HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/10/1991
:.
I.
D.
m.
IV.
. 1.
AGENDA
PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION
City Council Chambers
321 East Fifth Street
Port Angeles, W A 98362
July 10, 1991
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meetings of June 12, and 26 1991
PUBLIC HEARING:
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - CITY LIGHT - SMA 91(07)118.
Railroad. Oak and Lincoln Streets: Request to allow placement of existing
overhead utilities underground in the CBD, Central Business District, along the
City's waterfront area.
2. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - LA VISTA - PRD 91(06)01.
Between Chase and Lincoln Streets and First and Front Streets:
Continued public hearing.
VI. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Vll. STAFF REPORTS
vm. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
.
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.
Planning Commission: Ray Grover, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice-chair; Jim Hulett; Roger Catts; Larry Leonard; Bob Philpoll; Bill Anabel.
Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Planning Direclor; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist; John Jimerson, Msociale Planner; David Sawyer,
Senior Planner.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington
July 10, 1991
I CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Gruver called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M.
I I ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Roger catts, Jim Hulett, Ray Gruver, Bob
Philpott (arrived at 8:25 P.M.), Cindy
Souders, Bill Anabel.
Members Excused:
Larry Leonard
Staff Present:
John Jimerson, Brad COllins, Bruce
Becker.
III APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Hr. ADabel moved to approve the minutes ot June 12, 1991, aa
submitted. cindy Souders seconded the motioD, which pas8ed 5-
o.
.
Hr. catts moved to approve the minutes ot June 26, 1991, .ith
two corrections I paqe 7, third paraqraph, Harlan HcBaCC'.
address is i,31 East Front street, and paqe 9, Hr. Philpocc'.
motion should be ..eDded to indicate that start .a. directed
to prepare conditions, findinqs and conclusioDS tor tile
DeDartDlent's recommendation iDstead of f8~ aBD~e~l ef ,ie
~ Hr. ADabel seconded the motioD, which passed 5 - 0, .a
amended.
IV PUBLIC HEARINGS:
SHORELINE HAHAGEKBNT PBRHI'l' - eIn LIGHT - SMA 91 CO?) 118.
Railroad. Oak and LinCOln streets: Request to allow
placement of existing overhead utilities underground in
the CBD, Central Business District, along the City's
waterfront area.
Mr. Hulett stated that he is employed by U.S. West, which has
an interest with undergrounding of the utilities; however, he
noted that his department is not directly involved in the
project. He asked if anyone in the audience objected to his
par~icipation in the proceedings. There were no objections.
.
Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Memorandum.
Gruver opened the pUblic hearing at 7:15 P.M.
Chairman
~ay Prewitt, representing City Light, noted that the project
will be constructed in two phases, with the trenching and
:aying of conduit occurring in the Fall of 1991/ following the
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 1991
Page 2
Labor Day Holiday, and the installation of cable itself and
transformer pads would occur in the spring of 1992, prior to
Memorial Day. The intent is to complete the work well before
the peak late spring/summer season, to minimize impact to
traffic flow. The cable company will use an alternative feed
from the west side of Downtown, from Oak street, therefore,
the proposal to place cable under the Waterfront Trail has
been withdrawn.
There being no pUblic comment or testimony, Chairman Gruver
closed the public hearing at 7:20 P.M.
Roger catts moved to recommend approval of the Substantial
Development permit, citing the following tindinqs and
conclusioDS:
Findinas:
.
1. The approval is for undergrounding of overhead utility
lines as contained on a four sheet set of plans entitled
110owntown Underground conversion", except that the
proposal to install conduit and wire under the Waterfront
Trail and Peabody street right-of-way is not a part of
this approval.
The proposal will not physically alter the shoreline, nor
will it result in a change of its use.
'~
2.
3 . Shoreline Master Program Regulation No. F. 7 . (b) and
Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Policy No. 4 encourage
underground placement of utilities.
4. The proposal is categorically exempt from requirements of
SEPA [section 197-11-800(24) WAC].
5. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 15-08
PAMe, requires the Planning commission provide notice and
hold a public hearing on Shoreline Management permit
applications.
conclusions:
A. The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles
Shoreline Master Program, specifically General Regulation
C.7 and Use Activity F.7.b.
B. The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles
Comprehensive Plan, specifically Urban Design Policies 2,
3 and 4.
.'
c.
Public notice and a public hearing, as required by
Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shore line Management Act / has been
completed by the City of Port Angeles.
