HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/10/2002
.
.
.
DO~ R r~~ AN IrG~' 'Eft" E S
I=: J~lri I ~J II, I,.~
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
July 10, 2002
I.
CALL TO ORDER
7 p.m.
II.
ROLL CALL
III.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meetings of June 12 and June 26, 2002
IV.
PUBLIC MEETING:
REZONE REQUEST - REZ 02-05 - CLARKE - 910 East Eighth Street: Request
to rezone one lot, approximately 7,000 square feet in area, from RS-7, Residential
Single Fami]y to CO, Commercial, Office.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE - SMA 02-06 - EHM -
201 West Front Street: A proposal to allow a hotelJrestaUfant/conference center in the
Central Business District within the shoreline area. The structure will have a
maximum height of 66' with an overall height of approximately 55' to 661.
1 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 02-07 - EHM - 201 West Front Street: A
proposal to increase the maximum height from 45' to approximately 66' for a structure
within the Central Business District.
2. STREET VACATION PETITION - STY 02-01 - YMCA - Portion ofthe 3/4 alley
between Francis and Eunice Streets: Petition for vacation of that portion of the 3/4
alley abutting Lot 15 of Lewis and Mastick's Subdivision of Block 63, and Lot 6,
Block 3 Cain's Subdivision to the Townsite of Port Angeles.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 02-06 - CRE-ECH - 402 East Lauridsen
Boulevard: Request to allow a music school in the Commercial, Office CO zone.
V.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
VI. STAFF REPORTS
.
.
.
VII.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
VIII.
ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Chuck Schramm (Chair), Fred Hewins (Vice), Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Mary Craver, Rick Porter, Len Rasmussen
PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins, Director; Scott Johns, Associate Planner; Sue Roberds, Assistant Planner.
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
July 10,2002
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Bob Philpott, Fred Hewins, Chuck Schramm (late), Rick
Porter, Leonard Rasmussen
Members Excused:
Fred Norton, Mary Craver, Chuck Schramm had stated at
the previous meeting that he had a conflict with another
meeting and expected to be in attendance but late.
Staff Present:
Brad Collins, Scott Johns, Ken Dubuc, Timothy Smith,
Michael Quinn
Public Present:
Sherry and Paul Creech, Clyde Boddy, Carl D. Alexander
Jr., Craig Ritchie, D. Hagawara, Chris Muir, Randal Jay
Ehm, Chuck Turner, Bill Roberds, Dan McGuire
. Vice Chair Hewins called the meeting to order in the absence of Chair Schramm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Philpott moved to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2002, meeting as
revised, with findings and conclusions included. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Rasmussen and passed unanimously.
Commissioner Philpott moved to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2002, meeting. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen and passed unanimously.
.
PUBLIC MEETING:
REZONE REQUEST - REZ 02-05 - CLARKE - 910 East Eighth Street:
Request to rezone one lot, approximately 7,000 square feet in area, from RS-7,
Residential Single Family to CO, Commercial, Office.
Associate Planner Scott Johns presented the staff report.
Commissioner Rasmussen asked why the applicant was requesting the zoning be changed to CO
and not CN. Director Collins indicated that the question should be directed to the applicant,
however there was a precedent in the 8th Street neighborhood along Race Street of moving from
CN to CO and that the proposed rezone would provide a transition from CN on the west to RS- 7
on the east of the subject lot.
Commissioner Rasmussen asked the applicant Chuck Turner the question as to the reason for the
requested rezone to CO instead ofCN. Mr. Turner said that it was in response to a
recommendation from staff at the time of application.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10,2002
2
Commissioner Rasmussen then asked if the rezone of a single lot to CO would constitute a spot
zone since no other properties in the area were zoned CO. Director Collins answered that the
standard for spot zoning was not dependent on the size of the parcel but had other criteria based
on whether the parcel was isolated and not related to the surrounding area, which in this case was
not the situation. The CO zoning was a less intense zoning classification than the adjacent CN
zoning and that the less intense zoning would provide a transition from the CN zone to the RS-7
zone, which is adjacent to the subject site on the east. If the request had been for a rezone to CN,
it would not have changed the staff recommendation.
Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Porter moved to recommend approval of REZ
02-05 to the City Council citing 7 findings and 4 conclusions, changing the typographical
error in finding #4, the parenthetical CO to CN.
Recommended Findings and Conclusions for REZ 02-05
Findings
1. The applicant, Denise E. Clarke, is requesting a rezone of Lot 7, Block 276,
Townsite of Port Angeles, from RS-7, Residential Single Family, to CO,
Commercial, Office.
Conclusions:
2.
The subject site is comprised of one standard sized lot, 50' by 140' (total of 7,000
square feet) and is developed only with a small storage building and some
landscaping.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the lot as being on an imprecise margin
between Low Density Residentia] and Commercial.
The subject property is adjacent to Commercial Neighborhood (Cew to the west
and Residential, Single Family (RS-7) to the east, north and south.
The purpose of the CO zone is as follows: "This is a commercial zone intended
for those business, office, administrative or professional uses which do not
involve the retail sale of goods, but rather provide a service to clients, the
provision of which does not create high traffic volumes, involve extended hours of
operation, or contain impacts that would be detrimental to acfjacent residential
areas."
3.
4.
5.
6. The SEP A Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance for
the proposal on July 8, 2002.
7. The public comment period for this application fan from June 7, 2002, to June 24,
2002. During this time, the Department of Community Development received
one letter from a neighbor expressing support for the proposed rezone.
1.
The entire Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and the policies found to be most
directly related to the proposed rezone include: Growth Management Element,
Goal A, Policy La; Commercial Goal D. Policy 1 and Goal E. Policies 3, 7, and 8;
Planning Commission Minules
July 10.2002
3
.
Economic Development Element Goal A, Policy 5.
The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Growth
Management Element, Policies Ala, e, and 1: Land Use Policies Al and 2 Dl'
, , ,
Economic Development Element Policies Al and 2.
