Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/22/2001 o ..'.~...... ..~ ~. I. . l' f /' 11 ~ORTANGELES .. WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street August 22,2001 CALL TO ORDER 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting ofJuly 25, 2001. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: -. 1. .", " 2. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 01-05 - RAYONIER. 700 North Ennis Street: An application for a shoreline substantial development permit to ,allow the repair of support and fender pilings associated with an existing pier located in the Industrial Heavy zone. STREET ,. VACATION PETITION STY 01;;;03 PENINSULA BOTTLING/FIDLER. Portion of the 3/4 alley east of Valley Street: Request for vacation of Lots 7 - 14, Block 72, TPA 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 01-05 - RAYMOND. 719 East Third Street: Request for a conditional use permit to allow an accessory residential use in the RS-7, Residential Single Family zone. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII. ADJOURNMENT . PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Linda Nutter (Chair), Chuck Schramm (Vice), Fred Hcwins, Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Mary Craver, Rick Portcr PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Debra Barnes, Associate Planner; Sue Robcrds, Planning Specialist. . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 August 22, 2001 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Fred Norton, Fred Hewins, Chuck Schramm, Bob Philpott, Mary Craver Excused: Linda Nutter Absent: Rick Porter Staff Present: Debra Barnes, Brad Collins, Stephanie Woolett Public Present: Larry Fredricksen, Larry Leonard, Bill Dawson, Joe Michalczik, Don Beyer, Rich Davis, Don Schwendiman, Robbie Mantooth, Jim Mantooth, Art O'Connell, Jack Anderson, David Hanna, Gary Gleason, Jeff Hinds, Darlene Schanfald, Jon Raymond APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Commissioner Norton moved to approve the July 25, 2001, meeting minutes as corrected by Commissioner Philpott. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Philpott and passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING Shoreline Substantial Development Permit - SMA 01-05 - Rayonier, 700 North Ennis Street: An application for a shoreline substantial development permit to allow the repair of support and fender pilings associated with an existing pier located in the Industrial Heavy zone. Planner Barnes presented the staff report. Staff recommends that condition #6 be changed to read "Compliance with the revised Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (#960) dated August 20, 2001 is required." Additionally that Conclusion #8 be removed and replaced with language that reads, "A final report shall be provided to the City showing the number and location of piling repairs and/or replacements completed under this permit." Finding #14 should be changed to read, " A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued by the City of Port Angeles SEP A Responsible Official for the proposal on August 8, 2001 (#960) and revised on August 20, 2001. Conclusion B to be modified to reference Finding #11 instead of Finding #9. . Several questions were raised by the Commission including the SEP A review process as it pertains to the appeal and public comment period and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requirements of projects qualifying as "exempt" versus Shoreline Master Program (SMP) policies that require the applicant to proceed with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process. Additionally, the Commission requested clarification from staff regarding the role of the Department of Ecology (DOE), Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies in the review process regardless of the project status and . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2001 Page 2 whether or not the applicant agreed to forgo an exempt status in favor of proceeding with the application process for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, all of which were clarified by staff. Being no further questions of staff, the Public Hearing was opened. Jack Anderson, Rayonier Site Manager and Senior Project Engineer spoke to the purpose of the project and the rationality behind proceeding with the shoreline substantial development permit process versus proceeding with the project as "exempt" under the SMA. Subsequent to presenting this information, the applicant answered questions of the commission that addressed past experience that the applicant has in performing maintenance operations similar to the proposed project and whether driven fender pilings are more or less effective than an alternative method, such as floating log booms. Darlene Schanfald, 1110 Grant Street, representative for the Olympic Environmental Council (GEe) spoke against the proposed maintenance project. OEC is in disagreement with DOE that the proposed project is appropriate in light of the Model Ioxics Control Act (MICA) clean-up. Other issues addressed by Ms. Schanfald include the relevance of the 1995 piling report, presence of contaminated sediments under the pier, impacts to habitat utilized by enlisted species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), construction time line conflicts with City regulations, impacts of ACZA pilings versus plastic or steel pilings, definitions of solid waste versus hazardous waste, disposal of potentially hazardous waste as solid waste