The motion was seconded by Cindy Souders, which passed 5 -0.
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUly 10, 1991
Page 3
.
PLANNED RESIDEN'l'IAL DEVELOPMENT - LA VISTA - PRO 91 (OtS) 01.
Between Chase and Lincoln streets. and First and Front
Streets: (Continued public hearing) .
Mr. Jimerson presented the Department Report. In response to
questions from the Commission, Mr. collins answered that the
Department of Fisheries requires hydraulics permit approval
for proj ects which create 5,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface, regardless of the location of the project.
Staff also noted that the sidewalk along the entire frontage
of the PRD would need to be replaced, that the recommended
condition which would limit visible portions of retaining
walls to five feet in height is a subjective standard, and
explained the condition that requires all grading result in a
natural appearance.
Chairman Gruver opened the pUblic hearing at 7:30 P.M.
.
Tim Haley, 113 South Valley streett the applicant's
representative, explained the work that has gone into the
project as a result of the June 26/ 1991/ Planning Commission
Meeting, in order to address the concerns expressed at that
meeting. He noted he has met with the neighbors who reside on
the hill/and in the Morse Court Apartments, to discuss
potential impacts from the development activity, and has met
with other organizations in the community, including the
Chamber of Commerce and local businesses. An amended site
plan that showed the revised fire lane was presented as well
as a new landscape plan. Mr. Haley pointed out that native
northwest materials will be used, and noted that lighting,
benches and pathways on the landscape plan have been
incorporated to unify the project. Revised elevations for the
La Frontera project were presented, noting that the project
steps down from the bluff, from six levels of residential
units on the east side of the building, to five levels on its
west side. Previous plans provided five levels on the east
side and six levels on the west side. Changes have been made
to address the concerns expressed over the street level of La
Frontera and minor modifications to the chimneys and elevator
shafts have been made. The floor plan for La Frontera was
designed so that every unit will have a view of Mount Baker,
the Downtown / and a general view north and south of the
project. A view analysis was presented showing the potential
views from the adjacent house to the east to demonstrate that
the house would have views maintained to the north, over the
Strait, and to the south. He pointed out that the project
would block some views to the west. The La Frontera project,
with only 15 residential units, would not generate substantial
traffic. The project density is well below that permitted in
the CBD, Central Business District.
.
Mr. Haley was not concerned with the condition regarding the
maximum five-foot height limit of visible retaining walls.
However, he was concerned with Condition No.7, which requires
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10/ 1991
Page 4
.
simultaneous construction of La Frontera and Lincoln Terrace.
He requested clarification that the condition limiting use of
the alley for construction purposes refers to the alley
accessed off Chase Street. Staff confirmed that that was the
intent.
In response to questions, Mr. Haley explained the open space
plan with respect to the proposed walkways, existing ponds,
condominium agreements which would assure use of all common
open space. He noted that the reason for removal of the alder
trees along First street was that the trees contribute to the
slide potential on the hill. The trees were removed based on
the recommendation of a soils engineer. Some ivy was damaged
dur ing spraying of blackberry bushes, but is revegetating.
Mr. Haley added that he will continue to work with staff to
mitigate any construction related impacts.
.
Craig Ritchie, 212 East Fifth street, an attorney representing
Mr. Morse, a property owner in the area, stated his clientts
concern that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a
decision prior to knowing what facts will be brought to light
as a result of the geotechnical study that will be prepared.
He noted the size of the project is dramatic and will be a
trendsetter. The Commission should be concerned as to how the
proposal will fit into the long term plans of the community.
There is a need for the City to plan for view protection.
(Commissioner Philpott arrived at the meeting at this time).
He suggested that fire protection issues need to be addressed
on a long term basis, for the protection of the community.
What impact would this project have on land use trends for the
Central Business District? will the result be more
residential development encroaching on the CBD? An
environmental impact statement may be appropriate, and it is
not too late to require one. Changes made to the project
could trigger additional environmental review. Mr. Ritchie
questioned if a precedent is being set for future projects as
to when an environmental impact statement would be required.
Mr. Collins explained how he, as the City's SEPA Responsible
Official arrived at the Determination of Non-Significance and
explained the purpose of the two mitigation measures attached
to the DNS. He noted that the Planning Commission does not
have the authority to make an environmental determination at
this time. The Determination was made administratively, and
was not appealed within the appeal period. However, the
building permit could trigger subsequent SEPA review.
