Circle agreed with the previous speakers and was concerned with the potential for violent and sexual crimes as a result of the introduction of this type of use in a senior community. Many residents of the neighborhood are old and frail and live in fear of the possibility of this facility in their neighborhood. Jennifer Kim, 11 One Horse Lane, spoke for her parents who reside at 1845 East Lauridsen Boulevard. Her family is concerned that adults who seek treatment may not act like adults when under the influence of chemical dependency and harm may come to residents of the neighborhood as a result ofthe use in this location. She echoed all of the concerns of the residents voiced thus far in opposition to the proposal. Craig Miller, 130 East Fifth Street, introduced Landon Kimbrough, 270 Beckett Point Road, Port Townsend, WA 98368, who commented on some of the testimony presented. He stated that the statistical figure of 3901 persons in Clallam County who may be suffering from chemical abuse is from infoID1ation provided by the Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (ASA). The report is a biannual report prepared for the State of Washington. Ten to fifteen percent of the 3901 persons addicted to some form of chemical abuse are expected to enter inpatient treatment facilities. He explained the process used in providing the survey provided to the Commission. Not all inpatient facilities operate the same so it is difficult to find good comparables. He identified four such facilities that were similar to Highland Courte that were used in the survey. Mr. Kimbrough responded to Commissioner Craver that the closest inpatient treatment center that he is aware of is in Olalla, Washington, in Kitsap County. Mr. Kimbrough responded to several questions from Commissioner Nutter regarding inpatient and outpatient services in Clallam County serving chemically dependent persons. He responded as to the level of training for staff and that the facility would be licensed by the State of Washington as a health care professional facility. Professional counselors require 2500 hours of experience, 45 to 90 hours of schooling, and pass a test. Nine different chemical groups are termed as mood altering. All mood altering drug dependent persons will be treated at the facility. Patients will be evaluated each week to assess their ability to function as outpatients ready for discharge. Opoid patients do not do well in this type of treatment facility and are screened out prior to admission. Patients ~e asked whether they are opoid dependent but the center has no legal basis for doing background research on patients. Clinical data is often available to indicate what a patient is addicted to prior to admission. There are no other outpatient treatment centers being operated by Northwest Care Services, the proposed operator of the facility, in the State of Washington. In response to Commissioner Norton, Mr. Kimbrough stated that there are no patients being treated at the facility at present. The facility has not received licensing. Mr. Bob Martin has an office at the facility in order to have a local office from which to operate. The building is otherwise empty. Commissioner Schramm asked how the facility would serve the direct neighborhood? Mr. Kimbrough answered that the facility is intended to treat the needs of the entire community. In order to be effective, treatment needs to be done locally so that families can participate in recovery. Mr. Schramm stated that the applicants have identified patients to the facility as local professionals and community leaders. He asked if local professionals might prefer to be treated outside of their local community for anonymity reasons. Planning Commission Minutes May 10. 2000 Page j . The Commission took a break at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Bob Marlin, P.O. Box 1934, Port Angeles, WA stated that the chemical dependency treatment center services will not include detoxification and admission must be voluntary. The center will provide services for adult, 18 and older, patient, and will not provide service to patients who have been convicted of violent and sexual crimes. The length of stay is 21 to 28 days and cost $140 a day. Visitors will only be allowed on weekends and will be screened to allow only those visitors who are supportive of the treatment. From his experience, at the end of one year, the Highland Communities neighborhood will realize that the Highland Courte treatment facility has been a very good neighbor. An advisory committee is planned of approximately twelve members made up of direct neighbors and community members. Conditions of approval for the facility are welcome to ensure the facility is meeting the expectations of the neighborhood to address specific issues of concern. Commissioner Craver stated that the biggest fear expressed by the neighbors is of patients with a history of violent crimes and aberrant behavior. Without the ability for criminal background checks, how can neighbors be assured that this type of patient will not enter the facility? Mr. Martin answered that by and large interviews with family members, friends, and employers reveal background problems of concern. . In response to Commissioner Schramm, Mr. Martin answered that of the potential 3901 Clallam County residents who may need this type of facility, approximately 50% can afford the treatment. Residents will be private payor insurance pay patients. In response to Mr. Schramm's inquiry as to how the proposed facility will serve the immediate area, Mr. Martin answered that the neighborhood won't know they are there. There will be no adverse effects and will provide a sorely needed service. The center will be licensed by the state as a for profit health care facility. Staffwill remain constant in trying to be resourceful in keeping the cost level as low as possible. Family members will not be spending the night at the facility but will seek lodging elsewhere in town for the family weekend counseling service once during the treatment. Mr. Martin described measures proposed with regard to on-site security as touch pad entryways with alarm systems at the perimeter