Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/14/1998 .. '. . HEARING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THOSE NEEDING ASSISTANCE. AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 OCTOBER 14,1998 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of September 23,1998 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 98-06 - DAISHOWA AMERICA. 1902 Marine Drive: Proposal to replace approximately 3,000 square feet of asphalt with a concrete slab in the IH, Industrial Heavy zone, in a shoreline area. 2. PARKING VARIANCE APPLICATION - PKV 98-04 - HONEYCUTT - 501 South Lincoln Street: Proposal to reduce the number of required parking spaces required for reconstruction of a damaged structure in the CSD, Community Shopping District. V. PUBLIC MEETING: 1. PORT ANGELES DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION PARKING PLAN PRESENTATION VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VII. STAFF REPORTS VIII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS IX. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMlSSION: Dean Reed, ( Chair), Mary Craver (Vice), Bob King, Cindy Souders, Uncia Nutter, Fred Hewins, Paul Ziakin. STAFF; Brad Collins, Director, Sue Roberds Planning Specialist, David Sa"'Yer, Senior Planner. . . . All correspondence pertaining to a meeting or hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled meeting/ hearing will be provided to Commission members at the meeting. 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 Chair may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents will be 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 Board, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chair. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 October 14, 1998 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Linda Nutter, Dean Reed, Mary Craver, Paul Ziakin, Fred Hewins (arrived at 8:30 p.m.) Member Excused: Cindy Souders, Bob King Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds,David Sawyer, Dan McKeen Public Present: Victor Kehrli, Gene Unger, Don Bettger, Eileen Knight, Roy Gotham, Craig Miller, Mike Doherty, Bill Rinehart, Jim Haguewood, ArIa Holzschuh APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Nutter moved to continue approval of the minutes of the September 23 meeting until more ofthose Commissioners who attended the meeting could be present as only Mary Craver was present to approve the minutes. Commissioner Craver seconded the motion, which passed 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chair Reed reordered the agenda due to lack of a quorum for Item I. PARKING VARIANCE APPLICATION - PKV 98-04 - HONEYCUTT - 501 South Lincoln Street: Proposal to reduce the number of parking spaces required for reconstruction of a damaged structure in the CSD, Community Shopping District. Senior Planner David Sawyer reviewed the Planning Department's staff report recommending denial of the application and answered a question as to the ratio of parking spaces required for specific uses. He responded to Commissioner Craver that parking space requirements are based on a specific type of use and the building floor area. It does not take into account the size of a lot or that a lot may be substandard. Dan McKeen, Fire Marshall, has no specific concerns with the proposal as the site can easily be accessed from either Lincoln Street or Fifth Street. Craig MiHer, 223 East Fourth Street, stated that his clients have operated a pet store in the subject building since 1988. Prior to 1988, the building was operated by Olympic Electric at the site since the late 1950's. There is no indication that over the past forty some years of use there has been any significant problem as the result of a lack of parking. The building has Planning Commission Minutes October 14. 1998 Page 2 . never complied with the City's parking ordinance. The City's Parking Ordinance specifies that all new uses are required to provide parking at a particular ratio. The building has been in substantial noncompliance for many years. The lot coverage question is not before the Commission. Gene Unger, 1401 West Seventh Street, showed a revised parking plan indicating five parking spaces. He presented a third alternative parking plan eliminating a portion of the storage room at the northeast side of the property which would provide one additional parking space for a total of six. Five spaces is very tight, for six, some of the proposed building would have to be eliminated. There isn't much room at the rear of the building with the lot being SO' (sic 63') wise x 100' long. . Craig Miller, the parking ordinance that was adopted in 1966 provided an obligation to have one space for each two hundred square feet of building size. Certain rights are granted (vested) as a result of having existed before adoption of a particular ordinance. He referred to language from the Parking Ordinance which indicates that a new expanded use may occur only if the degree of nonconformance is not increased. In 1988, there were twenty some parking spaces required for the uses occurring on the site. All that was available for parking is that which is there at present. All of the existing building was there in 1988. The degree of nonconformance for what is currently proposed is not increased because the proposal is to reconstruct what previously existed. The matter is before the Planning Commission because the City Attorney disagrees on the terms of reconstruction and whether compliance with existing ordinances is mandatory. The Parking Ordinance intends to take into account existing circumstances. If a variance is granted, the degree of nonconformance is not going to be increased from its historical use. Variance requirements for a parking variance are not nearly as stringent as required for a variance from the zoning regulations. The issue that the Planning Department has focused on is that the proposal fails to meet the off-street parking regulations. The applicant has occupied this site for some time. The applicant is not aware of significant complaints