in the community, determination by DOE that sediments under the Rayonier Pier will be treated as solid waste, pertinent Comprehensive Plan policies and goals that are conflict with the proposed project, definition clarification between "maintenance" and "re-design," potential changes in the nature of the project from maintenance to re-design, authority that the Planning Conunission has to draft language to protect the public and tell the DOE to take more careful steps in this process, incompleteness of information present before the Commission and the public, and the lack of language in the conditions of the staff report that would allow the public the right to review and conunent on Rayonier's data in the event this Substantial Development Permit is approved by the Commission. Following her conunents, Ms. Schanfald addressed questions ofthe commission, including whether or not she views this project as a reconstruction of the structure or as maintenance of the structure, clarification of her position as the Coordinator for the Citizens State-wide Coalition, how many members are represented by the Citizens State-wide Coalition, and whether or not she possesses information that the DOE has determined that the sediments under the Rayonier Pier are solid waste. Conunissioner Hewins addressed the issue of maintenance versus reconstruction within the framework of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process, as well as time allowed to conduct maintenance operations under City regulations versus time allowed for construction, the issue of solid waste and hazardous waste disposal and the role of the City and the DOE in the disposal process. Conunissioner Hewins also requested that Ms. Schanfald suggest language that would be acceptable to her and where that language should be inserted. Conunissioners Hewins and Craver both expressed that technical decisions should be deferred to the agencies with technical expertise. In this case that agency would be the DOE. Larry Leonard, 1030 Olympus, a citizen following the status of the project spoke to the support the staffreconunendation to defer technical decisions to agencies with technical expertise, such as DOE. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 200] Page 3 Robbie Mantooth, 2238 E. Lindberg Rd., spoke against the proposed project at this time due to the negative impacts toxic sediments have on water quality and marine life. She expressed concern that maintenance operations will disturb the sediments and facilitate the entrance ofthe toxins into the food chain. Director Collins asked permission of the Commission to comment on the public testimony. In doing so, Mr. Collins addressed the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance that is conditioned so that maintenance activities would not disturb sediments, the acceptance of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) ACZA treated wood-pilings, the issue regarding re.designing the pier, whether the project should be viewed as a MTCA issue, and that this is a maintenance project and not re- construction. Commissioner Hewins raised a question regarding the WDFW hydraulic permit possibly changing the nature of the pier, and whether or not any changes in the nature of the pier would require the applicant to fe-apply for another Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Director Collins responded to the question and reported that, accordin~<<roFW, any design changes to the pier would be to improve nearshore habitat and would likely result in the removal of portions ofthe Rayonier Pier. This doesn't mean that any changes wouldn't come back under a new shoreline permit to the Commission, but it means that it might not come back to the Commission if it is part of the mitigation of the proposed project. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 8: 13 p.m. The Commission briefly discussed the proposal. Commissioner Norton stated that Commissioner Hewins was correct in stating that this is a maintenance issue and that it seems that DOE has covered the issue thoroughly. Commissioner Norton went on to say that maintenance of the pier seems to be a necessary action. Commissioner Craver commented that deterioration of pier as a result of no action would be more destructive than the actions taken to maintain the pier. Additionally, the large number of departments involved will ensure that the project would be completed with minimal impacts to the environment. Commissioner Hewins moved to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SMA 01-05 citing the following 8 conditions with the revised condition #6 and the change to condition #8, 16 findings with the revised findings #14 and #8, and the 6 conclusions with the revision to conclusion B as suggested by staff. Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion which passed 5-0. Conditions of Approval Approval of SMA 01-05 shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The approval is for the proposal described in the application materials known as Exhibit A to the Staff Report, as amended by the applicant or by any conditions of approval set forth herein. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2001 Page 4 2. The project shall comply with the regulations of the City's Shoreline Master Program specifically those of Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7. 