HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/26/1999
.
.
~.
I.
~ORT.ANGELES
WAS H f N G TON, U. S. A.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
May 26, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
7 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of May 12, 1999.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
V.
1.
REQlIEST TO CIRCULATE AN ANNEXATION PEIIIlO~R
-ANX 99.02 ~ Approximately 4.5 acres located south ofHighwa~at Old Joe
Road.. Request for consideration of annexation. The applicants will request
commercial zoning for this proposal.
2. ~ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS:
A. Reclassification of area occupied by the Clallam County Housing
Authority - south of Lauridsen Boulevard at Francis Street - from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
B. Revision to Figure 11 Circulation PlaB Map in the Comprehensive
Plan (and Figure 3.2 in the Transportation Services and Facilities
Plan [TSFPJ) which identifies street classifications City wide.
C. Revise Urban Growth Area (UGA) east boundary Jine to Deer Park
Road (generally) and north of Highway 101 along Buchannan Drive.
D. Revision of the City's Planning Areas defined in the Comprehensive
Plan to align with Census Tract Boundaries.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
PLANNING COMMISSION: Mary Craver (Chair). Fred Hewins (Vice), Bob King. Unda Nutter,Dean Reed, Fred Norton, Jason Robolkay
PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins (Planning Director), David Sawyer (Senior Planner), Sue Roberds (Planning Specialist)
.
.
.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
STAFF REPORTS
1.
Annexation
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Mary Craver (Chair); Fred Hewins (Vice Chair); Bob King, Linda Nutler, Dean Reed (Two Vacancies)
PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins, Planning Director; David Sawyer. Senior Planner; Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist.
.
.
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
May 26, 1999
7:00 p.m.
ROLLCALL
Members Present:
Fred Hewins,Dean Reed, Jason Robotkay,
Bob King
Members Absent:
Mary Craver, Fred Norton, Linda Nutter
Staff Present:
Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Dan McKeen, Gary Kenworthy
Public Present:
Andy Duran, Jame Turner, Margo Turner, Tim Rymer, Lyle
Kinney, Pam Tietz, Andy Meyer, Ron Floyd, Jane Floyd,
Craig Miller
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Reed moved to approve the May 12, 1999, meeting minutes as presented.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hewins and passed 3-0 with Commissioner
King abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
REQ_UEST TO ClRCULAIE--A.JS ANNEXA TION PETITION--=
TURNER -ANX9-2-02 - Approximate1y~acre&fucated~ol1tlLoiHighwa}L
lULaLOld_lo_tLRo.ad Request for consideration of annexation. The
applicants will request commercial zoning for this proposal.
Planning Director Collins reviewed the Planning Department's staff report recommending
approval of the request to circulate an annexation petition with the provision that the
applicant's seek pre-annexation zoning prior to annexation action. He further explained that
the property was originally classified as commercial and so was included in the City's Urban
Growth Area (UGA). The classification was ultimately changed to urban low density
residential (LD) in the County's final Regional Plan. This LD land use designation allows
up to 9 units per acre which is similar to the City's Residential Medium Density (RMD)
zone. The applicants are seeking annexation to the City so the property can be developed as
commercial. Given the services in the area, Mr. Collins stated that the original commercial
designation may best serve the area. Vice Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
Margo Turner, 3904 South Reddick Road, responded to Commissioner Reed that she
understands the sequence of events needed to accomplish a commercial annexation. She
does not believe that residential development along Highway 101 at this location is desirable
and that commercial development would better serve the community.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 26. 1999
Page 2
.
Andy Meyer, County Planning Director, 223 East Fourth Street, stated that the County has
no concerns regarding the annexation as the property is within the City's UGA. However,
the County would oppose the Turners' request for a rezone to commercial and did so some
time ago, as commercial zoning at this location conflicts with the County's adopted Regional
Plan. It may be appropriate at this time to review the land use designations of properties on
the fringe of the UGA for appropriateness of zoning.
There being no further testimony, Vic~ Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
Following brief discussion, Commissioner Reed moved to recommend that the City
Council approve the Turner's request to circulate an annexation petition with the
provision that pre-zolling be sought prior to that submittal, citing the following findings and
conclusions:
2.
.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.
Endings:
1. On April 14, 1999, the Planning Department received an annexation request from
Mr. and Mrs. James Turner for a 4.53 acre area located south of US Highway 101 at
Euclid Street on Old Joe Road.
