HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/28/2005
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AGE'NDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
September 28, 2005
6 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of September 14, 2005
i
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
.
1.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 05-06 - BAUTISTA - Southeast comer of
the intersection of Albert Street and Front Street: Development of an approximately
3500 square foot site in the Commercial Arterial for an off-street parking lot.
2. REZONE PROPOSAL - REZ 05-02 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES. Southwest
Urban Growth Area south of U.S. Highway 101 west of Gakin Road.: A proposed
rezone of property recently annexed into the City.
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
VI. STAFF REPORTS
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Len Rasmussen (ChalT),Chene Kidd (VIce Chalr),Dave Johnson, KeVin Snyder,Betsy Wharton, Candace Kalish, John Matthews
PLANNING STAFF Mark Madsen, Director, Scott Johns, ASSOCiate Planner, Sue Roberds, ASSOCiate Planner/Commumty Development Coordinator
.
.
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
September 28, 2005
6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Leonard Rasmussen, Dave Johnson, Candace Kalish, John
Matthews, and Betsy Wharton
Members Excused:
Cherie Kidd, Kevin Snyder
Staff Present:
Mark Madsen, Bill Blore, Nathan West, Scott Johns
Public Present:
Annie O'Rourke, Mike Libra, Tammi Ratliff, Ken Patterson,
Jamie Bautista
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Matthews moved to approve the September 14, 2005, minutes as
presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kalish and passed 5 - o.
Mark Madsen, Director of Community and Economic Development, began the meeting by
introducing a short training session for the Planning Commission. Principal Planner Nathan West
presented a memo to the Commission regarding the concept of zoning intensity and asked the
Commission for confirmation ofthe staff's interpretation that down zoning without a Comprehensive
Plan amendment is appropriate.
City Attorney Bill Blore presented the legal foundation of the relationship between a
Comprehensive Plan and zoning codes. There are 3 ways to interpret zoning: I) Terms of Art; 2)
History; 3) Ordinary meanings of words. The issue the Planning Commission is considering
involves the first two.
Three questions need to be answered: 1) Can the Planning Commission rezone without a
Comprehensive Plan amendment? Yes. Must the Comprehensive Plan always be changed to mirror
the zoning code change? No. Can the zoning be changed and then amend the Comprehensive Plan
to mirror the zoning change? Yes. These answers are based on legal interpretations and the intensity
of the zoning. There has been a 50 year debate as to whether the zoning must always mirror the
Comprehensive Plan. The "American Rule" states that the Comprehensive Plan is only a guide and
that the zoning code need not mirror the Comprehensive Plan. The "Oregon Rule" does require the
zoning code to mirror the Comprehensive Plan. In Washington State the American Rule is used.
Down zoning is widely used and is appropriate and legal. Typically there must be a change in
circumstance and the public interest must be protected. The Planning Commission members asked
a few clarifying questions.
.
.
.
Plannmg Commission Mmutes - September 28, 2005
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Chair Rasmussen indicated that those who testify must sign the "Sign In" log and affirm that
their testimony will be truthful to the best of their knowledge.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 05-06 - BAUTISTA - Southeast comer of the
intersection of Albert Street and Front Street: Development of an approximately 3500 square
foot site in the Commercial Arterial for an off-street parking lot.
Associate Planner Scott Johns reviewed the Department's report and responded to questions.
Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing.
Annie O'Rourke, P.O. Box 1246, Port Angeles, agent for the applicant, stated that she
agrees with the statements and conditional listed in the staff report.
There being no further comments, Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing. Following
brief discussion, Commissioner Kalish moved to approve conditional use permit CUP 05-06
with the following conditions and citing the noted findings and conclusions:
Conditions:
1.
A demolition permit shall be obtained from the City prior to removal of the existing
structure on the subject site.
The parking lot shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with the CUP 05-06 application and approved by the Public Works and
Utilities Department.
At least one landscape tree, a minimum of2" in diameter at 4 feet of height, shall be
located in a landscaped area of the parking area.
A drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City of Port Angeles Public
Works and Utilities Department prior to construction of the parking lot.
2.
3.
4.
Findings:
1.
Jamie Bautista submitted Conditional Use Permit application CUP 05-06 to develop
an off-site parking lot in the CA zone.
The proposed site includes the north 70 feet of Lot 9, Block 22, Townsite of Port
Angeles and is located at the southeast comer of Front and Eunice Streets.
The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). Off-site parking lots are a conditional
use in the CA zone per P AMC 17.23 .160(H).
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Commercial. Adjacent designations
are also commercial, changing to Residential (R) one half block to the north. The
site is located in the City's North Central Planning Area. The subject site is located
on the south side of Front Street and the east side of Eunice Street. Development in
the neighborhood includes predominately commercial uses with residential uses
mixed in along the arterial corridor and becomes entirely residential north of the
Front/Georgiana Alley.
