Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/11/1991 . . . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 September 11, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of August 28, 1991 IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA 91(09)122 - DAISHOWA AMERICA CO.. LTD.. Marine Drive: Request for a permit to allow the expansion of a recycled paper facility I located in the M-2. Heavy Industrial District. 2. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 91(09)5 - OC DISTRICT. City-wide: Request to allow an increase in signage in the OC, Office Commercial District. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 91(09)16 - PORT ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT. 304 East Park Avenue: Request to allow the construction of tennis courts and associated parking in the RS-7, Residential Single-Family District. VI. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM mE PUBLIC VIT. STAFF REPORTS All correspondence pertaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Planning Commission: Ray Gruver, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice-Chair; Iim Hulett; Roger CallS; Larry Leonard; Bob Philpott; Bill Anabel. Planning Staff: Brnd Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Plannill8 Office Specialist; Iohn Jimerson, Associate Planner; David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . VllI. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS IX. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be allowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Planning Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington September II, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gruver called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Larry Leonard, Roger Catts, Jim Hulett, Ray Gruver, Bob Philpott, Cindy Souders, Bill Anabel. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Sue Roberds, John Jimerson, Bruce Becker. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Anabel moved to approve the minutes of the August 28, 1991, meeting of the Planning Commission as written. Mr. Leonard seconded the motion, which passed 5 - 0, with Messrs. Hulett and Philpott abstaining. IV PUBLIC HEARINGS SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA-91(09)122 - DAISHOWA AMERICA CO., LTD., Marine Drive: Request for a permit to allow the expansion of a recycled paper facility, located in the M-2. Heavy Industrial District. Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report and noted a correction, in that the proposed old telephone directory ware- house height should be 58 feet, rather than the stated 50 feet. He also noted that the heights referenced in the Department Report are elevations above sea level and that the base of the structures are at about 13 feet above sea level. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing. Wally Malkinson, Pacific Liaicon, 666 Barrard street, Vancouver, BC, was present, representing Daishowa America. Mr. Malkinson indicated there is no objection to the proposed conditions as listed in the Department Report. In regard to the Memorandum of Agreement between Daishowa America, city of Port Angeles, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and the Point-No- Point Treaty Council (dated December 7, 1990), Mr. Malkinson stated the Agreement is being complied with to the letter. The recycled paper machine project is 45% to 50% complete to date, with approximately 130 people working on-site on the project. In response to a question from Commissioner Hulett as to the need for the changes proposed, Mr. Malkinson answered the PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1991 Page 2 . amendments are necessary due to changes in the manufacturing process. Mr. Jimerson noted that Fire Marshal Bruce Becker indicated a preference to an additional condition for approval of the Shoreline permit, allowing the Fire Department to review and approve the building plans prior to any construction. Fire Marshal Becker concurred with Mr. Jimerson's statement. Mr. Malkinson stated there would be no obj ection to the proposed added condition. There being no further public comment, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing. commissioner Leonard moved to recommend approval of the Shore- line Management Permit as proposed, subject to the following conditions, and citing the fOllowing findings and conclusions: CONDITIONS: A. Any development wi thin the FEMA designated 100-year flood plain shall comply with all requirements of the Port Angeles Flood Damage Prevention Code, Chapter 15. 