3. The proposed rezone is compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning
ordinance designations.
2.
Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion which carried 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE - SMA 02-06 - EHM
- 201 West Front Street: A proposal to allow a hotel and conference center with a
restaurant and lounge in the Central Business District within the shoreline area.
The structure will have a maximum height of 66' with an overall height from
approximately 55' to 66'.
Associate Planner Scott Johns presented the staff report.
Vice Chair Hewins announced that Commissioner Schramm had arrived and was now in
attendance.
. Vice Chair Hewins opened the Public Hearing.
Randal Jay Ehm, 2707 California Avenue, Seattle. The applicant, spoke in favor of the project,
stating that he had been working with the City for several months in preparation of the project,
and his financing was in place and that as soon as the project was approved and permits in place
work could begin. Mr. Ehm pointed out that the project would employ approximately 120
persons and that construction contracts would be available to local contractors.
Bill Roberds, West 54 Misty Lane, Port Angeles spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Roberds is a
member of the board of the Building Industry Association of Washington and stated that their
organization frequently held statewide conferences and would they like to have alternative sites
in western Washington to hold those conferences. The City of Port Angeles has many things to
offer but is lacking a facility of the scale necessary to handle such a gathering.
Carl Alexander Jr., 235 West 12t" Street, Port Angeles spoke in opposition to the project and
handed out written material supporting his statements. Mr. Alexander indicated that the size of
the facility was too large for the site, causing problems with parking, height, and public access.
He urged that the Commission maintain objectivity about the City's financial interest in the
project. He expressed concern over a lack of a condition requiring the Waterfront Trail to be
located along the waterfront. Mr. Alexander pointed out that the site plan indicated 35 parking
spaces waterward of the building and that was in conflict with the Shoreline Master Program.
Commissioner Philpott asked Mr. Alexander ifhe knew how many rooms were available at the
Red Lion Inn. Mr. Alexander did not know that number. Staff had not done that analysis either.
.
Chris Muir, 214 West 2nd Street, Port Angeles. Mr. Muir handed out a written statement and
spoke in opposition to the project, stating negative impacts to the views of the shoreline of Port
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
"
Angeles Harbor and beyond. He asked the commissioners to go to James Park and see for
themselves how the staff view analysis was not consistent with his impression of the view. He
disputed the accuracy of the staff view analysis. Mr. Muir stated that he was a resident at the top
of the bluff between Oak and Cedar Streets and he did have a personal interest in the view. He
also expressed concern about the impacts from project lights on the night sky and asked the
Commission to add a condition regarding the lighting of the project.
Craig Ritchie, 212 East 5th Street, Port Angeles spoke in opposition to the project. He asked
that the City not let economic development blind them. The jobs created by the project would all
be low wage and unsustainable. He stated that the parking issues were a shell game to skirt the
issues of required parking. The development of the waterfront park area would be a cost to the
City and not to the developer as it should be. Mr. Ritchie spoke to RCW 90.58.320 that requires
a limitation to height in the shoreline areas and its relation to overriding public benefits. Mr.
Ritchie questioned the constitutionality of the use of shoreline properties owed by DNR for
private use and also felt that the application was invalid because the property owner (DNR) had
not acknowledged the application. He also indicated that there were inadequacies in the
stormwater management plan.
Commissioner Porter asked if a similar Anacortes case was overtured due to procedural issues as
opposed to substantive issues. Mr. Ritchie believed that it was substantive, not procedural.
Commissioner Porter asked Mr. Ritchie if the Commission were to fine that a proper analysis had
been done, that it was found that there would not be a substantial number of individuals affected
and that there was an overriding public interest, would it be impossible for the Commission to
legally conclude the application should be approved? Mr. Ritchie contended that it would be
impossible for the commission to make that finding stating that it can't be found that there is an
overriding public interest and they can't get around the physics and geography ofthe site that the
project would block views. Commissioner Porter asked if Mr. Ritchie had materials that refuted
the view analysis done by staff. Mr. Ritchie had no infonnation to refute the view analysis but
did disagree with their findings.
Vice Chair Hewins asked what kind of water-dependent economic development would defeat the
view argument, stating that there is currently a 75 foot tall building that is water-dependent on
the shoreline. Would the impacts to the view not be greater for a larger building that was water-
dependent at that location? Mr. Ritchie stated that the shoreline issues would still apply but not
the constitutional issues.
Commissioner Philpott asked Mr, Ritchie who he was representing. Mr. Ritchie indicated he
represented himself and Todd McClaskey.
Mike Quinn, 321 East Fifth, Port Angeles. Speaking for himself and as Port Angeles City
Manager. Mr. Quinn clarified the Shoreline Master Program intent of maximizing water-
dependent uses and water-oriented uses and explained that the Master Program's Goal #1 states
that Port Angeles will utilize the shoreline to maximize water-oriented industrial, mixed
commercial, educational, cultural, and recreational uses. Laws of the state allow for flexibility of
uses, and it is not confined to water-dependent uses. Mr. Quinn also pointed out that the height
limits were not static and flexibility was allowed through the Conditional Use process where it is
deemed necessary.
Mr. Quinn also clarified that the City had in its possession a signed letter of agreement between
all property owners and parties indicating not only awareness of the project but also support for
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
5
the project. The permanence of the proposed trail and park and the maximizing of the park area
were also emphasized. Mr. Quinn also emphasized that the City of Port Angeles, although
historically a resource extractive city is now interested in the quality of its environment as well as
its economic development and is attempting to strike a balance between the two.
Mr. Quinn responded to Mr. Alexander's issues of the project seeming to be too large for the
chosen site by indicating that the City's chosen urban development pattern in the downtown area
is that of increased density. He also pointed out that this is why there is a unique need for a
parking structure in the downtown.