regarding parking. The parking at the rear of the building is realistically unlikely to be customer parking. There is no indication of traffic problems on Lincoln Street or Fifth Street that is attributable to the use. Development of the site will result in a 4, 100 square foot building with 2,200 square feet not devoted to building that can accommodate five parking spaces. There is not room on the substandard lot to find another eight parking spaces. . Chair Reed stated that he realizes the proposal is to reconstruct an existing structure, however, the proposal is a total rebuild not actually a remodel, and therefore new construction requirements are triggered. Mr. Miller responded that his position is that the requirement does not apply based on a convoluted argument concerning an interpretation of a section of the Zoning Ordinance regarding substandard lots. Mr. Miller argued that the <<grandfather clause" of the Parking Ordinance applies to existing buildings. This is an existing structure which use has not been changed so there is no requirement. A different issue is whether the argument is that the parking is required under the Zoning Ordinance. The history of the use does not indicate a pattern of concern regarding parking even though the site has not provided required parking. Planning Commission Minutes October U. 1998 Page 3 . Commissioner Craver discussed the issue that the building reconstruction exceeds 75% of the assessed evaluation of the building. Mr. Miller responded that the assessed evaluation can be obtained from the County Assessor's Office. The assessed evaluation of the existing structure is $S4,OOO. The reconstruction value is approximately $161,000. For purposes of a variance, that's the trigger that causes the applicant to have to get a variance. Commissioner Craver asked how the construction had advanced to its present state without a variance being predetermined. Mr. Miller responded that no permit is required for demolition. Commissioner Craver asked for clarification of the requirement for a demolition permit, and David Sawyer, Senior Planner, stated that the City's Building Official has stated that a demolition permit is required when the utilities to a building are being shut off or capped off. Short of that, a demolition permit is not required. Commissioner Ziakin asked if there is an engineer or designer for the project. Mr. Miller responded that Mr. Gene Unger is the designer, however, he had to leave the meeting due to a personal matter. . Donald Bettger, 1022 South Cherry, was troubled because after the 1997 winter storms, businesses were charged by the City to dump construction debris at the landfill which is very anti business. If the damage was caused by a winter storm, the City could have cooperated and waived the dump fees due to the disaster. The City has to follow codes but should not make it difficult for the business when all they are trying to do is to reestablish the building. Mike Doherty, 617 South "B" Street, asked the Commission to consider that approval of a parking variance for a property affects the adjacent properties. His parents own the adjacent building to the east of the subject property. Approval of the requested reduction in parking for the applicant would impact the adjacent property to the east, a law office. There is adequate parking at the law office, but customers to the pet store frequently park in that parking area. He supported the Planning Department's recommendation to deny the proposal due to its negative impact on the adjacent property. Commissioner Ziakin asked Mr. Doherty to indicate on a map where the common driveway exists between the subject property and the adjacent property. Mr. Doherty answered that the driveway is similar to an alleyway, although he believes that the Doherty building exists on its westernmost property line. Commissioner Craver asked for clarification if there is an alley between the Doherty property and the applicant's property. Mr. Sawyer answered at Chair Reed's request, that the two properties share a common boundary without an alley between. There being no further comment, Chair Reed closed the public hearing. . Chair Reed asked Mr. Miller to respond with infonnation that would indicate that the existing parking provided is sufficient to meet parking needs. Mr. Miller indicated that the pet shop use employs three individuals and experiences between twenty and fifty customers a day. Four to six cars are parked throughout the day at the current location on Peabody Street . . . Planning Commiuion Minutes October 14,1998 Page 4 where the use has relocated during the reconstruction. Commissioner Nutter noted that although the current use has not experienced a notable parking problem in the past, the use could change in the future. She stated her hope that the applicant can move into the newly reconstructed building and that business will flourish. However, it could also be in the applicant's best interest to one day sell the business or the building to another where the use would be increased and existing parking patterns would not be the case. Only justification that the site is unique would warrant a variance as subordination is needed in order to not set a predecent. Commissioner Ziakin stated that although the previous concerns are valid, the building has been at its current location since 1953 with its present occupants since 1988. There has been no testimony of parking problems in the past ten years. Variances should be carefully considered. Commissioner Nutter noted that reconstruction requirements should have been considered when the demolition was first begun. She cautioned that what has existed cannot be counted on to continue in the future and a future parking problem should be averted. Chair Reed corrected Mr. Ziakin in that the Commission did receive testimony from the applicant that there was no parking problem, but testimony was also offered from the adjacent property owner that parking spills over to an adjacent business. If the situation was a change of use on a property where a structure exists, the concern would be handled differently. This is new construction, and there is an opportunity to try to create parking spaces where none historically existed. Commissioner Ziakin was surprised that the building construction/demolition got as far as it did before the parking issue came up. Commissioner Craver was concerned that because the building was damaged beyond the control of the owners the owners are being penalized by having to meet new construction and parking requirements. Comissioner Nutter moved to deny the parking variance request based on the following findings and conclusions: FindinI!s: Based on the information provided in the October 14, 1998, Staff Report for PKV 98-04, comments and information presented during the public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that: 1. The applicant and owner of the property is Patricia Honeycutt. 