On May 18, 1999, the City Council sent the request to the Planning Commission for
review and a recommendation and set a date to discuss the request with the applicants
for the City Council's June 1, 1999, meeting, per RCW 35A.14.120.
Two property owners constitute the area in question.
The applicants will request pre-annexation zoning as described in RCW 35A.340.
The area of proposed annexation is currently designated as residential by the County.
The proposed annexation area is within the Port Angeles Urban Growth Area.
The nearest City utilities are located across (north) of US Highway 101 at this
location. The subject property fronts on US Highway 101.
8. The factors considered under RCW 35A.14.200 in review of annexation proposals
include "the configuration of the area, comprehensive use plans and zoning, the
likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and
unincorporated areas during the next ten years, location and coordination of
community facilities and services., the probable effect of the annexation proposal or
alternatives on cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area, and the effect
of the annexation proposal or alternatives on adjacent areas."
9.
The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan as amended June, 1997, contains 10 policies
(Growth Management Element Policies BI-I0) directly related to annexations.
10. The proposed promotional annexation must comply with the City's annexation
policies as established in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Resolution 18-78.
.
.~
.
Planning Commission Minlltes
May 26. 1999
Page 3
Conclusions
1. As conditioned, the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's annexation
policies as established in the Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Element
(Policies B 1-10)
2. The City's policies encourage annexation within the Port Angeles Urban Growth
Area, which was established to accommodate growth which is expected to occur over
the next twenty years.
3. There is access to the site for urban services.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner King and passed 4-0.
19~~COMPRF,HRNSIVE PLAN AMKNDMEJll.S:
(A.) Reclassification of area occupied by the Clallam County Housing
Authority - south of Lauridsen Boulevard at Francis Street -
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Planning Director Collins noted that Comprehensive Plan amendments may be initiated by
a number of sources. Of the four amendments currently under consideration, one is being
sought by an individual, one from the Clallam County Housing Authority, and two from the
City of Port Angeles. He then reviewed the Planning Department's staff report
recommending approval of the proposed amendment. Vice Chair Hewins opened the public
hearing.
Pam Tietz, Executive Director of tile Clal/am County Housing Authority, 2603 South
Francis, concurred with staffs recommendation and answered general background
questions.
There being no further concerns, Vice Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
Commissioner King moved to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment as proposed citing the following findings and conclusions:
Eiudings~
Based on the information provided in the May 26, 1999, Staff Report for CPA 99-01(A),
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public
hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, the City of Port
Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1.
All information provided in the May 26, 1999, Staff Report for CPA 99-01(A),
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the
public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation have been
considered in this decision and is considered a part thereof.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 26.1999
Page 4
2. This proposal to amendment the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from LDR to
1vIDR applies the Clallam County Housing Authority development in the 2600 block
of South Francis Street shown on a map (Attachment A).
3. The subject area has been designated Low Density Residential (LDR) and zoned as
Single Family Residential RS-7.
4. The Mt. Angeles View site has an office and resident service center and multiple
family housing units that have existed and have been in operation without
interruption for approximately 50 years (prior to the City of Port Angeles adopting
zoning and a comprehensive plan for the subject area).
5. The existing land use in the subject area and surrounding areas are as follows;
subject area:
multiple family residences and auxilIary Housing Authority
facilites and services
single family residences
Peabody Creek Ravine and single family residences and
church
Olympic National Park headquarters
north and west:
east:
south:
6.
The SEP A Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
on May 18, 1999. This action fulfills the City's responsibility under SEPA.
7. Public notice was provided by legal notice published in the Peninsula Daily News
and posted at the site.
8. The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies idenitified as being the most relevant
to the proposal were Growth Management Element Goal A, Policis AI, 2, and 17,
Objective A 1, Land Use Element Goal A, and Housing Element Goals A-B.
9. The population growth in Clallam County has exceeded the forecasts from the State
Office of Financial Management since the Growth Management Act was enacted.
If growth is directed to the County's urban growth areas, the City should plan to
maintain exiisting residential neighborhoods and to accommodation new residential
development in urban growth areas adjacent to the East, South Central, and
Southwest Planning Areas.
Conclusions.:
Based on the information provided in the May 26, 1999, Staff Report for CPA 99-01(A),
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed
findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes the following:
A. The proposed land use redesignation recognizes the historic and current use and will
encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population., promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and
encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 26, /999
PageS
B. The City has promulgated regulations to protect private property rights. The
proposed land use redesignation will acknowledge the historic and current use and
allow accessory uses that the public housing activity to occur on their site as
developed.