Commissioner Rasmussen asked Mr. Quinn ifhe could answer the question of what would be
overriding public interest. Mr. Quinn responded that shoreline use, maximizing shoreline water-
oriented uses, economic development for the entire community, improved traffic circulation,
public access to the waterfront, downtown beautification, increased tax base, and increased
recreational opportunities would be in the public interest.
Commissioner Rasmussen asked Mr. Quirm to address the storm water issue brought up by Mr.
Ritchie. Mr. Quinn indicated that the City is impacted by a number of stormwater issues and that
the City is working toward resolution to the issues of stonnwater and it will receive a lot of
attention in the near future.
Timothy J. Smith. City Economic Development Director spoke to the issue of defining public
interest by relating the process that has been followed to solicit support and public interest. The
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and the Downtown Forward Advisory Committee were
involved in working out the issues of this proposal and the initiative to the City to pursue a
conference center.
There being no further public comment, Vice Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
Director Collins indicated that staff would revise the list of Shoreline Management Program
Goals and Policies cited to include those that were pointed out by Mr. Alexander as missing from
the analysis. Director Collins reminded the commission that because the issue was a Shoreline
Conditional Permit and Variance that they would only be making a recommendation to the State
and not making a final decision. Other points that were made were that a substantial portion of
the proposed building would be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, and that public
enjoyment of the shoreline is water-related recreation. The City has spent years preparing the
subject site for this type of project by moving the inner harbor line and rezoning the site to
separate commercial uses from industrial uses. This is the first viable proposal for the site in 25
years. The proposal is compatible with shoreline access and the chosen urban design of the city.
Commissioner Porter asked how many views would be affected by the location of the hotel.
Director Collins surmised that approximately 6 houses and a condominium structure would have
views effected. He suggested that the Commission ask Mr. Muir that question, since Mr. Muir
was a resident of that area. Mr. Muir indicated that approximately 15 residences would be
effected. Commissioner Schramm indicated that an additional 3 residences located east of Laurel
Street would also likely be effected.
Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Philpott moved to recommend approval of SMA
02-06 citing the following 4 conditions, 18 findings and 13 conclusions with the addition of
a 19th finding, stating "Chris Muir 214 W. 2nd Street, testified that there are 6 homes (plus 2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
July J 0, 2002
6
duplex units) and 7 condominium units between Oak and Cherry Streets along the top of the
bluff overlooking the subject site. Three more homes which have views ofthe subject site, are
located east of the subject site" and the addition of language in conclusion # 6 to state that "views
of a significant number of homes will not be negatively impacted by the proposed Structure".
Conditions of Approval
1. The project must manage stormwater runoff in a manner acceptable to the City of Port
Angeles Department of Public Works and Utilities or consistent with the Stormwater
Management Manual Western Washinr!fon. Prior to issuance of a building pennit, a
storm water management plan must be approved by the Port Angeles Department of
Public Works and Utilities.
2. The Department of Natural Resources will require that the Waterfront Trail be relocated
from its current location which now follows City streets along sidewalks to cross the
DNR portion of the site and follow the waterfront as a condition of approval of a land
exchange. This will place the Trail between the proposed development and the shoreline.
The proposed Waterfront Trail segment shall be constructed as shown across the DNR
(north) portion ofthe site.
The project must provide a parking plan that is acceptable to the City showing a
minimum of 336 parking spaces before any building permits are issued.
The project must show how it will meet the setback requirements established in PAMC
17.24.200.A.3, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
3.
4.
Findings
Based on the information provided in the Planning Department Staff Report for SMA 02-06
dated July 10, 2002, including all information in the public record file, comments and testimony
presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion and deliberation, and
the above listed conditions of approval, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby
finds that:
I. The applicant Randal Jay Ehm applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development
Conditional Use Permit on May 10,2002. The application was detennined to be
complete on May 23, 2002. The application is identified as Attachment B to the June
26, 2002 Community Development Department Staff Report for SMA 02-06.
The Department of Natural Resources will require that the Waterfront Trail be relocated
from its current location which now follows City streets along sidewalks to cross the
DNR portion of the site and follow the waterfront as a condition of approval of a land
exchange. This will place the Trail between the proposed development and the shoreline.
In accordance with legal requirements of the City of Port Ange]es and the State of
Washington, the notice of application and subsequent hearing process was advertise in
the Peninsula Daily News' legal section on May 22, 2002. A public notice was posted on
the site on May 22, 2002.
The public comment period for this application ran from May 22, 2002, to June 12,2002.
No comments were received from the public.
2.
3.
4.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10. 2002
7
5.
There are no over water structures proposed.
6. The City's Fire Department and the City's Building Division recommended no conditions
of approval specific to this application.
7. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master
Program. Those most relevant include the following: Chapter 3 General Goals- A.
Shoreline Use Element Goals 3,6 - 10; B - Economic Development Element Goals] - 5;
D - Conservation Element 4 - 6; E. Public Access Element Goals I - 3; F. Recreation
Element, Goals 1 and 2; Chapter 4 General Policies and Regulations C. Clearing and
Grading, Policies I and 2, Regulation I; D Environmental Impacts, Policy 1, Regulations
I, 3 - 9; E - Environmentally Sensitive Areas Regulation I, 2, and 3; F - Kelp Beds,
Eelgrass Beds, Herring Spawning Areas, Smelt Spawning Areas, Shellfish Areas and
Other Critical Salt Water Habitats Policies 1,4,5 and Regulation 13; I. Parking, Policies
I -3, Regulations 2,3,5,6; J - Public Access Policies 1,2,3 and 5 and Regulations 1,4,
6, - 11; N - Water Quality Policies I and 2 Regulations 1 and 2; Chapter 6 Shoreline
Use Policies and Regulations, C. Commercial Development, Policies 1, 3 - 5
Regulations 1 - 5; and Use Table H;.
The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan.