2. The subject property is located at SOl Lincoln Street. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October U. 1998 Page 5 3. The applicant's proposal is to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a retail use in the CSD zone from 14 spaces to 5 spaces. 4. After review of the application, Planning Department staff stated the proposed siteplan can provide a maximum of two standard parking spaces, one handicapped parking space and one loading space, if the City's standard parking aisle width for 900 parking is reduced from 241 to 191. If the parking aisle width is not reduced, the site plan can accommodate one parallel handicapped parking space and one loading space. 5. The property is designated as Commercial in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 6. The property is zoned Commercial Shopping District (CSD). 7. The proposed use is a pennitted use in the CSD zone. 8. The subject site is located in the western portion of the City's North Central Planning Area and consists ofa 63' by 100' (6,300 sf) lot fronting on Lincoln Street. The site contains one approximately 4,115 sf structure. 9. The building is currently under reconstruction necessitated by damage to the original structure. Currently, the building consists of the previous roof structure, the floor, the southerly wall, and the framing elements of the north, east and west walls. All other aspects of the building have been demolished. 10. The building was estimated to be at least 40 years old and up until this year, existed as a non-confonning structure due to an excess in permitted lot coverage and a lack of required parking spaces. 11. Chapter 17.95.030 C of the Port Angeles Municipal Code states "When a legal building or structure that does not comply with the provisions of these regulations is damaged to an extent that exceeds 75% ofthe existing assessed value of the building or structure for tax: purposes, said building or structure may be reconstructed, providing it conforms to all the building code and zoning regulations of the zone in which it is situated . . ." 12. The applicant has applied for a building permit that matches the previous building footprint and consequently cannot provide the current code's required number of parking spaces for the size of the proposed building. 13. The project as proposed does not separate the building's loading and service access area from the customer's parking area. 14. The City's Parking Ordinance states "No variance shall be granted by the Planning Commission unless the Commission finds: . . . Planning Commiuion Minutes October U. 1998 Page 6 A. B. The variance is not detrimental to surrounding properties; The parking provided is sufficient to meet the parking needed by the use(s); The variance will not create increased congestion or traffic hazards along adjacent streets and alleys; The variance is consistent with the intent of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance, the zoning district in which the site is located, and the Comprehensive Plan." C. D. IS. The applicant's submittal states the original building has operated with six parking spaces for the past 30 years with the last 10 years as a pet store and a combination retaiVcommercial contractor's office prior to that. 16. The Public Works Department's comments are as follows: A. "A site plan per City Standards for the approved number of parking spaces and driveway widths will be required to be submitted for approval. B. Parking and driveway to be paved and catch basin with oil separation "T" installed. 17. The Fire Department indicated they have no objections to the proposed variance as submitted. 18. The proposed variance is categorically exempt from State Environmental Protection Act threshold determination and environmental impact statement requirements. Conclusions: Based on the information provided in the October 14, 1998, Staff Report for PKV 98-04, (including all of its attachments). comments and information presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes that: I. If the City's standard parking aisle width for 900 parking is reduced from 24' to 19', the proposed siteplan can provide a maximum of two standard parking spaces, one handicapped parking space. and one loading space (a total of three parking spaces). Alternatively, if the parking aisle width is not reduced, the site plan as submitted can accommodate one parallel handicapped parking space and one loading space. 2. Considering the size of the proposed use and the maximum number of parking spaces that can be located on-site, the proposed site plan does not provide enough parking on-site to meet the need generated by the proposed use without potentially impacting surrounding properties and rights-of-way and, therefore, is not consistent with the intent of the City's Off-Street Parking Ordinance. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October l4. 1998 Page 7 3. The proposed variance is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy E4 and Transportation Element B 14. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ziakin and failed 2 . 