C. The proposal is consistent with the annual review of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
D. The land use redesignation support the existing and planned land use development
of the City.
E. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, specifically those listed in Finding 8.
F. The land use redesignation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and
in the public interest.
Commissioner Reed seconded the motion which passed 4 - O.
(B)
Revision to Figure 11 Circulation Plan Map in the
Comprehensive Plan (and Figure 3.2 in the Transportation
Services and Facilities Plan (TSFP]) which identifies street
classifications City wide.
Planning Director Collins reviewed staffs report recommending the Comprehensive Plan
amendment be approved as proposed. The proposed amendment will make the Plan map,
the TSFP map, and past ordinances consistent with one another.
City Engineer Gary Kenworthy, Public Works Department, responded to Commissioner
Reed that although a 1977 ordinance listed streets by classifications, that ordinance was
never codified. The proposed ordinance revises street classifications by current use
amending those that have been downgraded or increased in classification since 1977.
Chair Hewins opened the public hearing. There being no comment from the public, he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Reed moved to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map
amendment citing the following findings and conclusions:
Eindings_:
Based on the information provided in the May 26, 1999, Staff Report for CPA 99-01(B),
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public
hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, the City of Port
Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1. All information provided in the May 26, 1999, Staff Report for CPA 99-01 (B),
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the
public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation have been
considered in this decision and is considered a part thereof.
.
..
.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 26, 1999
Page 6
2. This proposal applies city-wide, and the street reclassifications are shown on a map
(Attachment A) and listed in a draft ordinance (Attachment B). The proposed
amendments have already been approved in the Transportation Services and
Facilities Plan.
3. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Detemrination of Non-Significance (DNS)
on May 18, 1999. This action fulfills the City's responsibility under SEP A.
4. This is an areawide Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and public notice was
provided by legal notice published in the Peninsula Daily News.
5. The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies idenitified as being the most relevant
to the proposal were Growth Management Element Goal A, Policis AI, 2, 5, 6, 12,
13, 14,15 17, Objective A 1, Land Use Element Goal A, Transportation Element
Goals A-B, Capital Facilities Element Goal A and Policies A 3 and A 5.
Conclu.sions.:
Based on the information provided in the May 26, 1999, Staff Report for CPA 99-01 (B),
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed
findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes the following:
A. The proposed street reclassifications recognize the existing and planned development
patterns and are supported by land use and transportatioln policies.
B. Urban services/facilities will be planned through the City's Capital Facilities Plan for
the subareas in the City's UGA.
C. The street reclassifications are consistent with the distribution of urban facilities and
services and fit subarea service areas within the City.
D. The street reclassifications are consistent with the comprehensive service and
facilities planning process and meet stated City standards.
E The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, specifically those listed in Finding 5.
F. The proposed street reclassificatons are in the public interest.
Commissioner King seconded the motion which passed 4 - O.
(e) Revise Urban Growth Area (UGA) east boundary line to Deer
Park Road (generally) and north of Highway 101 along
Buchannan Drive.
Planning Director Collins reviewed the Planning Department's report recommending
approval ofthe proposal. As the City only has jurisdiction within the City limits, not in the
.
Plcmning Commission Minutes
May 26. /999
Page 7
for their approval during the year 2000. The current proposal is only the first step in
enlarging the City's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and is intending to show support by the City
for such a move. The City did not support an extension of the UGA to this area in 1995
when it was first proposed by the County. The process could take several years. The City
reviews its Comprehensive Plan in May of each year. The County reviews its Plan after the
first of January.
The County feels that this amendment process is premature until the County raises the issue
of amendment to the UGA. The City sees it as a policy determination. The County's
amendment process does not allow for individuals to request a change in the UGA.
Therefore, this could be viewed as the applicant not requesting that the County change the
UGA boundary, but requesting that the City change its previous recommendation via the
Comprehensive Plan process which recognizes the City's policy regarding where the UGA
boundary should be. As such, it is an appropriate review question. The City would not
change its Comprehensive Plan until the County concurs with the amendment.
.