of the area. Staff will be on-site 24 hours a day and cameras will be installed within the facility. In response to Commissioner Nutter, he could not say why the previous Alzheimer's facility failed, but a high caliber chemical treatment facility nationwide will remain full if its operational standards and services are reputable and affordable. Tim German, 2025 West 12th Street, is a principal in the Highland Courte project. His mother lives in the Highland Commons apartments, and he is not in the least concerned with her residency there due to his research into the use that is proposed. People in the treatment center can be discharged whenever they wish. Patients have a problem that they wish to be free of and will come to the facility voluntarily to receive treatment. . In response to Commissioner Schramm as to how the proposed use qualifies as a social service use, :Mr. German answered that the facility will be supporting outpatient services throughout the community. He further responded to the inquiry as to why such a facility should be in this particular neighborhood, Mr. German answered that the facility would result in less impact to the residential neighborhood than another apartment. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2000 Page 6 Craig Miller, 230 East Fifth Street, speaking as attorney for the applicants, stated that a conditional use permit is a permitted use in specific zones with or without conditions. If conditions can be applied to make a use compatible, then it becomes a permitted use. He took exception to wording in staffs report of May 10, 2000, that the proposed use must be found to serve the surrounding residential uses to be compatible with the Residential High Density zone (RHD). Language in the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that "a healthy viable district should be composed of residential uses of varying densities which may be augmented by subordinate and compatible uses." Th~s conditional use (CUP) must be considered by the same set of standards as every other conditional use that can be permitted in an RHD zone, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and golf courses, to name a few. It is an erroneous test to believe that the use must serve the direct neighborhood. The correct test is, can this use be made compatible with the residential nature of the zone in which it located? There is no hard evidence that this particular facility will cause an increase in police responses. The fears of the neighbors are from a belief that problems will occur, but impacts have to be demonstrated by evidence not opinions. He referred to the court case Sunderland Services vs Pasco (127 Washington 2nd 782) a Washington Supreme Court case. The case concerned a proposal to allow a group home crises residential center for abused and neglected teenagers in a single family residential zoning district. The neighbors questioned whether the children would be properly supervised and cited the high number of elderly persons living in the neighborhood. The City of Pasco denied the permit. The Supreme Court overturned the city's decision because the decision was based upon fears of neighborhood residents rather than objective evidence. There is an important distinction between well founded fears and those based on inaccurate stereotypes and popular prejudices. A second case The Department of Corrections vs the City ofKennewick, involved a work release facility in downtown Kennewick. The neighbors testified regarding their fears as a result of work release which is a much more serious concern than the proposed facility. The City denied the permit, and the denial was reversed by the Supreme Court as the only opposing evidence were generalized complaints from displeased citizens. Denial cannot be based on guesses. The applicant is committed to a set of enforceable conditions that will deal with the concerns that have been raised by the neighborhood. An open, working relationship with the neighborhood is a specific goal of the management. Commissioner Schramm read the definition of social service agencies from the City's Comprehensive Plan. In responding to Commissioner Schramm's question as to how the proposed facility is similar to those types of uses categorized as social service agencies, Mr. Miller stated that those categories cannot be exclusive. The categories of social service agencies listed in the Comprehensive Plan are examples of such uses and any facility that operates with the same characteristics must be treated in the same manner. Commissioner Schramm noted that given that information, a day care center would be treated the same as chemical dependency treatment centers. In response to Commissioner Craver, Mr. Miller did not know if chemically dependent persons are considered disabled by the State. Mr. Bob Martin answered from the audience "no". Commissioner Nutter commented that she believes chemically dependent persons fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Commission took a break at 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Planning Commission Minllles May / O. 2000 Page 7 . Steve Moriarity, 403 South Peabody, is an attorney representing an estate that adjoins the subject property. The heirs are concerned that property values will fall as a result of a chemical dependency treatment facility next door. He expressed concern that the conditions recommended by staff are not verifiable or enforceable. There has been no convincing testimony presented that background screening will be adequate or legally permissible. The City's Police Department still has reservations that such a use is appropriate in the proposed neighborhood. There is no doubt that such facilities are needed, but this senior community is not appropriate. Chuck PaulSOlt, 1845 East Lauridsen Boulevard, requested that a business plan be reviewed that is based on the average rate of stay to determine if a profitable operation is possible without failure of such as that of the previous Alzheimer's facility. . AlIalt Harrison, 1834 East Fifth Street, opposed the facility. He believes that the reason for the proposal is that the property owners failed