3. Removal of the pilings and surrounding sediments and subsequent disposal shall be made in compliance with applicable state and federal laws and shall be approved by Department of Ecology. Temporary storage of said materials shall be approved by Department of Ecology. Disposal of said materials shall be made in compliance with applicable state and federal laws at a solid waste disposal site approved to accept such materials. This shall include completion of the appropriate testing required prior to disposal in accordance with the Department of Ecology. 4. If the subject site has not be previously inventoried, evaluated, and reviewed to the satisfaction of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the subject site shall be evaluated by a cultural review team which shall include a professional archaeologist, a representative of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the site owner, and the City Planning Department. This team shall determine the extent of excavation monitoring for the project during the permit review process. As an alternative, the applicant may volunteer to have an approved archaeologist on site during any excavation in lieu of a review by the aforementioned cultural team. If during an excavation that by decision of the cultural review team occurs without an approved archaeologist on-site, any phenomena of possible archaeological interest are uncovered, the developer shall stop such work and provide for a site inspection and evaluation by a professional archaeologist to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data is properly salvaged. 5. Approval of SMA 01-05 does not supercede other permit approvals and associated conditions for the mill demolition, environmental assessments or remediation. 6. Compliance with the revised Mitigated Determination of Non significance (#960) dated August 20, 2001 is required. 7. Only the minimum number of pilings necessary shall be replaced and derelict and/or unnecessary pilings shall be removed throughout the pier. 8. A final report shall be provided to the City showing the number and location of piling repairs or replacements completed under this pennit. Findings Based on the information provided in the staff report dated August 22,2001 for SMA 01-05 (including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and subject to the above listed conditions of approval, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that: 1. The applicant requests under shoreline substantial development permit SMA 01- 05 to maintain the structural integrity of an existing pier by repairing and/or replacing up to 800 support pilings (under dock) and 300 fender pilings (around perimeter) which are deteriorated or damaged. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2001 Page 5 . . . 2. The application that states an estimated 800 of the 4000 support pilings will be repaired and/or replaced. This activity is routine maintenance and does not involve expansion of the dock site. The work will take place over a 4-year period and is estimated to cost $500,000. The deterioration is caused by natural weathering of materials, storm debris, and marine borers. The new support pilings will be ACZA (ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate) treated wood pilings with galvanized steel hardware and will replace creosote-treated pilings. 3. The proposal is for the repair and maintenance of an existing pier structure which was first constructed in the 1930s and is approximately 1020 feet long by 220 feet wide. The applicant applied for an exemption to the shoreline substantial development permit in May, 2001 for this repair work. Due to the number of pilings, the repair was not deemed to be minor, and that it could not be concluded that substantial adverse effects onto shoreline resources would not result. 4. Because the pier is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure and use that has not been utilized as it was when the mill was operational, review of whether or not the nonconforming use requirements of the Shoreline Management Act would apply to the current permit was also made. If a new, similar structure was proposed at this time, it most likely would not be approved as currently designed (e.g. size, number of pilings, type of materials). As previously noted, nonconforming structures that do not comply with current bulk and dimensional standards can be continued and maintained in accordance with WAC 173-27- 080. Subsection (3) states that they cannot be enlarged or expanded. Subsection (8) states that if a nonconforming development is damaged to an extent not exceeding 75% may be reconstructed to those configurations existing immediately prior to the time that the damage occurred provided that the permit applications are submitted within 6-months and the work completed within 2 years. It was concluded that the pier is a nonconforming development but that the use has intermittently continued although to a lesser degree. Therefore, a conditional use permit was not required for the proposal. It was also determined that although the permit request for the repair work was not submitted within 6- months from the date of the damage and that continuous weathering and damage has occurred since the 1995 structural report, that all of the design requirements for a new pier as set forth by the SMP did not apply to an existing structure. 