12 PAMC. . B. Prior to operation of the recycling facility, the appli- cant shall construct the Port Angeles Waterfront Trail on property under Daishowa's control. Plans for the Trail shall be based on the Port Angeles Waterfront Trail Plan and shall be approved by the Port Angeles Parks and Public Works Departments prior to construction. Alter- nate locations for the Trail may be approved by the Port Angeles Parks and Public Works Departments. The City may grant permission to operate the facility provided that a letter of agreement or an improvement bond acceptable as to form and amount by the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney is posted in the amount of the estimated value of the construction of the Waterfront Trail. If a bond is not provided, the appli- cant shall enter into a written agreement to construct the Trail. Daishowa shall construct the Trail no later than two (2) years from the date of operation of the recycling facility. The City of Port Angeles will assume liability for the Trail after construction and shall obtain all required permits for the construction. C. Full compliance is required as stated in of ~reement ~between Daishowa America, Angeles, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and Treaty Council (dated December 7, 1990). the Memorandum City of Port point-No-point . D. Prior to construction, plans shall be submitted for approval to the Building and Fire Departments. PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1991 Page 3 . FINDINGS: 1. The recycling facility is located at the site of Daishowa America's existing directory paper mill and would not extend a heavy industrial use into an area not currently used for such activity. 2. As Daishowa constructs the Port Angeles Waterfront Trail through the Mill, the proposal provides pedestrian visual and physical access to the shoreline in an industrial area. 3. Any construction within the FEMA-designated lOa-year flood plain will be required to meet the standards for development within such areas, as found in the Port Angeles Flood Damage Prevention Code, Chapter 15. 12 PAMC. 4. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code identify the property as industrial, while the site is designated as Urban by the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program. CONCLUSIONS: . A. The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Compre- hensive Plan and Zoning Code. B. The proposal, as conditioned is consistent with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, the Shoreline Manage- ment Act, the Waterfront Trail Plan, and the Flood Damage Prevention Code. C. The proposal, as conditioned, is in the public use and interest. .4nc.....b<:,.1 Mr. ~~~o~~-seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA-9l(09)S - OC DISTRICT, City- wide: Request to allow an increase in signage in the OC, Office Commercial District. Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report and answered questions from Commissioners regarding the proposal and consequences of the amendment to surrounding residentially- zoned property, as typically the OC Districts are found nearer residential districts than more intensive commercial district would be located. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing. . Rob Linkletter, 1324 East First Street, representing the applicant, explained the impetus for the request. Mr. Link- letter displayed an overhead depicting the current maximum signage allowed for a structure on property containing 14,000 square feet, and the sign area which would be encompassed for the proposed amendment to 100 square feet on a building of the same size. He suggested that only 50 square feet of a sign be PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1991 Page 4 . illuminated. Due to the size of some commercial properties, there is a need for more signage than the 50 square feet presently allowed. Some commercial properties encompass more than one zoning lot; therefore, a single commercial unit encompassing more than one lot would have less impact than several individual commercial buildings with the accumulated signage. There being no further comment, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed at length potential problems which could arise if too much signage is allowed in areas which are typically found close to and abutting residentially zoned properties. It was generally felt that the size of the sign does not necessarily draw customers; that a well-run business often requires only minimal signage. The commission noted that well-designed, tastefully done signs often accomplish the intent of the business better than larger, not as well thought-out displays. Further, it was noted that most businesses which are allowed in an OC, Office Commercial District, are made up of professionals who strive to identify their facilities in a more professional manner. . Chairman Gruver suggested that a graduated formula could be used allowing for an increase in signage, rather than the maximum standard as it now exists. Following further discussion on sign sizes, district require- ments, and uses within the Office Commercial district as opposed to other commercial districts, Commissioner Leonard moved to recommend approval of the Code Amendment as follows, citing the following findings and conclusions: 17.20.220 SIGNS. Signs shall not exceed 50 square feet. unless the site area is 14.000 square feet or greater. then the total allowable sian area may be increased to 100 sauare feet. No more than 50 square feet of sianaae may be placed within 50 feet of adjacent residentiallY zoned property. No more than 50 square feet of siqnage may face residen- tiallv zoned property located directlY across a street. Signs may be lighted, but shall not be the intermittent or flashing type. All freestanding signs shall not exceed five feet in height. All other signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height. FINDINGS: 1. The OC Zone district allows 50 square feet of signage per development, regardless of the size of development. . 