Those most relevant include the following: Growth Management Element Goal A,
Policy 1; Land Use Element, Commercial goals and Policies, Goal D., Policy I, Goal F
Policies I and 2; Open Space Objective I, Goal I, Policies I and 2, goal J, Policies 3 and
5; Conservation Element Goal A Policy I, Goal B, Policies 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, II and
objective 3; Goal D, and Policies I and 4; Economic Development Element Goal A
Policies 2, 4, 6 and Goal B.
8.
9. The application materials were sent to the Department of Ecology (DOE), Department of
Natural Resources, and the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW),
for review. Conditions of approval were recommended.
10. The aquatic shoreline is defined by the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
Ordinance, Chapter 15.20, as a "beach and associated coastal drift process area". Buffer
and protective standards for these areas are generally deferred to the Shoreline Master
Program. The site meets the criteria of a previously disturbed Environmentally Sensitive
Area.
Approval of SMA 02-06 shall also be deemed as approval for the activity in accordance
with Chapter 15.20 PAMC.
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Responsib]e Official issued a Determination
of Non-Significance for the project on June 28, 2002.
The City of Port Angeles has analyzed the impacts of the proposed hotel/conference
center on views from adjacent and nearby properties, as well as those from the bluff
between Oak and Cherry Streets.
The City of Port Angeles has analyzed the impacts of the proposed hotel/conference
center on potential shade cast over the shoreline of Port Angeles Harbor.
11.
12.
13.
14.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
8
The conference center will provide meeting space ~or 600 to 700 people.
The applicant (a.k.a. Pier Group L.L.C.), the Port of Port Angeles (port), the City of Port
Angeles (City), and the State of Washington Department of Natural Resource (DNR),
signed a letter of intent regarding the development of a hotel, restaurant and convention
center on June 21, 2002.
17. The City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code designate the subject site for
commercial uses.
15.
16.
18. The subject property has remained undeveloped for the past 25 years, and the Port of Port
Angeles has not received viable proposals for use of the property for traditional Port
purposes during this period.
Conclusions
Based on the information provided in the Department Staff Report for SMA 02-06 dated July 10,
2002, including all of the information in the public record file, comments, and testimony
presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commissionis discussion and deliberation, and
the above listed condition of approval and the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles
Planning Commission hereby concludes that:
1. The proposal, as conditioned, would not negatively affect critical saltwater habitat.
2. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program.
3. The proposal will increase public access to the shoreline and increase public open space.
4. The proposal as conditioned will meet the purpose and intent of the Port Angeles Zoning
Code.
5. Shoreline developments that are designed with the least environmental impact to the
shoreline and its resources is in the best public interest and welfare and furthers the goals
and intent of the Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Program.
6. A portion of the view of Port Angeles Harbor from the top of the bluff overlooking the
harbor will include the proposed hotel/conference center. The proposed hotel/conference
center will not obstruct bluff views of Ediz Hook, the shipping lanes of the Straits of Juan
de Fuca, or Vancouver Island for a significant number of homes.
7. The proposed hotel/conference center will obstruct some street level views of the harbor.
The additional height above the height allowed in the CBD zone will not impact those
VIews.
9.
8.
The proposed hotel/conference center will not create a substantial shadow over the
shoreline of Port Angeles Harbor.
The proposed hotel/conference center will provide opportunities, not currently available,
for the City of Port Angeles to host large group conferences and thereby benefit the local
and statewide tourism industry.
The Port of Port Angeles and the State of Washington Department of Natura] Resources,
owners of the subject property, have provided written documentation of their knowledge
of and permission for the proposed development application to the City of Port Angeles.
10.
Pfanning Commission Minutes
July J(), 2001
9
.
The proposed site plan provides substantial public open space, including an extension of
the City's Waterfront Trail, between the proposed development and the Shoreline. The
height of the building serves the public interest in this public access to Port Angeles
Harbor by saving site area that would be needed for the complex of uses in a shorter
building with a larger footprint.
]2. The proposed site plan limits the area proposed for on-site parking and also serves the
public interest in public access to and use of the shoreline by saving site area that would
be needed for parking on-site, if parking were not provided per City requirements off-site.
13. The Port of Port Angeles, the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, and
the City of Port Angeles have taken many steps, such as relocating the Inner Harbor Line
north of the subject property for nonindustrial purposes, in support of the best interests of
the Port, the State, the City, and the Community.
11.
Commissioner Rasmussen seconded the motion which carried 5-0.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 02-07 - EHM - 201 West Front
Street: A proposal to increase the maximum height from 45' to
approximately 66' for a structure within the Central Business District.
Associate Planner Scott Johns presented the staff report.
. Vice Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
Carl Alexander Jr., 235 West 12th Street, Port Angeles requested that the same written
comments that he had presented for SMA 02-06 to the commission be entered for this proposal
as well.
eris Muir, 214 West 2nd Street, Port Angeles requested that the same written comments that he
had presented for SMA 02-06 to the commission be entered for this proposal as well.
There being no further public comment, Vice Chair Hewins closed the public comment.
After brief discussion, Commissioner Philpott moved to approve CUP 02-07 with 4
conditions, citing 21 findings and 16 conclusions.
Conditions:
I. The project must provide a parking plan that is acceptable to the City showing a
minimum of336 parking spaces before any building permits are issued.
2. All parking areas must be appropriately landscaped and screened from public
access areas.
3.
he project must manage stormwater runoff in a manner acceptable to the City of
Port Angeles Department of Public Works and Utilities or consistent with the
Storm water Management Manual Western Washington. Prior to issuance of a
building permit, a stormwater management plan must be approved by the Port
Angeles Department of Public Works and Utilities.
The project must show how it will meet the setback requirements established in
.
4.
Planning Commission Minutes
JlIly 10.1001
10
.