5. In accordance with RCW 90.58, Shoreline Management Act, and WAC 173-27, Shoreline Management-Permits and Enforcement, development on shorelines of the state requires compliance with the Act and local shoreline master program. Conditions may be placed upon such development that assures that compliance is made. Ideally, the structural integrity of the pier could be re-stabilized to allow for continued, long term use using environmentally-sound materials and design while also meeting the needs of unknown future users of the pier and overall, would be for the best public interest. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2001 Page 6 . . . 6. The subject site is currently undergoing demolition of the mill under previous shoreline permit approvals, including SMA 97-02, SMA 99-01, and SMA 00-13 and their associated review and determinations related to the State Environmental Policy Act. 7. The former Rayonier mill site is located at 700 N. Ennis Street in a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 11, Township 30 North, Range 6 West Willamette Meridian. The site is approximately 80 acres in size and is generally flat. The site consists of semi-natural beach, deltaic materials (from Ennis Creek delta), and extensive fill and piling placement, including the former Ennis Creek Estuary. It includes approximately 2400 feet of saltwater shoreline generally bisected by Ennis Creek and a large dock. The shoreline at the OHWM is heavily riprapped west of the Ennis Creek outfall. A gentle sloping beach with logs and beach grass exists east of the creek along the SSL lagoon continuing southeasterly towards the bluff, where a riprapped shoreline begins again. The site is bordered by 70-100 foot bluffs and ravine walls to the south and residential uses. 8. At the base of the bluff on either side ofthe subject property, is the Olympic Discovery Waterfront Trail which is proposed to connect through the Rayollier site at some future date. In 1997, Rayonier granted to the City of Port Angeles their interest to the former railroad right-of-way. In addition, Rayonier has granted an easement for the trail which is 20-feet wide and at an unknown location. As agreed between the City of Port Angeles and Rayonier, a permanent trail will cross the site to connect segments of the Olympic Discovery Trail. The location for the trail will be determined after the assessment is complete and is subject to several conditions including agreement by the future owner of the site. The recorded easement also specifies that a temporary easement for a temporary trail may be granted at the City's request upon a determination that the trail would not be impacted by remediation efforts. Upon conclusion of the proposed location and prior to any construction, a shoreline substantial development permit would be required for the temporary trail. 9. In 1997 a shoreline substantial development permit was issued for demolition of the mill structure (SMA97-02). This permit approval was conditioned to require a complete environmental assessment and subsequent shoreline permit approval for the remediation or clean up of the site after the demolition work, as detennined necessary. The associated State Environmental Policy Act Mitigated Determinations of Non significance on the above pennits are #730,825, and 829 included conditions of environmental site and voluntary remediation, inspections, demolition and hazardous waste management plans, monitoring, best management practices to meet water quality standards, and appropriate oversight, inspections and notification to applicable agencies. 10. Previous shoreline permits granted for related demolition and pier maintenance ofthe Rayonier Mill site were: SMA 97-02 for mill demolition, SMA 99-01 for sunken log removal and shoreline stabilization, and SMA 00-13 for the SSL . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 200 I Page 7 lagoon demolition and regrading. In 1988, a shoreline exemption was granted by the City of Port Angeles for the replacement of 600 of 4800 pilings utilizing treated wood pilings, and included replacing pile caps and joists. According to the applicant, this work was most likely completed over a three year period and that some of the pilings were repaired and not replaced. 11. The site is designated Urban-Harbor and Aquatic Harbor in the City's Shoreline Master Program. The proposal has been reviewed for consistency with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program and is considered to be a permitted use under Chapter 4. The relevant policies that pertain to the proposal include: Chapter 4, Policies B-1, D-l, E-l and 2, F 5-6, H-I-2, J 1, K-l-4, and N-1 and 2, Chapter 5, Policies D 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 10, and F2- 5 and 8, Use Tables, Chapter 6 Policy E- 1-2, Chapter 7 Policies General I, 2 and 5, and K 1,3-5.7-9, and all associated regulations. 12. The site is designated Industrial in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Industrial, Heavy in the City's Zoning Ordinance under PAMC 17.34. Relevant goals and policies include Land Use Element A2, G and H, Conservation Element AI, B, B1, B6, B9, BID, Dl, D3, D4, and D8, and Economic Element Goal B. 13. The subject site is identified as a locally unique beach and coastal drift process area and is therefore subject to the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Ordinance, Chapter 15.20 PAMe and its regulations. 14. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued by the City of Port Angeles SEPA Responsible Official for the proposal on August 8, 2001 (#960) and revised on August 20, 200 I. 15. The application and hearing process was advertised in accordance with the legal requirements ofthe City of Port Angeles and the State of Washington. 