in one endeavor and need to try something different to recover their investment. The proposal is an unconscionable imposition on the quality ofEfe in the Highland neighborhood. Even with the conditions proposed by Planning staff, the Police Department remains concerned about the proposal. The facility is not compatible with the zoning of the area. When he recently purchased his property, he checked the zoning laws and concluded that he was buying a home in a pleasant upscale neighborhood. He would not have made the purchase ifhe had not thought the City would uphold the basic social contract between a citizen and its government. It should be up to those proposing to change the status quo to prove to the existing residents that the proposed use will be compatible with their environment. Michael Kisman, 1703 Melody Circle, was concerned about residents' rights in the neighborhood. Security issues are a real concern. Several Alzheimer's patients walked away from the supposedly secure facility. Why would someone think chemically dependent persons would not also be able to walk away from the site Many residents in the area are in wheelchairs, are blind, and most are quite elderly and frail. A recreational trail surrounds this retirement community. The population is very afraid and would not feel comfortable using the trails and other recreational amenities that were developed for the Highland Communities neighborhood anymore due to the proximity of the proposed facility. The recreational use was promised to all residents when they signed contracts for the apartments. It will be nearly impossible to adequately screen patients for previous crimes. Most people will not be forthcoming with that information. It is possible that residents will choose to leave the senior apartments because of the use and the owners will be left with empty apartments. Arthur Wilmot, 1840 East Lauridsen Boulevard, attended the meetings conducted by the proponents. Residents were informed that the proponents have a contract with a hospital in the State of Alaska for people who need treatment. How many patients are expected from Alaska? The $140 a day fee is the same fee that was charged a year ago by such a use in Corvalis, Oregon, where he lived. That facility was licensed as a non profit organization. It did not succeed)and the area it drew patients from is much larger than Port Angeles. He doubted that a for profit use would be successful given that comparison. . Dave Flodstrom, 2816 South Laurel Street, represented his mother in law who lives at 726 Currier Court, the closest single family residential unit to the facility in Highland Estates. He asked that the Commission stay focused on the land use aspect of the application. These facilities are needed, are of value, and produce good results. The question is, is this an appropriate location? The conditions . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 10.2000 Page 8 under which the entire area was developed restrict the uses that are expected. Based on approved development plans, the residents purchased homes and rented apartments and expected that they would live in a retirement community atmosphere. They may not have made the same decisions had they not believed conditions were in place to ensure that result. Residents were promised a common recreational area. Use of that area will not be as desirable for residents if the proposed use is approved. He asked that the public hearing be continued to allow the public an opportunity to comment on staffs proposed condition changes. Carroll Reed, 1707 Lambert Lane, was very concerned about his land value. He asked if the surveys submitted by the proponents for comparable facilities included sites located in retirement communities, or were they all in more mixed neighborhoods. Gerald Powell, 718 Elizabeth Place, did not believe the proponents.' promises due to their many broken promises made in the past. Patricia Walker, 1815 East Third Street, does not believe the proposed facility will be successful as the applicant's own testimony indicates the facility would serve about 10% ofthe approximately 390l potential patients in Clallam County. There is no purpose for the proposal other than as a commercial venture. It does not support the direct community. Commercial enterprises are not generally felt to be compatible with residential land uses. Heather Wilmot, 1840 East Lauridsen Boulevard, agreed with previously expressed statements that the proposed facility is inappropriate for the neighborhood. As a registered nurse who worked in an inpatient chemical dependent facility in Corvalis, Oregon, she was sad to see that facility fail. There were not enough people in the area with financial resources to pay for the use to continue. She doubted that a for profit facility will be successful given the limited number of potential patients in Clallam County. Lucienne Kirk, 1703 Melody Circle #115, was overcome by the concerns of other residents in the Highland Commons apartments for their safety and well being. She worked with chemical.dependent patients as a religious counselor in her professional life. She is concerned that the proponent's plans keep fluctuating. Traffic is a concern to this adult community. Residents are very disabled and quite frail. Such a facility will cause undue, unnecessary stress and anxiety to the senior community in which it is proposed. . Gene Middleton, 711 Elizabeth Place, asked if the proponents could guarantee that the neighborhood would not be subjected to impacts of runaways from the use. The police report included in the Planning Department's staff report contained information that runaway incidents occur. Harvey Nettle, 1803 East Lauridsen Boulevard, recently purchased a home in the neighborhood. He would probably not have purchased the home ifhe had known of the proposal. Steve Sanderson, 332 North Ridge View Drive, acknowledged that he submitted a letter to the Planning Commission regarding Northwest Care Services' management of the Garden Courte, Highland Courte, and Dungeness Courte facilities. The letter had been altered in that the inside address had been blanked out, and no one knew who had left it for the Commission. Because it was therefore altered from its original state and submitted anonymously, staff did not transmit it to the Planning Commission Minutes May 10. 