2, with Commissioners Ziakin and Craver voting in the negative, and Reed and Nutter voting for the motion. Commissioner Ziakin reviewed the four criteria used to support a parking variance and considered that with the exception of the standard that the use is in compliance with the City's zoning and Comprehensive Plan ordinances, the criteria could be met. The use thus far has not contributed to a traffic problem. Commissioner Nutter was not convinced that the use is not totally detrimental given the testimony provided by a neighboring property owner. She hoped that Port Angeles can grow and its businesses do well but did not believe that the site has adequate parking. Chair Reed agreed with Commissioner Nutter that, given the testimony provided, the site is clearly not adequate to serve the needs of the existing use. If this was virgin ground, a variance would probably not be considered. The structure could be downsized somewhat to accommodate more parking. Commissioner Ziakin supported a variance because the previous building existed for such a long time and its historical footprint is what is being proposed for rebuild. Commissioner Craver supported a variance due to the substandard lot size. Although the Planning Commission didn't allow for overdevelopment of a substandard lot, the structure existed for a very long time, and a variance may be needed no matter what type of business locates there. Planning Director noted that the Planning Commission may need to continue the matter to a meeting where absent Planning Commissioners could render a deciding vote, or the matter could be referred to the City Council for action. The Planning Commission should ask the applicant what is preferred. Craig Miller stated that the applicant preferred an appeal to the City Council and that the Commission's 2 - 2 vote indicates denial due to a failure to reach a decision. The Chair called for a break at 8:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p,m. Commissioner Hewins joined the meeting at this point. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1998 Page 8 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - SMA 98- 06 - DAISHOW A AMERICA. 1902 Marine Drive: Proposal to replace approximately 3,000 square feet of asphalt with a concrete slab in the ill, Industrial Heavy zone, in a shoreline area. Commissioner Reed excused himself from the proceeding as an employee of Daishowa America. Vice Chair Craver assumed the Chair. Senior Planner Sawyer reviewed the Planning Department's report recommending approval of the shoreline permit as proposed. Vice Chair Craver opened the public hearing. Vie Kehrli, DaishowaAmerica, 1901 Marine Drive, explained that the request is driven by an effort to eliminate contamination of the pulp product used in the paper process. He agreed with the Planning Department's recommendation of approval and responded to Commissioner Ziakin that the existing asphalt would be removed to an appropriate disposal location. There being no further comment, Vice Chair Craver closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nutter moved to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit as proposed with the following conditions, findings, and conclusions: Conditions: I. If the subject site has not been previously inventoried, evaluated, and reviewed to the satisfaction of the Lower Elwha KlaUam 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 pennit 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. 2. The project shall comply with all regulations of the City's Shoreline Master Program specifically those of Chapters 4,5,6 and 7. 3. The proposed project shall meet all federal, state, and local requirements, including the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Area Ordinance. 4. The project shall utilize best management practices as identified in the City of Port Angeles Storm water Management Plan to control stormwater runoff into the shoreline area. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1998 Page 9 s. Construction pursuant to this shoreline substantial development permit shall not begin until 21 days from the "date of filing" as defined in RCW 90.58.140. Findings: Based on the information provided in the October 14, 1998, Staff Report for SMA 98-06 (including all of its attachments), comments and information presented during the public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds that 1. The applicant, Daishowa America Co., Ltd. applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit on August 18, 1998 and the application was determined complete on August 30, 1998 (please see the October 14, 1998 Staff Report for SMA 98-06 Attachment A). 2. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (#816) was issued by the City of Port Angeles SEPAResponsible Official for the proposal on September 23, 1998 and is attached to the October 14, 1998 Staff Report for SMA 98-06 as Attachment B. 3. The application and hearing process was advertised in accordance with the legal requirements of the City of Port Angeles and the State of Washington. 4. The Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and critical areas ordinances have been reviewed with respect to this application. 5. The site is designated Industrial in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Industrial- Heavy in the City's Zoning Ordinance, and Urban-Harbor in the City's Shoreline Master Program. 6. Chapter 5 of the City's Shoreline Master Program indicates water-related industrial uses, such as a pulp and paper mill, are permitted uses in the U-H designation. 7. The City's waterfront trail runs along Marine Drive through the subject site. 8. The replacement of the existing asphalt with reinforced concrete will not impact the use of Marine Drive or the City's waterfront trail. 9. The new area of concrete will serve the existing pulp and paper mill facility. Conclusions: Based on the information provided in the October 14, 1998, Staff Report for SMA 98-06 including all of its attachments, comments and information presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed conditions of approval and findings, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes that Planning Commission Minutes October 14. 