16. Written comments from agencies and public were received and reviewed as a part ofthe permit process for SMA 01-05. COil clusioll S Based on the information provided in the staff report dated August 22, 2001 for SMA 01-05 including all of its attachments, comments and information presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, the above listed findings, and subject to the above listed conditions of approval, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes that: A. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Goals and Policies: Land Use Element A-2 and G and H, Conservation Element PAl, B, BI, 86, 89, . . . Planning Commission Minutes Augusl22, 200] Page 8 BIO, D1, D3, D4 and D8, and Economic Goal B, and also the City's Zoning Code Industrial, Heavy zone under PAMC 17.34. B. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, specifically those goals, policies and regulations listed in Finding #11 above. c. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the shoreline. D. As proposed, the project will not interfere with public access to the shoreline. E. The structural integrity of the pier could be re-stabilized to allow for continued, long term use using environmentally-sound materials and design while also meeting the needs of unknown future users of the pier and overall, would be for the best public interest. As conditioned, the proposed project will not interfere with public use of lands or waters subject to the public trust doctrine. Commissioner Schramm called for a recess at 8: 15 p.m. The Public Hearing reconvened at 8:23 PM. F. Street Vacation Petition - STV 01-03 - Peninsula Bottling/Fidler. Portion of the 3/4 alley east of Valley Street: Request for vacation of Lots 7-14, Block 72, TPA. The staff report was presented by Director Brad Collins. Suggested corrections to the staffreport include rewording and removal of sentence #2 of Finding #4 that would be added as condition #3 to read, "A Zoning Lot Covenant shall be required to combine the 8 lots into one large building site." A few questions were raised by the Commission including, whether there are requirements for the removal of a condemned building on one of the sites, if the property is being purchased from Bonnie Fiddler, and what would occur if the street vacation is approved but Peninsula Bottling decides not to purchase the property. Staff responded that the Zoning Lot Covenant conditions and the Street Vacation conditions are co- dependent. Being no further questions of staff, Vice ChaiT Schramm opened the Public Hearing. Jeff Hinds, Owner and General Manager of Peninsula Bottling Company, answered one questions of the Commission regarding potential problems with the purchase of the property by Peninsula Bottling and if the there are plans to cross the alley with a building. Director Collins, reported that the applicant and the Valley Creek Restoration group are working together. . . . Planning Commission Minutes AugusI22,2001 Page 9 There being no further public testimony, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 PM. Commissioner Philpott stated that it is nice to see businesses growing and seeking to expand rather than leaving the community. Commissioner Philpott moved to approve STP 01-03 citing 3 conditions with condition #3 as stated by staff, 14 findings with the change to finding #4, and 5 conclusions, as presented below. Commissioner Craver seconded the motion which passed 5-0. Conditions: 1. A 10- foot easement over an existing 6" sanitary sewer line centered in the 3/4 alley right-of-way shall be retained for utility purposes. 2. The property owner(s) of the right-of-way shall be responsible for all costs incurred to convert the primary overhead utility line underground in the required 10-foot easement retained, and to provide 24-hour access to the utility line and related equipment. 3. A Zoning Lot Covenant shall be required to combine the 8 lots into one large building site. Findings: 1. A petition for vacation of a portion of the 3/4 alley right-of-way abutting Lots 7 - 14, Block 72, TPA, was submitted by abutting property owners Peninsula Bottling Company and Bonnie Fidler on July 3, 2001. 2. Properties to the west and north are designated as Industrial (1) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and are zoned Industrial Light (IL). Uses include the Port Angeles City Light Operations yard, a welding shop, a meat packaging plant, and the Port of Port Angeles operations warehouse. Properties located east of the site are designated as Open Space (OS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, are developed as residential, and are zoned PBP, Public Buildings and Parks. Property south of the site is designated as Industrial (I) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Industrial Light (IL). Land uses to the south are older nonconforming residential uses and a conforming warehouse use. 3. The subject alley only provides logical access to Lots 7 - 14, Block 72, TPA. 4. Owners of the Peninsula Bottling Company have entered into a purchase agreement with Mrs. Fidler to purchase the Fidler property (Lots 11 - 14, Block 72, TP A) in order to create a larger building site to improve the loading/unloading capability of the bottling plant. Access to the site would remain as previously established. . . . Planning Commission M ioules August 22, 2001 Page 10 5. If combination ofthe lots by Zoning Lot Covenant is not intended, access to the rear of Lots 11 - 14, Block 72, TP A will be required for fire access. 