.
Mr. H.E. Reiley, 306 East Front #6, stated that tourism is
important to Port Angeles, and the development would be a
detraction to the tourism trade. He believed the height of
the building would be higher than the Elks building, contrary
to what the vicinity model prepared by the architect depicts.
He stressed that the Planning Commission should be aware of
~ow the projec~ ~elates to Lhe Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 1991
Page 5
.
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 P.M.
reconvened at 8:55 P.M.
Meeting
In response to a further question from the Planning
commission, Mr. Haley stated that the model is not exact due
to difficulties in finding the right size of cardboard,
however, he believed that the height of La Frontera is close
to the height of the Elks building.
.
James Morse, Citrus Heights, California, a property owner in
the area, expressed several concerns regarding the proposal
including the potential for negative impacts to the alley
caused by increased traffic levels, blocking of the view
caused by the development, noting that a tenant has recently
moved from his building because of the development, that the
project may have the potential to increase taxes, thereby
causing him to increase rents at his Morse Court apartments,
impacting his fixed income tenants. The project would block
sunlight in the late afternoon and would encroach into the
privacy of the adjacent residence. He was concerned over the
potential for landslides due to the project.
Beth Backus, 532 West Third, was concerned for the potential
precedent this project would set with respect to grading of
bluff areas in the future. She asked what would happen if the
geotechnical study finds that the bluff is not buildable?
Would the hill be restored to its previous state? Mr. Collins
responded that restoration of the hillside in the event the
project does not proceed is a valid concern. The geotechnical
study could recommend measures for restoration of the
hillside. The City has no measures to control grading.
Jamie Morse, no address provided, stated the existing land
uses in the area are predominantly residential, although the
property is zoned commercial. The view analysis presented by
the architect downplays the view loss of the existing home,
noting a significant portion of the view of the Harbor and
Downtown would be blocked. He expressed concern that long
term planning issues need to be addressed such as density,
view loss and general growth patterns.
..
Esther Vel tkamp, 212 West Eighth, spoke in favor of the
project. There is a need for housing in the community.
Although the proposal will serve an upscale market, it will
create a ripple effect throughout the community by opening up
other less expensive units. She noted there has been
significant concern expressed recently with the location of
urban growth boundaries which indicate that people want growth
to occur within the City. The project would accomplish that.
The project would also contribute to the livability of the
Downtown by creating housing which is compatible and nighttime
activity.
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 1991
Page 6
.
Patsy Blanchard, 236 East Front #18, said she had met with the
architect and reviewed the plans. She was concerned that the
final staff report was not made available until late Monday,
July 8th. Issues of concern included the fire truck turn-
around on the alley, provision of parking for the La Montana
project, timing between the initial excavation work and
preparation of the geotechnical report, traffic problems
potentially caused by grading and construction, and the design
of the open space, noting that many residents of the project
would be of retirement age and questioned whether the steep
walkways and trails would really be accessible to those
individuals.
Mr. Hulett asked if parking on the duplex site is consistent
with Code requirements, or if backing into the alley occurs.
Mr. Collins responded that that portion of the PRO is non-
conforming and the Commission may review whether the existing
conditions are acceptable with the proposed PRO. Mr. Collins
noted a condition of approval of the PRD requires parking to
be provided in accordance with the City's Parking Ordinance.
.
In response to questions, Mr. Haley explained the method of
access to the open space from La Frontera noting that there
are rear exits on the third floor just above the parking, and
through the guest room on the fourth floor. He noted not all
areas are wheelchair accessible. Some places could be
accessible with ramps and rails. The design of the project is
elderly friendly, but not necessarily wheelchair accessible.
In rebuttal to the public testimony given, Mr. Haley pointed
out that the project has been reviewed with respect to the
existing city ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, and that
existing regulations generally support the proposed
development. The project would represent a significant
landmark to the community and would contribute an improvement
to the tourist trade. He explained that some of the
preliminary grading performed prior to the geotechnical report
will be to remove the soil from the Lincoln Terrace site to a
point where the soil is at a natural angle of repose, thereby
minimizing future slides.
Mr. Reily rebutted that height is an important issue and that
the Planning Commission should know how high the project will
be. The project is too prominent for the city. He was also
concerned with error in presentations made to the Planning
commission such as the height of the project and the potential
of the project to block sunshine from the adjacent property.
.
Beth Backus stressed further concern with the height of the
project. She pointed out that the sun sets straight across
the project to the west.