P AMC ] 7.24.200.A.3, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the Planning Department Staff Report for CUP 02-
07 dated July 10, 2002, including all infonnation in the public record file, comments and
testimony presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion and
deliberation, and the above listed conditions of approval, the City of Port Angeles
Planning Commission hereby finds that
1. The applicant Randa] Jay Ehm submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for
a hotel and conference center building, with portions of the building reaching a
maximum height of 66 feet on June 19, 2002. The application was determined to
be complete on June 19,2002. The application is identified as Attachment B to
the July 10, 2002 Community Development Department Staff Report for CUP 02-
07.
.
.
2.
In accordance with legal requirements of the City of Port Angeles and the State of
Washington, the notice of application and subsequent hearing process was
advertise in the Peninsula Dailv News' legal section on June 23,2002. A public
notice was posted on the site on June 20, 2002.
The public comment period for this application ran from June 23,2002, to July 8,
2002. One comment was received from the public stating opposition to the
proj ect.
The application materials were sent to the Department of Ecology (DOE),
Department of Natural Resources, and the Washington State Department ofFish
and Wildlife (WDFW), for review. Conditions of approval were recommended.
The site is located in the Central Business District (CBD) zone where the
maximum allowed height is 45 feet per PAMe Section 17.24.200.B.
The site is described as that portion of first class tidelands Block 2 and Block 2A,
Port Angeles tidelands west of Laurel Street, Clal]am County , Washington
described as follows: Tidelands Block 2A as shown on survey recorded May 3,
2002 under Auditor's File Number 2002-1084452 and filed in Volume 49 of
Surveys, Page 50, Records ofClaUam County, Washington.
The site is 3.81 acres in size and is currently occupied with a paved parking lot for
long-term parking for the Coho Ferry.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. The site meets the dimensional standards established in PAMC 17.24.200.A.1 & 2
for nonresidential uses in the CBD.
9.
Section 17 .24.041.A.4 & 8, and E.1 states that hotels, restaurants and conference
centers are allowed uses in the CBD zone.
A portion of the project lies within 200 feet of the shoreline and is therefore
subject to the regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. The Shoreline Master
Program does not specify a height limitation for non-water-oriented uses in the
10.
Planning Commis.lion Minutes
July JO, 2002
1l
.
.
20.
21.
.
Conclusions:
11.
Urban Harbor Designation. The Shoreline Master Program defers to the zoning
ordinance height requirements for non-water-oriented uses in the CBD.
Chapter 6., Section F., Recreational Development Regulation 5. of the Shoreline
Master Program indicates that "In approving shoreline recreational
developments, the City shall encourage the developer to maintain, enhance or
restore desirable shoreline features including unique and fragile areas, scenic
views and aesthetic values. To this end, the City may adjust and/or prescribe
project dimensions, location of project components on the site, intensity of use,
screening, parking requirements and setbacks, as deemed appropriate to achieve
this intent. "
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Commercial. The adjacent
properties are also designated as Commercial.
One comment from the public was received by the Clallam County public
comment center and forward to Port Angeles Department of Community
Development on June 24, 2002. The comment was in opposition to the project
based on the loss of public open space, not on the height of the building. The
comment was from Cheryl and Ray Peters, of the All-View Motel.
A Determination of Non-Significance issued on June 28, 2002 (DNS 922) will be
adopted for this proposed action on Ju]y 10,2002.
The City of Port Angeles has analyzed the impacts of the proposed
hotel/conference center on views from adjacent and nearby properties, as well as
those from the bluff between Oak and Cherry Streets.
The City of Port Angeles has analyzed the impacts of the proposed
hotel/conference center on potential shade cast over the shoreline of Port Ange]es
Harbor.
17. The conference center will provide meeting space for 600 to 700 people.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
18. The applicant (a.k.a. Pier Group L.L.C.), the Port of Port Angeles (port), the City
of Port Angeles (City), and the State of Washington Department of Natural
Resource (DNR), signed a letter of intent regarding the development of a hotel,
restaurant and convention center on June 21, 2002.
19. The City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code designate the subject site for
commercial uses.
The subject property has remained undeveloped for the past 25 years, and the Port
of Port Angeles has not received viable proposals for use of the property for
traditional Port purposes during this period.
Chris Muir, 214 W. 2nd Street testified that there are 6 homes(plus 2 duplex units)
and 7 condominium units between Oak and Cherry Streets along the top of the
bluff overlooking the subject site. Three more homes which have views of the
subject site, are located east of the subject site.
Planning Commission Minuter
July} 0, 2002
12
.
.
.
Based on the infonnation provided in the Department Staff Report for CUP 02-07 dated
July 10, 2002, including all of the information in the public record file, comments, and
testimony presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion
and deliberation, and the above listed condition of approval and the above listed findings,
the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes that:
1. As conditioned, the proposed hotel and conference center is consistent with the
purpose of the CBD zone and compatible with surrounding uses. If the proposed
use complies with certain definitions and the design and perfonnance standards
set forth by the Zoning Code, then it can be deemed consistent with the Zoning
Code.
2. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan's Growth Management Element Goal A, Policy la, Ie, Ii; Land Use
Element Commercial Goals D, Policy I, Goal F, Policies 1 & 2; Open Space Goal
I, Policy 2, Goal J, Policy 3; Conservation Element Goal A, Policy I, Goal B,
Policies 2, 6, & 9 and Objective 3, Goal D, Policy I; Economic Development
Element Goal A, Policy 2, 4, & 6, Goal B.
3. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Shoreline Master
Program.
As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the requirements for approval of a
conditional use permit as specified in P AMC 17.96.050.
5, As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the Parking Ordinance, PAMC
14.40.
4.
6. The proposed building will impact views from the street level and neighboring
buildings and from the bluff to the south of the project. The increase in height
above the allowed 45 feet to 66 feet will not have a negative impact on views
from the street or surrounding buildings. Views from the bluff will include the
proposed building, however, the 21 foot increase in height over the 45 foot
allowed, will not obscure or negatively impact those views.