2. The proposed request is to allow additional signage for developments consisting of two or more lots. PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1991 Page 5 . 3. A stated intent of the OC Zone district is to allow for commercial development that is not detrimental to residential zones (Section 17.20.010). 4. Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Policy No.3 states: All non-residential signing and development should be unified and compatible and should enhance the natural beauty of the community. CONCLUSIONS: A. The Zoning Code Amendment is in the public use and interest. B. The amendment is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. C. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the OC Zoning districts. Restrictions have been included in the amendment designed to minimize impact on residential areas. . Ms. Souders seconded the motion, which passed 6 - 1, with Chairman Gruver voting "No". Chairman Gruver noted his negative vote was due to his belief that the sign allowance should be graduated in this district. The Commission took a S-minute break. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP-9l (09) 16 - PORT ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT, 304 East Park Avenue: Request to allow the construction of tennis courts and associated parking in the RS-7. Residential Sinqle-Familv District. Ms. Souders noted an appearance of fairness and left the meeting. . Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Chairman Gruver asked if staff had information concerning financing of the project, the possibility of sidewalks, and whether there would be lighting and paving of the proposed 64-space parking lot. Mr. Jimerson responded that he had spoken to the applicant concerning the financing of the project and was advised that financing was available but portions of the proposal would have to be eliminated or delayed in order to bring the project in at budget. The lighting is to be installed in stages, as money is available. Sidewalks are not part of the project at this time. The parking lot is proposed to be lighted and paved. Mr. Jimerson further stated that the courts would not be shielded from view of the streets. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing. ?- PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1991 Page 6 . Rob Linkletter, 1324 East First Street, representing the applicant, displayed an overhead depicting the school facilities surrounding the proposed site. Timing of the project is critical because of the limited window of opportunity for paving upon completion of the development. He noted that the plan has changed minimally in that the tennis courts south of Park Avenue have been set back 20 feet, rather than 4 feet as shown on the plan, in order to comply with setback requirements in the RS-7 District. Two (2) of the six (6) tennis courts will have functioning lighting at completion of the project, with the other four (4) courts lighted as funds become available. The lighting to be used will be immediate down-lighting, in order to contain as much light as possible within the court area, minimizing impacts to the surrounding residen-tial neighbors. The fences proposed will be 10 feet high, with the light standards being 25 feet high. Mr. Catts questioned whether the tennis courts would be used for any purposes other than the tennis use. Mr. Linkletter responded the tennis courts could be made available for day- time use for school-related physical education activities. The court area is not large enough to accommodate band practice. The band usually practices in an area to the north of Park Avenue. . Dave Lasorsa, 2715 Peabody Street, noted that he has no objection to the tennis court activity, other than the light- ing. The lights used will impact the residences directly east of the court acti v i ty . As a resident directly across from the proposed court location, Mr. Lasorsa requested that a time limit be put on the use of the court activity to daylight hours. He also expressed concern over the fact that the School District let bids for the project without the proper permitting in place. He suggested that some minimal land- scaping might be effective. Terry Heindl, Assistant School Superintendent, 304 East Park Avenue, answered questions from the Commission as to why the permitting process occurred after the bids were let for the project. Mr. Heindl explained that a local architect <not Mr. Linkletter) had been hired for the project and it was assumed that permits would have been applied for in that process. He apologized to the City for the lateness in submitting neces- sary permit applications, but noted that as soon as he was made aware of the error, every effort was made to remedy the situation. He added that the City Council f s approval for participation in the tennis court project is contingent upon the courts being lighted and being available for use by the citizenry. If the courts are not lighted, it is possible the City will withdraw financial support for the project. . Rob Linkletter added there is a need to illuminate the parking area for security reasons. Dave Lasorsa restated that he is not opposed to the court activity, but eXP7essed a strong concern that lighting in the . PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1991 Page 7 area would disturb the residential uses surrounding the High School and cause considerable disruption of these peaceful residential uses. There being no further comments, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Heindl noted the School's preference on the lighting options avail- able. It is proposed to pattern the use of the lighting after the City's operation at Erickson Playfield. The proposal is to allow users to activate the lights with a timer system which will automatically turn off after a given period of time. He noted that if the Commission is considering a time period for use of the courts, the time be extended during the summer months, which have extended daylight hours, and there- fore the potential for extended use. Landscaping possibili- ties were discussed. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Linkletter answered that the fence material will be chain link without slats, for security reasons. . ~ Chairman Gruver noted he was surprised at the apparent over- sight that sidewalks are not included in the proposal. He stated that the inclusion of sidewalks in any plan for a school facility or public use is absolutely imperative. sidewalks are essential to the safety of those using public facilities. It would be negligence on the part of the Commis- sion and the city not to require that appropriate sidewalks be provided for the safety of those using the proposed facility. He would not feel comfortable adding his vote to any kind of approval for any type of public use which does not include appropriate safety measures, such as sidewalks. commissioner Leonard expressed concern over the possibility of requiring the applicant to provide sidewalks in a conditional use permit process. He questioned Mr. Linkletter as to the cost of sidewalks. Mr. Linkletter answered that he was not sure of the cost. Following extensive discussion, Mr. Anabel moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit, as requested, subject to the following conditions, and citing the following findings and conclusions: CONDITIONS: A. Hours of operation of the tennis courts shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. . B. A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval to the Public Works and Planning Departments which demonstrates that light and glare on nearby residential uses fronting on Park and/or Peabody is minimized, and that individual court timing systems shall be used, subject to approval . . . PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1991 Page 8 by the Parks and Planning Departments. c. sidewalks, per city specifications, shall be provided along Park and Peabody, installed in the area covered by the new tennis court facility, extending to the tennis court facility along Peabody. A parking lot plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval, which includes specific atten- tion to the need for an oil/water separator and emphasis on drainage control, prior to construction. D. FINDINGS: 1. The approval is for six (6) tennis courts and a 64-space parking lot, both accessory to the High School use, in the RS-7 Zone. 2. Schools are conditionally permitted in the RS-7 Zone. 3. There are several single family homes in the vicinity of the proposed tennis courts. 4. The City I S Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots in several commercial districts to be landscaped with trees. 5. Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Policy No. 3 states that 11 All non-residential signing and development should be unified and compatible and should enhance the natural beauty of the community. II CONCLUSIONS: A. As conditioned, the use is compatible with the surround- ing land uses and land uses in the RS-7 Zone. B. As conditioned, the proposed Conditional Use Permit is in the public use and interest and is not detrimental to the public welfare. C. As conditioned the proposed conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Port Angeles zoning Code and Compre- hensive Plan and other applicable land use regulations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Philpott. Following further discussion, the question was called and the motion carried 5 - 1, with Commissioner Leonard voting IINo", due to the condition that sidewalks be provided for the facility. Chairman Gruver explained the appeal process to the applicant and those present. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1991 Page 9 Mr. Linkletter noted that sidewalks are proposed for the court facility at this time. V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VI STAFF REPORTS None. VII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Mr. Catts noted he would not be present at the September 25th meeting. Mr. Anabel stated the entryway to t e City Hall building still has need for replacement of lig t bulbs. . He offered to purchase the light bulbs. ' VIII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:lq P.M. . ri I merson, Acting Secretary SR:LM PLAN.SI0 Prepared by: SR . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of Me~~ commiSSiO,/ Date J~ ~ ~/99/ Location 321 . 5th Street - City Hall Name Address ?-Y7_~ ;<c:eEf<T G. tlN~ go /4I1J.1t1!2/A/ tJ~.... eo L.:..~o,...s<:.. (0 7-1:,- ~ W. {/U-nOJuv<-/ (j.,L~ /324-- i=. ifF ~ ~L6Q OJ,. I 3 E S/~6 v- .r.-- Ot-7/.5 5;'. P<..C"=L~~ ,. y ~ ~ Z7~~~A"J~8 ~i&1ZJ .' ~. Ve-J.-#rfr., d-7tJ~/~T _ (IS-{ C "'- L ~ l), \ U '1...0 Lv. ~ I' f'"'if{", D, (:) .. --1(J><yJ ~l\ 3~ '/)c.vJ'-~ ~-> .