6. A sewer utility service is located in the right-of-way. Ifvacation is approved, an easement for access to that service will need to be retained or the service relocated. Additionally, an overhead power service will need to be relocated at the applicant's expense in an easement. 7. The City's Fire and Police Departments had no comment or concerns regarding the proposed street vacation. 8. Valley Street is classified as a local streets on the City's Circulation Plan Map. 9. The vacating of a street is categorically exempt from a SEPA threshold determination per Section 197-11-800 (2) (h) of the Washington Administrative Code. 10. The proposed street vacation was reviewed for consistency with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan. The following goals and policies were found to be the most relevant: Land use Map Goal, Policies, and Objective Goal A, and Policies 1 and 2; Industrial Goal H, Transportation Goal H, and Policy 14; Utilities and Public Services Goal B, and Policy 4. 11. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-01 on August 7, 2001, which was legally advertised in the Peninsula Daily News on August 12, 2001. The site was posted on August 10,2001. No comments have been received. 12. The subject site (Lots 7 - 14, Block 72, TPA) is accessed from Valley Street. The remainder of properties in Block 72 (Lots 1 - 6 and 15 - 18) are accessed from Cherry Street at the top of the Valley Creek Ravine. Those properties have no logical access from Valley Street due to the sharp rise in topography directly east of the subject site as can be seen by the attached topography map. 13. The Port Angeles Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the petition on August 22, 2001, which was duly advertised on August 10,2001. The Planning Commission's action constitutes a recommendation to the City Council. 14. The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for consideration ofthe petition at its September 4, 2001, regular meeting. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2001 Page 11 Conclusions: A. Current traffic circulation in the area will not be affected by this vacation as the Valley Creek ravine wall prevents logical use of the subject alley by other than those activities occurring on Lots 7 - 14, Block 72, TP A. Future development in the area will continue to use Valley Street as access. B. Vacation ofthe subject right-of-way will not interfere with the public's health, safety, or welfare. C. Development patterns in the area will not change as a result of the proposed street vacation. D. The proposed street vacation is consistent with the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan. E. Because the alley is not needed for use as a public right-of-way, vacation of the property is in the public's interest and will allow logical development of the subject property. Conditional Use Permit - CUP 01-05 - Raymond. 719 East Third Street: Request for a conditional use permit to allow an accessory residential use in the RS-7, Residential Single Family zone. Planner Barnes presented the staff report and suggested the following corrections: 1) That Finding #6 will be changed to read, "A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this proposal on August 16, 2001." 2) Finding #9 will be changed to read, "The City's Parking Ordinance requires parking spaces to be a minimum of 8.5 feet by 18 feet in size and that two off-street parking spaces be provided for each uni t of a single, two, or three family structure under PAM C 14.40.060. Being no questions of staff, Commissioner Schramm opened the Public Hearing for public testimony. John Raymond, 2036 West 16th Street, spoke to Commissioner Craver's question regarding whether or not the applicant intends to reside on the subject property in the future. The applicant indicated that he will reside at the subject property in the future. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Philpott commented that the applicant assembled a thorough and legible application packet. Commissioner Norton moved to approve CUP OJ-OS citing 2 conditions, 10 findings with changes to Findings #6 and #9 as presented by staff, and 7 conclusions, as presented below. Commissioner Philpott seconded the motion which passed 5-0. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2001 Page 12 Conditions: Findings: 1. The proposal shall meet the definition of an accessory dwelling unit set forth by PAMC 17.08.010(B). 2. Two (2) parking spaces shall be provided for the accessory residential unit. This is in addition to the two spaces required for the existing residence. Based on the infonnation provided in the Planning Department Staff Report for CUP 01-05 dated August 22, 2001, 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 condition of approval, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that: 1. The applicant, Jon Raymond, submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to the City on July 17,2001. The application is attached as Exhibit # I. 2. The application for a conditional use permit proposes to remodel a portion of a detached garage to an accessory residential unit on a RS-7, Residential Single Family zoned property. The existing residential unit contains approximately 1,116 square feet in total floor area. The existing garage is 624 square feet in area. The portion remodeled would result in an accessory dwelling unit 364 square feet in size, which is less than 50% of the size of the main residence. 