The increase in height above the allowed 45 feet to 66 feet will create a shadow
over the water of Port Angeles Harbor for short periods of the day only during the
shortest days of the year.
The proposal will improve public access to the shoreline of Port Angeles Harbor
by incorporating a section of the Waterfront Trail and public open space into its
design.
A portion oftbe view of Port Angeles Harbor from the top of the bluff
overlooking the harbor will include the proposed hotel/conference center. The
proposed hotel/conference center will not obstruct bluff views of Ediz Hook, the
shipping lanes of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, or Vancouver Island.
The proposed hotel/conference center will obstruct some street level views of the
harbor. The additional height above the height allowed in the CBD zone will not
impact those views.
The proposed hotel/conference center will not create a substantial shadow over the
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
13
.
shoreline of Port Angeles Harbor.
The proposed hotel/conference center will provide opportunities, not currently
available, for the City of Port Angeles to host large group conferences and thereby
benefit the local and statewide tourism industry.
13. The Port of Port Angeles and the State of Washington Department of Natura]
Resources, owners of the subject property, have provided written documentation
of their knowledge of and pennission for the proposed development application to
the City of Port Angeles.
12.
.
14. The proposed site plan provides substantial public open space, including an
extension of the City's Waterfront Trail, between the proposed development and
the Shoreline. The height of the building serves the public interest in this public
access to Port Angeles Harbor by saving site area that would be needed for the
complex of uses in a shorter building with a larger footprint.
15. The proposed site plan limits the area proposed for on-site parking and also serves
the public interest in public access to and use of the shoreline by saving site area
that would be needed for parking on-site, if parking were not provided per City
requirements off-site.
The Port of Port Angeles, the State of Washington Department of Natural
Resources, and the City of Port Angeles have taken many steps, such as relocating
the Inner Harbor Line north of the subject property for nonindustrial purposes, in
support of the best interests of the Port, the State, the City, and the Community.
16.
Commissioner Porter seconded the motion which passed 5-0.
STREET VACATION PETITION - STY 02-01 - YMCA - Portion of the 3/4
alley between Francis and Eunice Streets: Petition for vacation of that portion of
the 3/4 alley abutting Lot 15 of Lewis Mastic's Subdivision of Block 63, and Lot
6, Block 3 Cain's Subdivision to the Townsite of Port Angeles.
Planning Director Brad Collins presented the staff report.
Vice Chair Hewins asked about the required turn-around area for fire equipment not being
included in this case. Fire Marshal Dubuc answered that as proposed, access would continue
through the property and that if the alley were to be blocked, further review by the Fire
Department would be required and either a turn-around or some other acceptable method for
access would be required.
Vice Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
Dan McGuire, 313 Hancock Avenue, Port Angeles, representative of the YMCA, handed out
site plans to the Commission members and explained that the local YMCA was a small facility
and needed to be expanded to meet local demand. The recent expansions have not kept pace
with expanded usage. The site coverage requirement of 50% limits expansion on the site, and
. vacation of the alley would add area to the property and allow for physical expansion.
Commissioner Rasmussen asked Mr. McGuire if the YMCA will be back again for consideration
of other actions to further expand the YMCA's campus. Mr. McGuire stated that there were
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10. 2002
14
board members that have discussed the possibility of further expansion in the block, however the
financial reality was such that it is not likely that the YMCA will be able to acquire more land
and that their plans are to expand their facilities on the land currently owned by the YMCA.
Commissioner Rasmussen asked why the YMCA would not seek a new location where they
would be able to create the facility that they would like, since they have parking problems, they
are essentially gutting one of their buildings and will still be undersized. Mr. McGuire indicated
that it was financially unfeasible and that the current location was centrally located in the city and
located near 3 City park facilities which made the current location quite ideal for the YMCA.
Vice Chair Hewins asked how the condition of not obstructing the alley fit with the plan to close
the alley. Mr. McGuire stated that the YMCA would like to stop the vehicle traffic through the
alley and that indications had been that neighbors would also like a fence to separate the YMCA
form those homes. Pennission from the Fire Department would have to be sought and that there
were ways that through traffic could be stopped and still meet Fire Department requirements.
Clyde Boddy, 520 Rose Street, Port Angeles, a member of the YMCA spoke in favor of the
project.
There being no further public comment, Vice Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Porter moved to approve STV 02-01 with 2 conditions, citing 10 findings
and 7 conclusions.
Conditions:
I. There shall be no obstruction ofthe vacated right-of-way without prior express
written permission from the Port Angeles Fire Department.
2. No construction will occur in the vacated right-of-way over the existing sewer
facilities or under the power lines without relocation of the utilities at the direction
of the City's Public Works and Utilities Department. Relocation or
undergrounding of the utilities shall be at the applicant's expense.
Findioe:s:
I. A valid petition requesting the vacation of that portion of the 3/4 alley abutting
Lot 15, Block 63, Lewis and Mastick's Subdivision of Suburban Lot 22 and Lot 6,
Block 3, Cain's Subdivision to the City of Port Angeles, better known as 723 and
725 East Fourth Street, and 302 South Francis Street, was submitted to the City of
Port Angeles on May 10,2002, by Dan Maguire, Executive Director of the
Clallam County YMCA.
An easement for service to the City's sanitary sewer main located in the alley
which services lots west to Eunice Street in this location will be needed to
continue service in the area. If future plans include building construction in the
alley area, the line will need to be moved at the property owner's expense. An
easement shall be retained under the existing primary power line that exists in the
alley. If the property owner requests conversion of a portion of the utility, such
relocation shall be underground at the property owner's expense. Twenty-four
hour unrestricted access shall be required for the existing or relocated electrical
facilities.
3.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
15
.
.
The Fire Department must be contacted prior to any such construction to ensure
that the alleyway remain clear for Fire access. The Fire Department must be
consulted prior to any new construction at the site or before changes are made that
may impede current access for existing structures.