There being no further public
closed the public hearing at
Commission recessed at 10:00 P.M.
testimony I Chairman Gruver
10:00 P.M. The Planning
Meeting reconvened at 10:10
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUly 10/ 1991
Page 7
.
The Commission then reviewed the Planning Department's
recommended conditions of approval. Discussion followed as
to whether further conditions were warranted. Regarding
height, the Commission concurred that there are no concerns
with the proposed height, with Chairman Gruver noting that any
project could be constructed on top of the bluff without any
special approvals and be within 15 feet of the height of the
proposed project. Concerns expressed over the usability and
accessibility of the open space were discussed, and it was
noted that existing Condition No. 12 would require further
consideration by the architect.
Commissioner Hulett stated the project would not increase
alley traffic over and above the existing level, therefore,
traffic should not be a significant concern. It was the
consensus that the proposed density of 14.4 dwelling units per
acre is not an issue of concern.
commissioner Catts moved to recommend approval of the
preliminary PRD, citing the following conditions, findiDgs and
conclusions recommended by staff:
CONDITIONS:
.
1.
The final PRO shall be substantially in accord with the
plans of record referenced in the Findings below, except
as may be modified by conditions stated herein.
2 . Covenants, Condi tions , and Restrictions (CC&R IS) and
other conditions for use and maintenance of commonly and
privately owned properties within the PRO shall be
provided for the homeowners association and attached to
final PRO approval.
3. Comply with all state and Local Building and Fire codes.
4. The proposal may require a hydraulics permit from
Department of Fisheries. If required, the permit shall
be obtained prior to granting of the Final PRO approval.
5.
The water system
hydrants and fire
by Public Works
approval.
may need to be a looped system for
flows. Final design shall be approved
prior to submittal for Final PRO
6.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any
PRD building / the sidewalks and curbs within the PRO
frontages shall be replaced as required by the Department
of Public Works.
.
7. A certificate of occupancy for the La Frontera
condominiums shall not be issued until a building permit
for the Lincoln Terrace commercial building has been
~ssued and substantial progress on tha~ permit has been
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10/ 1991
Page 8
4It made.
B. Submittal of plans to the Building Division for approval
of construction as requested which includes scheduling,
hours and days of operation / employee parking, access and
circulation, and staging areas for material and
equipment. Construction shall occur so as to minimize
impacts upon the adjacent residential and commercial land
uses and the roadway system.
9. The Fire Department requires that an all weather surface
road be provided to the construction site prior to any
vertical construction.
10. The street level treatment along La Frontera shall
emphasize human scale elements. Prior to submittal of
the final PRD application, plans shall be submitted to
the for approval to Planning staff of the revised
elevations and details which create an interesting and
varied streetscape.
4It
11. At the time of submittal of the final PRO, plans shall be
submitted showing all above ground utilities, irrigation
systems, such as transformers, backflow preventors and
heating and air condition equipment. Such facilities
shall be screened from view by either buildings or
landscape treatment.
12. At the time of submittal of the final PROf plans shall be
submitted of a detailed landscape plan which includes
quantity, size, type and location of all planting
materials. Minimum tree size shall be 24" box specimen,
and minimum shrub size shall be 5 gallon. The landscape
plan shall include details for the common open space,
which clearly demonstrates that a minimum of 30% of the
site is useable and accessible common open space.
13. All garbage/dumpster areas shall be screened by an
enclosure with a solid masonry wall on three sides which
matches the color and texture of the buildings and a
solid wood or metal gate.
.
14. The applicant shall submit a detailed geotechnical
foundation report relating to the ability of the building
site to support structures. The study shall be prepared
by an engineering firm licensed in the state of
Washington specializing in geotechnical/foundation
engineering. The study will be prepared to the
requirements of the City Public Works Department and
shall provide mitigation measures to ensure adequate
building foundations. Should development not proceed
after initial grading has occurred, res~oration of any
excavated areas shall be made per recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 1991
Page 9
15. Grading of the site may occur prior to issuance of the
Final PRO if the following grading conditions are first
complied with. This prel iminary PRO approva 1 shall
become void if the site is graded in any manner
inconsistent with the following conditions (a-d):
a. Grading of the site shall be substantially in
accord with the plan titled "New Site Plan wI
Landscaping" labeled as Sheet No. 20 by the
Planning Department, except that a final grading
plan shall be submitted showing the heights and
locations of all retaining walls, except as
necessary to meet other requirements of this
approval. Views of retaining walls shall be
minimized as much as possible, and no portion of a
retaining wall visible from a public street shall
exceed five feet in height.
b. A sedimentation and erosion control plan shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department for
approval prior to grading the site.
c.