Significant commercial development is occurring east of the City's Urban Growth Area
(UGA) in conflict with the State's Growth Management Plan. There are no service providers
that can provide infrastructure needed for continued development except the City. Water is
currently being purchased from the City and resold to the area through the P.U.D. The
amendment would allow the bulk of the commercial development occurring east of the
City's UGA boundary to at some time in the future, be included in the City, and would allow
the City to begin planning for that incorporation. The City would not consider annexation
until the needed infrastructure could be provided within a reasonable period of time.
Letters from Andy Duran, President of the Four Seasons Maintenance Division, and Larry
Byrne, a resident of the Cedar Park area were received and noted.
Vice Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
Craig Miller, 230 East Fifth Street, represented the applicants. He agreed with staffs report
and analysis. Over the past 5 to 6 years the Juhaszs have attempted to develop a property
located west of Buchannan Drive without success. It is anticipated that even if this
amendment is approved, annexation with the extension of services could take 10 to 15 years.
One side (south) of Highway 101 is currently developing as heavy commercial where the
opposite side where the Juhasz property is located is being held to status quo. The project
described as the "Deer Park Gateway" would allow the area to serve as the gateway to Port
Angeles and would therefore be logical as being within the City's UGA.
.
The County originally proposed the City's eastern UGA to be where the proposal suggests.
The City opposed the designation and over a period of time, the County moved the line west
to the current UGA boundary at the west rim of Morse Creek Canyon. Intense commercial
development was not discouraged with that designation. Approval of the proposal would
incorporate those areas that are currently developing with heavy commercial into the City's
UGA which would be in compliance with the State's GMA guidelines.
Andy Duran, President of tI,e Four Seasons Maintenance Commission, 673 Strait View
Drive, stated that many people in the Four Seasons Ranch believe that annexation to the City
.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, J999
Page 8
would really benefit the Ranch. City services would be welcome by the residents. However,
the Ranch residents are very concerned that if the Juhasz property is annexed to the City,
potential runoff from parking lots and more intensive residential development could be very
detrimental to the community. The potential for landslides and seepage from up hill effluent
is a concern. He will be talking to the County regarding whether the Ranch community is
for or against this proposal at a later date.
Tim Rymer, 412 Cedar Park Drive, spoke as President of the Cedar Park Homeowner's
Association, expressed strong objection to the proposal even as a policy decision. There is
nothing new in the development pattern in this area - no surprises. Five years ago, the City
agreed that the UGA boundary should be the west boundary. The City has plenty of area that
is designated within the UGA that has not been annexed. There is no justification to change
the UGA because one commercial property owner cannot develop in a manner that is
acceptable to him. The Cedar Park I?rive Homeowner's Association appealed the County's
initial proposal to set the City's eastern UGA boundary as the east rim of Morse Creek ravine
and are still opposed to such a determination. Services in the area are adequate, there is no
justification for this amendment.
Jane Floyd, 93 Sea View Drive, was not opposed to the proposal but wanted all of Four
Seasons Ranch to be treated the same, either all in or out of the UGA.
.
Andy Meyer, County Planning Director, 223 East Fourth Street, indicated that the City's
Planning Director has characterized the issue relatively well. The County is still in
disagreement on a couple of points. The County's overall concerns are with the process
which is premature. The issue that is appropriately before the City is whether or not the City
is interested in making application to the County to pursue a UGA boundary amendment.
The County's Plan outlines the UGA amendment process that includes several criteria to
amend the boundary that need to be addressed before the City issue of amending its
Comprehensive Plan. He did not feel that the City should be dealing with a SEP A threshold
at this time. The SEPA checklist is inadequate and erroneous. A policy question doesn't
necessitate a SEPA threshold determination. If the City wishes to pursue the proposal as an
amendment to its Comprehensive Plan, the SEPA checklist should be revised in detail.
A Comprehensive Plan Map change should not occur until after the City makes application
for a UGA boundary amendment application following the County's criteria, and after a
thorough analysis of the reasons for such a proposed change including a thorough SEP A
reVIew.
In response to Commissioner Reed, Director Meyer stated that the County is not saying it
is inappropriate to look at an amendment to the UGA boundary. He is concerned that this
is a policy issue at this point and not an amendment.
.
In response to Commissioner Reed, Tim Rymer, as an employee of the Washington State
Department ofFish and Wildlife, stated that the County has a more clear understanding of
the Morse Creek watershed needs and fish restoration than does City staff.
Mr. Meyer stated in response to Commissioner Reed that in actuality the City's adoption of
.
P/onning Commission Minutes
May 26, /999
Page 9
a policy directive to look at amendment to the UGA probably would accelerate a UGA
amendment process at the County.