5. The site is currently zoned RS-7, Residential Single Family. A rezone to PBP,
Public Buildings and Parks was recommended to the City Council by the Planning
Commission. The rezone will be considered by the City Council on July 16,
2002.
4.
6. The City's Public Buildings and Park(PBP) zone requires that a 6-foot visual
screen consisting of a solid fencing, landscaping, or other materials shall be
provided in the yard abutting residentially zoned land.
7. The City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were reviewed for consistency
with the proposed vacation of right-of-way.
8. The vacating of a street is categorically exempt from a State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) review per Section 197-11-800 (2) (h) of the Washington
Administrative Code.
9.
The site was posted and required publication appeared in the Peninsula Dai/v
News on May 22, 2002. One letter of opposition was received by a neighbor
during the public comment period which is included in the July 10, 2002, staff
report and analysis.
This action constitutes a recommendation to the City Council that will act on the
petition at a public hearing on August 6, 2002.
10.
Conclusions:
A. As conditioned, traffic patterns on surrounding streets would not be negatively
impacted by the vacation. Traffic in the 3/4 alley would be markedly reduced by
eliminating through traffic from the east where the YMCA site is located. Access
to properties at the west end of the 3/4 alley would not be disrupted and would
become more residentially oriented.
B. Low density residential development patterns in the area will not be affected by
the proposed vacation.
C. Future construction plans that involve impediment to the vacated alley right-of-
way area will require approval of the City's Fire Department to ensure that access
is not impeded to uses in the area. This would include construction of fencing.
D. The retention of easements for sewer service and power will ensure that the
vacation will not interfere with the public's health, safety or welfare.
.
E.
The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, specifically the following Comprehensive Plan policies
have been found to be most relevant to the proposal: Land Use Element Goa] B,
Policy B.1, Goal D, and D.2; Transportation Element Goal B; Utilities and Public
Services Element Goal B, Policy B.3, Goal D; and Capita] Facilities Element Goal
B.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
17
.
The residential development pattern in the vicinity will not be affected by the
vacation of right-of-way.
G. As conditioned, the street vacation is in the public interest.
F.
Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion which passed 5 - 1 with Commissioner Hewins
voting against the motion. Commissioner Hewins stated that his negative vote was because he
believes the City gives preferential treatment to the YMCA that might not be provided to other
non-profit agencies.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 02-06 - CREECH - 402 East Lauridsen
Boulevard: Request to allow a music school in the Commercial, Office CO zone.
Planning Director Brad Collins presented the staff report.
Vice Chair Hewins opened the public hearing.
There being no public testimony, Vice Chair Hewins closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Porter moved to approve CUP 02-06 with 3 conditions, citing 15 findings
and 5 conclusions.
Conditions:
.
Approval is for Paul and Sharon Creech to conduct a music academy at 402 East
Lauridsen Boulevard. Activities of the use shall be as proposed in the application
received by the City Department of Community Development on May 26, 2002.
Subordinate pianofinstrument/accessory sales will be pennitted in support of the
academy use. The applicant is aware that retail sales is not permitted to be the
main use ofthe site per the City's Commercial, Office zone.
2. The applicant shall provide a parking layout per the City's parking lot design
standards indicating the provision of at least 12 off-street parking spaces. Parking
spaces shall be striped and improved per City standard parking requirements.
1.
3. Specific interior floor plans shall be submitted to the City's Fire Department prior
to occupancy for approval by the Fire Department.
Findings:
Based on the information provided in the Planning Department Staff Report for CUP 02-
06 dated May 26,2002, including all information in the public record file, comments and
testimony presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion and
deliberation, and the above listed conditions of approval, the City of Port Ange]es
Planning Commission hereby finds that:
.
1.
The applicants Paul and Sharon Creech applied on May 26, 2002, for a
conditional use permit to conduct a music academy in the Commercial, Office
(CO) zone at 402 East Lauridsen Boulevard. The site is physically located at the
southeast comer of Lauridsen Bou]evard and Peabody Street.
Planning Commission Minutes
July J 0, 2002
18
.
.
.
Music academy activities are permitted by conditional use permit under Section
17.20.160(0) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code.
Section 17.96.050 ofthe Port Angeles Municipal Code allows that conditional use
permits may be permitted for specified uses at specified locations within the City
of Port Angeles under. The purpose of a conditional use pennits is as follows:
Purpose of a Conditional Use Permit: The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit
shall be to assure that the maximum degree of compatibility between uses shall be
attained. The purpose of these regulations shall be maintained with respect to the
particular use of the particular site and in consideration of other existing and
potential uses within the general area in which such use is to be located.
Conditional Use Permits are not transferrable to another location and may be
considered by the Planning Commission as follows:
The Planning Commission shall consider applications for Conditional Use
Permits of uses as specified in the applicable Chapter of the Zoning Regulations.
The Planning Commission may grant said permits which are consistent and
compatible with the purpose of the zone in which the use is located, consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, and not contrary to the public use and interest.
The Planning Commission may refuse to issue a Conditional Use Permit if the
characteristics af the intended use as related ta the specific proposed site are such
as would defeat the purpose of these Zoning Regulations by introducing
incompatible, detrimental, ar hazardous conditions.
In each application the Planning Cammission may impose whatever
restrictians or conditions they consider essential to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare, and to prevent depreciation of neighboring property.
4. The subject site is near the end of a limited node of Commercial Office (CO)
zoning in the area which exists from Chase Street to approximately 500 feet east
of Peabody Street along Lauridsen Boulevard. The commercial designation
includes the site and a commercial use (Boulevard Hair Design) east of Peabody
Street in this location. Properties north and south of the site are zoned RS-7,
Residential Single Family.
2.
3.
4.
5. Lauridsen Boulevard in this location is a 100 foot right-of-way that is developed
to a 70-foot width with curb, gutter, and pavement. Peabody Street abuts the
property on the west and is improved. Sidewalk is developed along Peabody
Street (west side). A Clallam Transit bus enclosure is located close to the
property west of the site.