1998 Page 10 . A. The following adopted City policies are most relevant to the proposed project, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policy A-2, Conservation Element Policy C-8, and Economic Development Element Policy AR3, the City's Industrial, Heavy zone, and the City's Shoreline Master Program's Urban- Harbor designation and Chapter 4, Policies B-1 and 2, D-l, E-2, J-2, and N-2, Chapter 5, Policy D-l, and all associated regulations. B. The proposed project as conditioned, is consistent with the following adopted City policies, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policy A-2, Conservation Element Policy C-8, and Economic Development Element Policy A-3, the Citis Industrial, Heavy zone, and the City's Shoreline Master Program's Urban-Harbor designation and Chapter 4, Policies B-1 and 2, D-l, E-2, J-2, and N-2, Chapter 5, Policy D-l, and all associated regulations. C. The project will not be detrimental to the shoreline. D. As conditioned, the proposed project will not interfere with the public use of lands or waters subject to the public trust doctrine. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ziakin and passed 4-0. PUBLIC MEETING: . PORT ANGELES DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION (PADA) PARKING PLAN PRESENTATION Senior Planner David Sawyer presented a detailed review of the Port Angeles Downtown Association's (PADA) parking plan which included a look at the past and present parking conditions in the Downtown and various goals and policies for parking managment and development. The plan will be presented to the City Council for approval following review and comment by the Planning Commission. In 1993, the Planning Commission recommended, and the City Council approved, a reduction of the number of parking spaces required in the Downtown by one half. eliminated the requirement for additional parking spaces when a change of use occurs in a Downtown building, and directed the PADA to prepare a parking development and management plan to address the role of the PADA and how the PBIA is organized. The plan was to be submitted to the City within one year and was also to include an inventory of existing land uses, occupancy rates, and parking space availability in the Downtown. Although the plan was not submitted within the prescribed time line, the P ADA has worked very hard this past year and one halfto complete the plan at the City's direction. As the entire plan was not made available until shortly before the meeting, Mr. Sawyer noted that the item may be continued to the October 28, 1998, meeting for final consideration by the Planning Commission before being forwarded to the City Council. . Eileen Knight, President of the PADA, further explained how the study area was defined and praised Mr. Sawyer for his efforts as the City's liasion in preparation of the parking plan. Mr. Sawyer provided significant staff services to the P ADA and succeeded in finally pulling together a satisfactory document which is supported by the P ADA . . . Planning Commission Minutes October U, 1998 Page J J Don Bettger, 1022 S. Cherry Street, wished to publicly thank Mr. Sawyer for his efforts and hard work in preparation of the parking plan. The PADA members, Aria Holzschuh, Eileen Knight, Tun Haguewood, Sandy Haggerty, Dan DiGiulio, Wayne Barrett, Roy Gotham, and himself, couldn't have done the wor~ so successfully without Mr. Sawyer's assistance. He stressed that most of the information contained in the plan is history and summary information which shouldn't concern the Commission. The intent is to make the Downtown more user friendl and more pedestrian oriented. Commissioner Nutter encouraged planning for bicycle visitors and that space be made available for long distance bicycle travelers who may need to store their belongings in some type of storage shell in order to linger longer in the area. Certain parking areas should be made available to accommodate shoppers who wish to remain for longer than two to three hours. She also noted that foreign language signage of some sort should be available for visitor information. Commissioner Ziakin applauded the effort being made. He suggested that effort be put into providing landscaping for parking areas to upgrade the look of the Downtown parking areas consistent with other progressive areas of the state/country. He questioned whether private parking areas in the Downtown might not be contrary to the purpose of the PBIA Commissioner Hewins moved to continue further discussion to the October 28, 1998, meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ziakin and passed 5 - O. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As there was a fifth member present, the Commission agreed to reconsider approval of the September 26, 1998, minutes. Commissioner Hewins moved to approve the minutes as presented Commissioner Craver seconded the motion, which passed 2 - 0, with Commissioners Ziakin, Reed, and Nutter abstaining due to their absences at the meeting. COMMUNICA nONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. STAFF REPORTS Planning Director Collins encouraged the Planning Commissioners to attend a coastal bluff workshop on October 27, 1998, being coordinated by CIallam County. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Ziakin stated that it has been a pleasure and an honor to have served on the Commission this past year. As his work may be in the Seattle area in the future, it may be necessary for him to resign from the Commission. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October U. 1998 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p,m. ~~ B ad Colhns, Secretary PREPARED BY: S. Roberds . . . PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND SIGN UP SHEET PLEASE SIGN IN For the items listed on the Agenda of: A~ . /"1/99/ Please read the following: If I testify, by signature below, I certify that my testimony is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington. Signature Print Name Address c: \ wp\forms\attndrst.pc