2.
3.
4.
Plannzng CommiSSIOn Mmutes - September 28, 2005
Page 3
.
5.
7.
8.
9.
.
to.
11.
12.
Conclusions:
1.
2.
.
3.
Per 17.96.050 PAMC, the Planning Commission shall consider applications for
conditional use permit 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. In each
application the Planning Commission may impose whatever restrictions or conditions
are considered essential to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and to prevent
depreciation of neighboring property. Conditional uses shall be evaluated to
determine ifthe characteristics ofthe intended use as related to the specific proposed
site would defeat the purpose of the City's Zoning Regulations by introducing
incompatible, detrimental, or hazardous conditions. The Planning Commission may
refuse to issue a conditional use permit if the characteristics of the intended use
would defeat the purpose of the City's zoning regulations. The City's
Comprehensive Plan was reviewed for consistency with the proposal.
Although proposal is intended to provide additional off-street parking for the
adjacent restaurant use, the parking can also provide additional parking for
businesses within 500 feet of the site.
A development that is approved through the conditional use permit process must
remain in continual compliance with specific conditions of approval or may be
revoked.
Reviewing City Departmental comments were considered in the review of this
application and are reflected in the conditions of approval. The Public Warks and
Utilities Department will require a catch basin with oil separator "T" in the lot, which
is connected to the City's stormwater system, traffic arrows and signage indicating
one-way entry and exit from the lot, and a minimum of 12 feet for both the entry and
exit driveways.
Notification ofthe proposed action and conditional use permit application was placed
in the Peninsula Daily News on September 6,2005. Public notice was mailed to
property owners within 300 feet ofthe subject property on August 31,2005. The site
was posted on August 31,2005. No written comments were received as a result of
the public notice.
A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this proposed action on
September 21,2005.
The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the proposal at the September
28, 2005 regular meeting.
As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan, specifically with Land Use Element Goal A and Policy A.2; Land Use
Element Goal D, and Policies D.l; Land Use Element Goal E; Transportation
Element Policy B.14, & 16; and Economic Development Policy B. 7.
The proposal is consistent with requirements for approval of a conditional use
permit as specified in PAMC 17.96.050.
The proposal is consistent with PAMC Chapter 14.40 (Parking Ordinance).
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wharton and passed 5 - o.
.
.
.
Planmng CommiSSIOn Mmutes - September 28, 2005
Page 4
REZONE PROPOSAL - REZ 05-02 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES. Southwest Urban
Growth Area south of U.S. Highway 101 west of Gakin Road.: A proposed rezone of
property recently annexed into the City.
Principal Planner Nathan West reviewed the Department staff report. Chair Rasmussen
opened the public hearing.
Tammi Ratliff, 50 Benson Road, Port Angeles, indicated that she is a resident of the
newly annexed area. She asked for clarification of the statement in the staff report regarding the
"14 possible access points" and if that meant that the existing access roads could not be changed
or new access roads installed? Planner West indicated that the department was not proposing
either new access roads or requiring that existing roads be used, but rather that access issues
would be addressed prior to further development. The statement was meant to point out
transportation issues that would be addressed during reviews of individual development
proposals. Ms. Ratliff then pointed out that several of the residents of the area that were initially
resistant to annexation came to an agreement with the City that the area would be rezoned to
commercial to make it more equitable for those persons living in the area currently zoned
residential. She therefore supports the rezone proposal.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing.
A lengthy discussion followed. The Planning Commission was concerned that the
Commercial Neighborhood zone would be too restrictive and that the Commercial Arterial
zoning would be more appropriate. The reasoning presented is that the CA zone would provide
the City with a more competitive edge in attracting larger scale merchants, as the CA zone would
conditionally allow shopping centers exceeding 100,00 square feet in building floor area. Larger
scale merchants in the area would serve a larger area, especially the area west of the City. It was
debated whether larger stores would unnecessarily compete with downtown merchants or
merchants in other established shopping district in the City.
A more serious issue is the impacts of the potential of many access point along Highway
101. Possible solutions included a 'service' road that would parallel the highway and intersect
with cross streets where intersections with Highway 101 currently exist. The question of how
such a service road could be created is a major issue. Incremental development proposals for
small businesses could be stifled due to costs of a service road requirement. Local Improvement
Districts, late comer's fees, and other possible financing mechanisms were discussed.
Due to late arriving members of the public, Commissioner Wharton moved to reopen
the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson and passed 5 - O.
Vince Lindley, 1212 Hyw 101, Port Angeles, suggested that the City could reduce the
speed limit through the section of Highway 101 that is being considered for the rezone.
Tammi Ratliff, 50 Benson Road, Port Angeles, stated that she was led to believe that the
City would rezone the area to Commercial Arterial.