Andy Duran, reminded the Commission that it took about three years of contant effort to
establish a good working with the Elwha Tribe, Department of Fisheries, and with the
County. They have a good working relationship and he expects it to continue.
Craig Miller, agreed that the County works best with an application pending. The City's
current amendment application would assuredly bring the matter to the County's attention.
It may be a chicken and the egg question because there are two amendment processes to
follow through with and they do not coincide time wise. It may be appropriate to leave the
current issue pending while a County application is processed.
The Juhasz proposal for development was permitted under two different permits at two
different times. Following the UGA final designation, the property ended up outside the area
that permits the proposal they have. Given the fact that the County originally proposed this
area as being in the UGA, the fact that the Juhasz are still hanging and interested in
development, and the City is not in conflict with the process, the process should be favorably
considered.
.
Planning Director Collins corrected earlier testimony that Morse Creek is not the eastern
UGA boundary. The western rim of the Morse Creek Canyon is the current eastemUGA
boundary. He agreed that the County can deal with fish problems more adequately than the
City. However, the County is not in a position to deal with waste water treatment problems.
There is no challenge to the fact that the County will make the final decision on this issue,
but this is a method designed to put that question before the County for consideration. The
City would not object to turning over the SEP A process to the County if the County desires
to be lead agency.
There being no further testimony, Vice Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Reed did not see that there is a valid need at this time to amend the boundary
which can be supported. The current development and protection of Morse Creek Watershed
can be dealt with by the County. There is no lack of developable area within the current
UGA at this time.
Commissioner Hewins views this as a proposal for the City to begin to bring the area into
its planning process for future development, perhaps 10 to 15 years hence. Annexation is
a long term thing. The proposal would not change growth patterns until annexation is
approved at a future date. The amendment would allow the City's plans to be more far
reaching for future development.
.
Commissioner King agreed with Commissioner Hewins analysis that this is a very
preliminary position.
Commissioner Reed felt that this is the first step toward annexation at some future date. The
area under consideration may not be desirable for higher density development. A large group
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 26,1999
Page 10
of property owners are not asking for this change, but a single applicant making a request for
future commercial gain.
Commissioner King moved to recommend approval of the amendment as a policy to
the City Council. The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Reed moved to continue the item to the June 9 meeting and directed
staff to prepare alternate findings and conclusions. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Robotkay and passed 4 - O.
(D) Revision of the City's Planning Areas defined in the
Comprehensive Plan to align with Census Tract Boundaries.
Planning Director Collins presented the staffs report recommending approval of the
proposed amendment. Vice Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
There being no one present to speak, Vice Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robotkay moved to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the City Council with the following findings and conclusions:
F3ndings:
Based on the information provided in the May 26, 1999, Staff Report for CPA 99-01(D),
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public
hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, the City of Port
Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1. All information provided in the May 26, 1999, Staff Report for CPA 99-01(D),
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the
public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation have been
considered in this decision and is considered a part thereof.
2. This proposal applies city-wide, and the boundaries are shown on a revised Planning
Areas Map (Attachment A).
3. The City and Clallam County staffworking on the Census 2000 determined that there
was an opportunity to change the Port Angeles area census tracts to reflect changes
in the development pattern and identifiable boundaries that have occurred over the
considerable time since the Census Tracts were last revised. The primary change in
the Census Tract boundaries was to conform to the Planning Area boundaries, and
where a Census Tract boundary requirement was paramount the Planning Area
boundary was modified.
4.
The 1994 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port Angeles established five Planning
Areas that could be used in identifYing different areas of the community and potential
neighborhood subareas.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Millules
May 26. 1999
Page J 1
5. To fit within allowable Census Tract population ranges and considering future
populations that may be annexed into the City, a new East Planning Area based on
population distributions east of Race Street was created, and the North Central
Planning Area was slightly modified to follow the Tumwater Truck Route on the
west and Lauridsen Boulevard on the south.
6. The boundaries anticipate inclusion of the Urban Growth Areas in the future of the
East, South Central, and Southwest Planning Areas.
7. The primary boundaries between Planning Areas are major arterials and the marine
bluff.
8. Previously there was no east boundary for the North Central Planning Area, other
than the City Limits, which included subareas that were not well connected to the
North Central neighborhood subareas.
9. Lauridsen Boulevard and Race Street are planned in the Comprehensive Plan as
major arterials.