3. Section 17.08.010B of the Port Angeles Municipal Code defines an accessory residential unit as a dwelling unit which: A) is incidental to a detached single family residence, B) is subordinate in space (i.e., fifty percent or less space than the single family residential use), C) is located on the same zoning lot as the single family residence, and D) is served by separate water and electrical services, in addition to a separate address." 4. Section 17.08.025(J) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code defines a dwelling unit as "one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living quarters for one family only. Individual bathrooms are not necessarily provided, but complete single kitchen facilities, permanently installed, shaH always be included for each dwelling unit." 5. Section 310.7.1 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code states that an Efficiency Dwelling Unit "...shall have a living room of not less than 220 square feet of superficial floor area. An additional 100 square feet of . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2001 Page ] 3 superficial floor area shall be provided for each occupant of such unit in excess of two." 6. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this proposal on August 16, 2001. 7. The site is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential. 8. Existing land uses adjacent to the subject site are single family residences, semi-public uses (Veteran's Center) and public uses (YMCA, city parks). Possibly, two other accessory dwelling units exist within the vicinity of the proposal. 9. The City's Parking Ordinance requires parking spaces to be a minimum of 8.5 feet by 18 feet in size and that two off-street parking spaces be provided for each unit of a single, two, or three family structure under PAMC 14.40.060. 10. The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element Policies A2 and Cl, Housing Element Policies A6 and B6 are directly relevant to the proposed project. Conclusions: Based on the information provided in the Department Staff Report for CUP 01- 05 dated August 22, 200 I, 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: A. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan's Low Density Residential Land Use Designation, the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element Policies A2 and C1, Housing Element Policies A6 and B6. B. The Comprehensive Plan allows for subordinate and compatible uses with different land use districts, including residential. It also specifies that accessory dwelling units should be allowed in certain zones by conditional use approval in order to provide adequate, affordable housing. C. The proposed use, an accessory dwelling unit, is consistent with the purpose ofRS7 zone, as it is compatible with adjacent residential uses. If the proposed use complies with certain definitions, and the design and performance standards set forth by the Zoning Code, than it can be deemed consistent with the Zoning Code. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2001 Pagel 4 D. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the definition of accessory dwelling unit under P AMC 17.08.11 O(B), the purpose of the RS7 zone, as well as design and performance standards, as specified in 17.10 PAMe. E. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the requirements for approval of a conditional use permit as specified in P AMC 17.96.050. F. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the Parking Ordinance, P AMC 14.40. G. As conditioned, the proposed project is in the public use and interest. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no communications from the public at this time. ST AFF REPORTS Director Collins reported that the Lund rezone was approved by the City Council on August 21, 2001. He noted tonight's meeting would be Debi Barnes' 1astand expressed his appreciation for the job she has done over the past year. Associate Planner Debi Barnes reported that staff has been unable to locate broken off pilings reported by Commissioner Schramm, with the exception of one east of the Francis right-of-way. The one observed appears to be west of the Rayonier property line. She added that the Washington DNR was also checking into this matter. Vice Chair Schramm asked about the former Rayonier log boom and piers along Ediz Hook and what resolution is under way to address these hazards. Director Collins indicated that staff will expand the investigation. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Philpott reported that the re-paving of 8th Street is not adequate. Director Collins noted that Public Works has investigated and indicated that the contractor will be fixing the problem. Commissioner Hewins reported that 8th Street is a safety issue because no center line has been established to date. During rain events and during the evening, it is difficult to determine where the centerline is. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Schramm adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. ~tl&~ {jh~~ Brad Collins, Secretary Charles Schramm, Vice-Chair -- PREPARED BY: S. Woolctt . · FORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON. U. S. A. PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET PLBI!SE S lffi.J _I N fktvtJ1J/]JJJP1IJS1Ui- Meeting Agenda of: /?'/z4o / PLEASE NOTE: IF you plan to testify, by signature below, you cenify 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 testify - it onl acknowled es OUT resence. . NAME: ADDRESS: Agenda Item No. 1 .