Mike Libera, 316 Power Plant Road, Port Angeles, stated that a frontage road to service
the commercial developments would not be practical due to lack of available right-of-way and
the existing homes that were close to the highway is some locations. He further stated that he
supported the zone change to CA rather than CN, as the residents of the area had been promised
CA zoning and that he and others had received a letter stating that.
Planner West read the letter sent by the City to the residents into the record. The letter
clearly stated that the City would take the lead in rezoning the area to Commercial. No mention
of a specific zoning classification was included in the letter.
.
.
.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF REZONE APPLICATION - REZ 05-02 -
CITY OF PORT ANGELES:
Findings
1. On August 30, 2005, the City of Port Angeles submitted a request on behalf of property
owners to rezone approximately 38.94 acres from Residential Single Family RS-7 to
Commercial Neighborhood and Industrial Heavy. The area was annexed to the city in June
2005 by ordinance #3207.
2. The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is intended as the guiding document in
determining the consistency in zoning and establishing a conceptual framework for land use
decisions.
3. The proposed zoning would create a buffer between S.R. 101 and the existing residential
zoning. This would improve the compatibility of the use along the highway and lessen the
impact of future highway impacts on the residential neighborhood.
4. County records delineate the a wetland over the following parcels: 63008420100,
63008430030,63008430000,63008430010,63008430040. Staff conducted a site visit and
verified wetland vegetation on site. The Department does not support an "up" zone of a
wetland.
5.
The proposal constitutes an additional 67% increase in acreage for the zone.
6. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan Commercial Goals and Policies Section E. 2,
"New commercial developments should follow a cluster configuration rather than strip
patterns."
7. The proposal could result in 14 or more additional access points on a .6 mile stretch of S.R.
101.
8. 13 parcels or 2.58 acres of Commercial Neighborhood zoning, remain undeveloped in the
city.
9. The property is described as tax parcels 63008430050, 63008430070, 63008430080,
63008430090,63008340010,63008340050, 63008340425, 63008340025, 63008340125,
63008340100, 63008339020, 63008330125, 63008330150, 63008420100, 63008430030,
63008430000, 63008430010, 63008430040, and 63008510540 and is situated between
Bruch Construction and Gakin Rd south ofS.R.lOl.
10. The subject site is partially developed with approximately 11 single family residences, one
commercial building, and one industrial building.
11. The purpose ofthe CN zone (P AMC 17.21.010) is "This is a commercial zone intended to
create and preserve areas for businesses which are of the type providing goods and services
for the day-to-day needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Businesses in this
zone shall occur on sites no larger than one acre and shall be located and designed to
Fmdmgs & ConclusIOns - REZ 0502
.
.
.
November 1, 2005
Page 6
63008430000,63008430010,63008430040, and 63008510540 and is situated between
Bruch Construction and Gakin Rd south ofS.R.lOl.
10.
The subject site is partially developed with approximately 11 single family residences,
one commercial building, and one industrial building.
11.
The purpose of the CA zone (PAMC 17.23.010) is "a commercial zone intended to
create and preserve areas for businesses serving the entire City and needing an arterial
location because of the nature of the business or intensity of traffic generated by the
business. Commercial uses that are largely devoid of any impacts detrimental to the
environment are allowed. Service statlOns with petroleum products and dry cleamng
shops with hazardous materials are permitted uses. This zone provides the basic urban
land use pattern for automobile oriented, commercial uses with direct access on a
principal arterial street and design standards for greater automobile and truck traffic. "
12.
The purpose of the ill zone (PAMC 17.34.010) is "This is the least reStrlctive industrial
zone intended to be the area In which heavy industry could develop causing the least
impact on other land uses. Significant adverse impacts can be expected from permitted
industrial uses that involve hazardous materials, noise, air and water pollution, shift
work around the clock, entertainment businesses with adult-only activities, and outside
storage yards and manufacturing activities. This zone provides the basic urban land use
pattern for heavy industrial uses with direct access to major transportation facilities,
design standards for greater truck traffic, and buffers for nonindustrial uses unless
deemed impractical. "
13. County Zoning in the area includes County - Rural Moderate (R2) to the south, County
Urban Low Density (LD) and County - Urban Neighborhood Commercial (UNC) to the
north. City zoning includes Industrial Heavy (ill) zoning to the west and residential
Trailer Park to the northwest. Developed properties in the area are consistent with
underlying zoning designations.
14. Commercial development in the CA zone may develop on lots 7,000 sq.ft.in size.
Landscape buffers are required between commercial, industrial and residential zones.
15. A rezone proposal cannot be considered a spot zone ifit meets the following tests: 1) the
parcel of land has not been singled out for special and privileged treatment; 2) the
singling out is in the public interest and not only for the benefit of the land owner; and 3)
the action is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
16. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates properties in the area as Commercial
and Industrial.
17.