10. The SEP A Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
on May 18, 1999. This action fulfills the City's responsibility under SEPA.
11.
This is an areawide Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and public notice was
provided by legal notice published in the Peninsula Daily News.
12. The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies idenitified as being the most relevant
to the proposal were Growth Management Element Goal A, Policies A 1-17,
Objective A-I, Land Use Element Goal A, Policies A 1-2, Land Use Element Goal
B, Land Use Element Goal C, Policy C 1, Land Use Element Goal E, and Policy E
7.
Conclusions:
Based on the information provided in the May 26, 1999, Staff Report for CPA 99-01(D),
(including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public
hearing, the Planning Commissionts discussion and deliberation, and the above listed
fmdings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes the following:
A. Since the Planning Areas and Census Tracts were nearly coincidental, it rational to
modify each to be even more coincidental for future statistical analysis purposes.
B.
Neighborhood subareas such as above and below the Boulevard between the North
Central and South Central and west of the 8th Street bridges and north of Airport and
Lincoln Park for the Northwest Planning Area are fairly easy to identify.
c.
The new boundary at Race Street (and Heart ofthe Hills Parkway) is okay south of
Lauridsen Boulevard but less so north of there. An alternate North Central boundary
of Lauridsen Boulevard east to White's Creek Ravine does not work for Census
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 26, 1999
Page 11
Tracts revisions within the existing City Limits. Since Lauridsen Boulevard and
Race Street are planned in the Comprehensive Plan as major arterials, it is expected
that they will be even more definable Planning Area boundaries in the future.
D. The proposed Planning Area revisions follow the development patterns and physical
features that separate the community into identifiable neighborhood subareas and
logical urban service areas.
E The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, specifically those listed in Finding 12.
F. The revised Planning Areas are in the public interest.
Commissioner Reed seconded the motion which passed 4 - O.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
ST AFF REPORTS
1. Annexation Study
Director Collins reviewed staff's memorandum regarding actions taken to date in discussion
ofIong range annexation planning issues. Some discussion occurred following which it was
decided to recommend that the City proceed with a supplemental environmental impact
statement (SEIS) using Growth Management Funds at this time.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
t/~2
~
Fred Hewins, Vice Chair
.PREPARED BY: S. Roberds
.
.
.
PLEASE SIGN IN
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND SIGN UP SHEET
'"
For the items listed on the Agenda of: % 04/999
Please read the following: If I testify, by signature below, I certify that my testimony is
true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington.
Signature Print Name Address Agenda
I ' I A Item #
J) . J..... \).. L ,~ /'l-..J1J j bl ){?kJ-J f:jW :>. R1d,Ul VH;f; j)''''' Z-.6
(1~_ LJ'"...1IJAA...L..-~ ........AM-~AJ-r;jvner ?-.q(}4.~Pnf1j(~/L@,RIll. I 1
AiJ( t..A~. ~-;:, A d. / 1M If.l.QI_ ^ I.,,, Al tf<. It ~ f I
~~-'~L <.tt<.,~ I / /1fM. .~. 0 . -4-\1. r_ij i .p~~~ Qr. c.A 2- c.,
_(I -# A. . JV , <. ". L tJ Ip 113 ftI 1-1 M ,,-,/ .::25'"~ lel{ur j)rvlr JJ T; ;)('3_
( ~'-;.. ./7/v7....... 7 -f?aVY\.'ll'~J'-/ / IAl\ \k)Ct~ ~-(\.
~-1hJ AV 7' I ( J /A_ ( ~ /1 9'l~ J:. 'r~ \ t I Ja/
IG).ti -kll-J'J U f?~IA~~f/h)1d i??~//~~A'JJ~ iPlc--1
'T Jm;"" () fll ::=;-1 ~ .:r/; VI () ..., 77to fA J t: ~~ - .s p/1 () / (J W }) r, 0< ~ I
~ ~~ c---~~ ~ ~ C:~~~~ I~i) :
# ~~ '1 \~
..-
c: \wp\fonns\attndrst. pc
.
.
.
PLEASE SIGN IN
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND SIGN UP SHEET
For the items listed on the Agenda of:
Please read the following: If I testify, by signature below, I certify that my testimony is
true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington.
Signature Print Name Address Agenda
- Item #
e UJt i Il~ 7~D F rr,'l J.1. 1/4
-..
c: \wp\formslattndrst. pc