A grading plan for off-site grading or sloping at
hillsides shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department prior to grading of the site.
.
d. An operation plan for grading of the site shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department for
approval prior to final development approval which
includes points of ingress and egress of all
equipment and vehicles, grading schedule, hours of
operation, the frequency of trucks arriving and
departing, and location of any staging areas for
trucks and equipment. Grading of the site shall
occur so as to minimize disruption of the
residential and commercial land uses in the
vicinity and to minimize traffic impacts. Access
to the site from the alley above will be allowed
only if no other reasonable alternatives are
available, otherwise, the use of the alley shall be
limited to the absolute minimum that is necessary.
16. Building permits will not be issued unless and until off-
si te grading of the adj acent property to the west is
graded in accordance with the approved grading plan. The
applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent property
owner to achieve this objective.
.
17. submit revised site plan which incorporates a Hammer liT"
type turnaround with minimum dimensions as required by
the Fire Department.
18. Coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure that fire
hydrants are adequate to serve the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 1991
Page 10
.
19. Submit construction plans to the Fire Department for
final approval with respect to Uniform Fire Code
requirements.
20. Maintain visibility triangles at points of ingress and
egress. No plantings or structures higher than 30 inches
shall be placed within the sight triangles.
21. Submit sign program for entire project for PRO approval.
Sign elements such as size, materials, color, lighting
and location should be considered in creating a sign
program which unifies the project. All signage, present
and future / shall conform to the requirements of the sign
program. Signage shall be in conformance with the caD
and ACD zone districts, depending on the zoning of the
sign location and shall be architecturally integrated
with the design of the project.
22. parking shall be provided in accordance with the City's
parking ordinance. Submit floor plans for the commercial
building and calculations showing the proposed
residential and commercial parking meet the ordinance
requirements.
.
23. No overhead utilities shall serve the proposed PRO.
FINDINGS:
A. The approval is for a 15 unit condominium, titled La
Frontera, a 6,154 square foot (gross area) office/retail
commercial building titled Lincoln Terrace, a four plex
titled "La Montana II and a duplex located on the
northwest corner of First and Chase Streets.
B. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code of the City of
Port Angeles have been reviewed with respect to the
proposed planned residential development.
c. The proposed PRO is situated on 63,000 square feet of
property zoned ACD and CBD.
D. There are 21 dwelling units contained within the proposed
PRD, resulting in a density of 14.4 du/acre. The PRD
allows a maximum of 28.2 du/acre in commercially zoned
developments.
E. The site plan of record for the PRD was filed with the
City on March 28, 1991 and has been labeled Sheet No. 18.
.
F.
The architectural elevations of record are contained in
Sheets 1/ 2/ 4, 12 and 19 which were filed with the city.
G. The landscape plan of record was filed with the City on
July 2, 1991 and is labeled Sheet No. 17.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 1991
Page 11
H.
The grading plan of record was filed with City and is
labeled Sheet No. 20.
I. The Planning Commission's recommendation of preliminary
PRD approval is based upon compliance with Sections
17.70.050 and .120 of the Zoning Ordinance.
J. The property is located at the western terminus of an
existing bluff between First and Front Streets.
K. The PRO would be adequately served by existing arterial
streets- First, Front and Lincoln, an existing local
street- Chase Street and the existing alley between First
and Front Streets. The PRO proposal also includes
improving the westernmost portion of this alley to
provide additional access.
L.
The project provides over 27,000 square feet of common
open space consisting of landscaping, walkways and indoor
recreation facility within La Frontera. The common open
space consists of nearly 43% of the site, which exceeds
the 30% minimum of the PRO ordinance. Prior to final PRD
approval, a plan demonstrating that 30% of the site is
common open space which is accessible and usable shall be
submitted.
.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed PRO is consistent with the Port Angeles
Comprehensive Plan and specifically, the following Goals,
Policies and Objectives:
n A local economy which is stable / provides employment
opportunities for all workers and improves the standard
of living of the community as a whole.1I
"A community where development and use of the land are
done in a manner that is compatible with the environment,
the characteristics of the use and the users."
"The provision of community facilities which meet the
needs of the people of all areas of the city and enhance
the character and quality of all areas of the city."