The Comprehensive Plan was reviewed in its entirety with respect to the proposal. The
following elements, goals, and policies were found to be most relevant to the proposal:
Growth Management Element Goal A, and Policies A.I (a); Land Use Map Goal A and
.
.
.
Fmdmgs & ConclusIOns - REZ 05-02
November 1, 2005
Page 7
Policy A.1,2; Land Use Element Commercial Goals D and Policy D.1; Goal E, and Policy
E.2; and Goal H and Policy H.1; Transportation Element Goal B and Policies B.3, 4,5 and
Capital Facilities Element Goal C.
18.
The City's inventory ofland zoned Commercial Neighborhood (CN) is approximately
35.2 acres. The inventory of Industrial Heavy (ill) zoned land is approximately 809.2
acres. Analysis of the buildable land supplies of various zones has shown that there are
limited Commercial Neighborhood lands remaining undeveloped. Additionally, the
existing Heavy Industrial zoning is approximately 65% developed and is largely owned
by the Port.
19.
The SEP A Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance on August
30, 2005.
20.
The public comment and notification period for the Planning Commission meeting ran
from August 30 to September 19,2005. Mailing labels were provided by the applicant.
Surrounding property owners were notified that the request was for Commercial
Neighborhood and Industrial Heavy.
21.
The City's Public Works and Utilities Department did not have any comment. Utilities
are presently being installed in the area to support industrial and commercial
developments. The Fire Department has noted that commercial use of the property would
be subject to applicable fire protection provisions, including the provision of adequate
fireflow. It is the Fire Department's understanding that hydrants will not be provided on
the south side of Highway 101. This could prove to be a challenge for future
development of the property.
22. One letter of concern was received as a result of the public notification process. The
main issues of concern were regarding the existing wetland and the need for a stop light
at Fairmount Ave. Additionally, the letter indicated that the landowners in the area may
wish to continue using their property for raising livestock. The letter was included in
staffs continued review of the proposal.
23. Future development of the subject property will require specific project review including
issues such as access, noise, lighting, landscaping and environmentally sensitive review.
24. Section 17.96.100 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code identifies procedures for
amendment to (rezone) the City's Zoning Map.
Conclusions:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map as this
area is designated as Commercial and Industrial. Based on this designation staff is
recommending approval of the proposed rezone.
.
.
.
Fmdmgs & ConclusIOns - REZ 0502
November 1, 2005
Page 8
2. The access issues related to S.R. 101 and potential for strip development in this area are
of concern to the Department. By creating additional commercial access points there is
potential that another section ofS.R. 101 will see diminishing service levels.
Considering that WSDOT and the Public Works and Utilities Department did not note
these same concerns, it is recommended that these issues be mitigated at the time of
development. Developers should be prepared to address these issues in their plans for
future development of the site.
3. Future development proposals should mitigate all environmental concerns regarding the
wetlands on parcels 63008420100, 63008430030, 63008430000, 63008430010,
63008430040.
4. Future development proposals should anticipate the necessity to install fire protection
prOVISIOns.
5. The site can provide a logical transition between land uses that will not adversely impact
the existing development in the area.
6. The rezone is compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses and will allow
development of the site to a higher density that has been identified as desired for the area
by the City through its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and is therefore in
the public interest.
7. The City's action on rezone application REZ 05-02 is consistent with the established
procedures for amending the Zoning Code set forth in Section 17.96.100, Port Angeles
Municipal Code.
8. Municipal utilities in the area will be adequate to supply power, water, communications,
and sewer. Ultimate development plans may require further improvement by the
developer. As no adverse impacts to neighboring streets are anticipated and street,
walkway, and drainage will be also required with subsequent development, the proposed
rezone is in the public interest.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kalish and passed 5 - O.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
STAFF REPORTS
Planner Johns noted that the prototype bench for the downtown bench project was in
the City Hall lobby and Commissioners should take a look and sit on the bench.
.
.
.
Plannmg CommiSSIOn Mmutes
September 28,2005
Page 9
Planner West stated that the Department is applying for a CTED Grant and he is
developing a work plan. He is seeking guidance on the Commissions priorities regarding the
two main items in the work plan. The Commission concurred that low impact development
standards and guidelines is a more important issue than creating a Parks Element to the
Comprehensive Plan.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Chair Rasmussen reported on the progress being made by the committee studying the
City swimming pool options. A lengthy discussion followed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
~<71f~
Mark Madsen, Secretary
PREPARED BY: S. Johns
FOR T ANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U S. A
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET
PLEASE SIGN IN
Meeting Agenda of: .s:.PTt-IYJB~ ;)8\ de:06
To help us provide an accurate record of those in attendance, please sign in. Your
signature acknowledges your presence. If you plan to testify, by your 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.
Agenda Item No.
tta.
.
C: \MyFiles\FORMS\Mtgrostpc. wpd