1000 Page 9 . Commission. The individual who requested the infonnation from DSHS wished to remain anonymous but had asked for the report due to serious concerns about the management group. He asked that the letter be submitted to the Commission. He also noted that (based on a resume submitted on May 5, 1999) Mr. Martin has been in the admissions process 13 years not 23 years as previously stated. There being no further testimony, Planning Director Collins asked to clarify certain issues and minor errors in the staff report. The discrepancy between five or four comparables, pointed out by Mr. Kimbrough, is that the initial report contained five comparable facilities where the final report only contained four. The evidence provided by the applicant is not seen as conclusive by the Police Department to ensure that safety impacts can be adequately mitigated. The concern is that only limited empirical data has been provided. One of the main concerns staffhas is the enforceability of conditions of approval, in particular restrictions on admissions. The burden of meeting conditions is usually with the applicant, and there is a danger to that. It is staffs position that the treatment center is not a residence, and so the similarity of this facility to a group home is the similarity between a residence and a non-residence which may be more dissimilar. The common recreational area throughout the entire community site was part of the original planned residential development and remains a facility that is open not only to the residents but to the public as well. . There being no further testimony and following discussion regarding the need to continue tbe public hearing, Commissioner Norton moved to continue the public bearing to the regular meeting of May 24, 2000, 7 p.m. It was clarified that no new testimony would be heard at the May 24 meeting. Only testimony regarding conditions would be considered. Commissioner King seconded tbe motion, which passed 5. O. The Commission asked that the letter submitted by Mr. Sanderson be made available to the applicant following approval of the City Attorney. If okayed, the infonnation will be copied for the Planning Commission and be available to the public. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Pat Walker, 1813 East Third Street, asked if other items (Items 2 and 3 under Staff Reports) regarding proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will be continued to the next meeting. Vice Chair Nutter noted that the item would be continued to May 24, 2000. Mary Lou Paulson, 1845 East Lauridsen Boulevard, thanked the Commission for their time in dealing with this issue and the thoughtfulness of their questions. Arthur Wilmot, 1840 East Lauridsen Boulevard, wished to thank whoever provided the summation ofthe previous meeting in the minutes that were prepared. This is very difficult to do, and they were quite accurate. . Carlos Xavier, 1627 East Fifth Street, wished to echo that the Commission and staff are doing a great job and they are supportive of the Commissions position. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May J O. 2000 Page /0 STAFF REPORTS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-01 - LUND. East of Race Street between Fifth and Seventh Streets: A proposal to designate property currently identified as Low Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial (C). 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-02 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES: A proposal to amend the density for residential units in High Density Residential zones from a maximum of 43 units to a "density greater than 43 units per net acre." 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPA 00-03 - MORNINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT. Lindberg Road/Golf Course Road: A proposal to change the designation of property located at the southeast corner of Lindberg Road and Golf Course Road from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR). Director Collins indicated that it was anticipated the (Year) 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments would be heard at this meeting; however, due to the continuation ofthe Highland CUP application, that was not possible. Those proposed amendments will appear on the May 24, 2000, agenda as they must be forwarded to the City Council for action in June. Discussion followed about the full May 24 agenda and the possible need for a May 31 special meeting. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ~ Ce-e.~- ~ Brad Collins, Secretary PREPARED BY: s. Roberds CITY OF · ~ORTANGELES ,@ WAS H I N G TON, u. S. A. PLEASE SIGN IN PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET MeelingAgendaof: ~ /~ '<1201.2 PLEASE NOTE: IF you plan to testify, by signature below, you certify that the testimony given is troe and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington. Signature below does not REQUIRE you to testify - it only acknowledges your presence. - ._,.~.. \;'.fS~~!1E.8~f<t~;j{~;>2.t;~.:;'~'i;:\"--'--_. Cv P 0 <' -o.~f}3 ~u~ 6-0~ cu;O a (j - tJ.f · ~ORTA.NGEtES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. PLEASB SIGN IN PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Meeting Agenda of: .... ~-Io (::J 0 PLEASE NOTE: IF you plan to testify, by signature below, you certify that the testimony given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington. Signature below does not REQUIRE you to testify. it only acknowledges your presence. · :FORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. PLEASE SIGN IN PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Meeting Agenda of: 0" - .10 -a () 0 0 PLEASE NOTE: IF you pllln to testify, by signature below, you certify that the testimony given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington. Signature below does not REQUIRE you to testify ~ it only acknowledges your presence. ;t~iiying()tlf-'iI~-;;~:-:": " enda' Item No. : ,At6ErE5 &/1. tflO-tl 5--