Uses immediately surrounding the area that are not residential include Jefferson
School, located northwest of the subject property, the Port Angeles High School,
four blocks south of the site on Park Avenue, and the commercial Boulevard Hair
Design site, immediately east of the site. Residential uses are found south across
Orcas Street, north across Lauridsen Boulevard, and 13th Street.
6.
Planning Commission Minl/les
July 10.2002
19
.
.
.
The proposed music academy is to provide primarily piano lessons at the subject
location. The applicants conduct a similar activity from a site located in the
City's Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone on Eighth Street which will be
relocated. A subordinate retail area is planned for those students or members of
the public who wish to purchase pianos and various music accessories.
8. PAMe l4.40.050(N) requires 8 parking spaces per classroom for junior colleges.
The proposal indicates four areas where instruction and practice can take place
within the building. The applicant indicates that a maximum of 10 students would
visit the academy a day. Scheduled workshops would be composed of no more
than 10 students per workshop with possibly two teachers. During the school
term workshops would occur irregularly. One summer camp is planned where
workshops are planned daily for a week.
7.
The site contains an asphalted area where 10 to 12 off-street parking spaces could
be developed. Proposed parking sites are not striped. A gravel area is also
present at the rear of the structure which could be developed and provide an
addition 6 to 8 spaces on-site. The City's Parking Ordinance requires 8 spaces per
junior college classroom. Classroom/instruction areas equal a total of 623 square
feet which could be compared to the size of one junior college classroom.
Individual instruction/practice areas will be occupied by a piano and, given the
size of each room, will only allow for the instruction of one or two students at a
time. Office space, calculated at 1 :400, would require one parking space for a
total of 9 spaces for the proposed activity (8 for the classroom and 1 for the office
area.)
10. The applicant feels the location is prime for benefit to students and public due to
the site location between the Port Angeles High School and Jefferson Elementary
school, the location on a main traffic route, and being across the street from the
public library.
9.
11. Instruction will be on a regular basis Monday through Saturday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
with lessons scheduled by appointment at various times up until 8 p.m. Three to
five persons will be employed by the husband and wife owners for a total of five
to seven employees.
12. Reviewing City Departments had no objection to the use. Those comments were
taken into consideration in review of the proposed permit. The Public Works and
Utilities Department indicated that a detailed parking plan must be submitted and
approved prior to occupancy ofthe structure identifying parking that has been
improved to City standards. A minimum of 12 parking spaces will be required for
the proposed activity.
Notice of the intended use was posted in the Peninsula Dailv News on June 13,
2002, with notice sent to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the
location per Section 17.96.140 P AMC. No comments were received as a result of
that action.
13.
.
.
.
Plannillg Commission MillUles
July 10.2002
20
14. The City's State Environmental Policy Act Responsible Official issued a
Detennination of Non significance for the proposed land use activity on July 8,
2002. This satisfies the City's responsibility under SEP A.
Conclusions:
Based on the above findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby
concludes that:
1. The proposed music academy is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and Land Use Map, speci fically Growth Management Goal A and Policy I ( a);
Land Use Element Goal A and Policy 2; Goal D, Policy 1; Land Use Element
Commercial Goal D and Policy 1; Economic Development Element Goal A,
Policy 8; Goal B; and Goal B, Policy 2.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the Commercial, Office zone,
as it is compatible with adjacent residential, commercial, and public uses.
3. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the requirements for approval of a
conditional use permit as specified in PAMC 17.96.050.
4.
As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with Section 14.40 of the Port Angeles
Municipal (Parking).
As conditioned, the proposal is in the public interest.
5.
Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion which passed 5-0.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
ST AFF REPORTS
Director Collins passed out a definition of Quasi-public. Vice Chair Hewins pointed out that the
definition needed to be included into the Zoning Code. Director Collins stated that this would
not be the end of this issue
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Vice Chair Hewins indicated that he would most likely not be present at the next meeting.
Commissioner Philpott stated that he had asked Craig Ritchie who he represented and the answer
was Todd McClaskey and asked ifthe other commission members knew who Mr. McClaskey
was. There was no response so Commissioner Philpott asked Director Collins to inform the
Commission members. Director Collins indicated that Mr. McC]askey was the owner of the Best
Western Lodge. Commissioner Philpott asked Director Collins ifMr. McClaskey had previously
had an interest in the site of the proposed hotel and conference center that had been considered
earlier in the meeting. Director Collins stated that Mr. McC]askey's father had been the original
Planning Commission Minlllcs
Jllly 10. 2002
Page 21
. applicant of a similar project at that site.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11 :40 P.M.
Brad Collins, Secretary
CJVltlcl5f~1~
t/illrramm, Chill,
Frq;{ ~txCla:r
PREPARED BY: S. Johns
.
.
· FORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN..UP SHEET
N
. -
Meeting Agenda of: J UL-j 1 b)~
PLEASE NOTE: IE 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.
Si nature below DOES NOT REQUIRE ou to testi - it on acknowled es OU1 resence.
Agenda Item No.
It') -02-0)...
~P/
5'kd o~-o
~ t? Z -6
$tI"'.4- 0 2 -0 (,
2 -c)
..p'( 4 -11~ -vc
CY,4 - 0"--0
.1.
(j1/i 02 -o?
S/h4 6 2- -O~ ..... e,
90-"1. oz.C&,j;;-CIJ
h'-
· ~ORTANGELES
f.
WAS H I N G TON. U. S. A.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION AITENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET
N
~ ID,,2-007-
Meeting Agenda of: ~ _
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.
NAME: ADDN'H:'~"". Agenda Item No.
J.SjJ} ~k.rQ~ ..s l..{ N. fVlI~1V J vv . fA- .1.sJ~t1 tJ-2-O(
I