"A community of viable neighborhoods and variety of
opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and
enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages,
characteristics and interests."
.
Residential policies Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17,
and 19; Commercial Policies Nos. 1, 6, 10, 15; Urban
Design Policies Nos. 3 & 4; Land Use Objectives Nos. 1 &
2.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 1991
Page 12
2. The proposed density of the PRO meets the allowances in
Section 17.70.060 and does not benefit from the 10%
density bonus provisions.
3. The common open space provided by the PRD exceeds the
required minimum of 30% and is compatible with, and
appropriate for the urban context in which it is located.
The usability and accessibility will be reviewed prior to
final PRO approval.
4. The proposed development, as conditioned, creates a
residential environment of higher quality than that
normally achieved by traditional residential development.
5. The proposed development will be compatible with the
mixed, higher intensity use of property in the Central
Business District.
6. The project does not contain an internal street system.
The approved plans provide for direct access to three
fully improved arterial streets, one local street, and
one improved alley.
.
7.
The proposal is smaller than four acres and therefore may
not be constructed in phases. A condition of approval is
designed to ensure that Lincoln Terrace and La Frontera
are constructed within a close time frame of each other.
8. The development contains less than four acres, therefore
there must be special circumstances in order to fulfill
the intent of a Planned Residential Development. The
proposal makes use of PRD techniques to provide a high
quality project. The project design results in placing
the bulk of the density to the west, where the proposed
condominium project will provide an appropriate
termination to the bluff, thereby preserving lower
density development of the eastern portion of the site,
and providing for commercial development on the site
consistent with the zoning at an accessible location. In
addition, spectacular views of the downtown, harbor,
strait and points beyond will be afforded to the
residents of the project.
9. The CBD Zone District requires that a conditional use
permit is required for buildings higher than 45 feet.
Since the PRD ordinance provides for flexibility in
administration of development standards, a CUP would be
redundant, and therefore is not required.
.
Jim Hulett seconded the motion. Mr. Hulett stated the project
would be an important improvement to the Downtown and could set a
precedent for future quality development. Mr. Anabel hoped this
would be a catalyst for the revitalization of the Downtown and
begin a positive trend. Chairman Gruver did not believe a
precedent would be set with regard to treatment of bluff areas or
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUly 10/ 1991
Page 13
heights of buildings, and the project should be supported because
it makes creative use of the PRO for this particular unique
situation. Motion passed 5-0, with Commissioner Philpott
abstaining as he had missed early portions of the testimony.
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Patsy Blanchard, 236 East Front Street #18, spoke with regard
to the La Vista PROf noting that there were a number of public
concerns besides aesthetics, including hillside stability,
public safety and traffic on the alley. commissioner Hulett
noted that those issues have been addressed in the conditions
and that the aesthetics was the one issue that was not
substantially addressed by conditions.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Collins informed the Commission that the Growth Management
Advisory Committee (GMAC) may need additional time to review
critical areas, and suggested the Commission conduct a special
meeting on July 31/ 1991, to discuss critical areas/ and that
the July 24th meeting could be used to review two current
planning projects, Olympic Vista PROf and Serenity House
Zoning Code Amendment. Following discussion, the Commission
concurred that the proposal would be acceptable and that prior
to the critical areas public hearing, 7 P.M., July 31, 1991,
the Commission could review the urban growth areas, between 6
P.M. to 7 P.M. The Department also noted the Council would
have to approve the provision of a meal for that work session
which would be during the dinner hour. It was so requested.
VII
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Commissioner Philpott noted there were several lights in the
Council Chambers which are burned out. He noted they should
be replaced.
commissioner Hulett asked staff to investigate the RV parked
at the Chinook Motel and the overnight parking that has been
occurring at the Eagles Lodge.
Chairman Gruver informed the Commission that he had just
finished listening to some tapes from the American Planning
Association National Conference on neo-traditional planning.
He encouraged the other Commissioners to listen to the tapes
at their convenience as they had provided quality insights on
land use development and planning. The tapes are available
through the planning Department.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10/ 1991
Page 14
VIII ADJOURNMENT
There beinq no further business,
adjourn the meeting at 12:45 A.M.
motion, which passed unanimously.
.
.~
o lins, Secretary
JJ:sr
Prepared by: JOHN JIMERSON
ers moved to
seconded the
'.
.
PLEASE SIGN IN
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
Attendance Roster
4--
4
Name
Address