HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/18/1992
.
.
.
AGENDA
PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
Port Angeles, W A 98362
Special Meeting
November 18, 1992
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
D. ROLL CALL
m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of November 11, 1992
IV. PUBLIC HEARING:
1.
FINAL SUBDIVISION - REPLAT OF GREEN'S BELLE VIEW
SUBDIVISION. Between East Third and Fourth Streets off Golf Course
Road. Request for final consideration of a replat which would reduce an
original 17-lot block to 10 lots.
2. DRAFT PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Continued review
and public hearing of the draft proposed Comprehensive Plan.
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
VI. REPORTS OF TIlE COMMISSION
VD. STAFF REPORTS
VID. ADJOURNMENT
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!
.
.
.
MINUTES
Planning Commission
Port Angeles, Washington
Special Meeting
November 18, 1992
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Souders called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Larry Leonard, Roger Catts, Bob Winters, Cindy Souders,
Bob Philpott and Bill Anabel
Members Excused:
Ray Gruver
Staff Present:
Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, David Sawyer, Bruce Becker
ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bob Philpott moved to approve the November 11, 1992, minutes of the Planning
Commission noting that Commissioner Winters' motion on page 2, regarding ANX
92(09)01, ROCKFORDI ANDREW including the proviso that the newly annexed
property would be replatted to minimum RS-9 standards and be subject to the
annexation agreement. Brad Collins noted that the condition to replat is included in the
annexation agreement. Commissioner Leonard seconded the motion, which passed 5 -
0, with Commissioner Anabel abstaining due to his absence.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
FINAL SUBDIVISION - REPLA T OF GREEN'S BELLE VIEW
SUBDIVISION (BA YVIEW HEIGHTS). Between East Third and Fourth Streets
off Golf Course Road. Submittal of a final subdivision which is a replat of an
original 17-lot block to a to-lot block.
Brad Collins reviewed the Department Report and explained that analysis of the submitted
material for final approval of the (re)subdivision indicated that the conditions of approval
have been met, although there are a few irregularities in the submitted material. The
irregularities can be quite easily corrected. The applicant has been notified of the need
for some correction in the submitted material.
Planning Commission
Page 2
.
Commissioner Winters indicated that the list of corrections to the
surveying data for the replat was generated by his review of the material in preparation
for the meeting. His evaluation had prompted a detailed review including an on-site visit.
The irregularities were discussed with the Public Works Department where he learned that
no review of the measurements had been made. Thus, the corrections.
Bruce Becker placement of fire hydrants would be per the Uniform Fire Code and would
be complied with by the applicant.
Chairman Souders reviewed the public hearing procedure and opened the public hearing.
Rick Anderson, 618 South Peabody, said there appear to be concerns regarding the
survey material for the plat. He requested the Commission forward a favorable
recommendation for approval of the final plat to the City Council with the condition that
the surveying corrections be made as noted. He added that the condition prohibiting
access to Lots 1 and 6 would be noted, it was missed when preparing the material for
final submittal.
.
Commissioner Winters, answered that the noted corrections are to technical information
which can be easily made. The developer has complied with the preliminary approval
requirements. As a professional land surveyor and Commission member, he noted how
important it is to have such documents be verified for fulfillment of certain technical
requirements. If not verified, a plat would be recorded that is incorrect.
Mr. Collins noted that the corrections should be made prior to the information being
forwarded to the City Council for review, It may therefore be necessary to delay
submittal to the City Council until the corrections could be made and verified.
Commissioner Leonard moved to recommend approval of the Bayview Heights
(renamed) subdivision conditioned upon the verification by the City Engineer that
the noted technical corrections (attacbed) bave been made by the applicant and
resubmitted for Council approval, citing the findings and conclusions as follows:
Findin~s:
1. The City Council approved the preliminary replat creating 10 lots on May 15,
1990. The application was complete on October 19, 1992, which is within the
three year time frame required by state law (RCW 58.17.140).
2. The site has been identified as Suburban Residential Environment in the
Comprehensive Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies have
been found to be most relevant to the request: Goals nos. 3 & 5; Residential
Policies nos 4, 5 & 8; and Circulation Policies 4 & 8.
.
3.
The property is zoned single family residential, RS-7 which requires a minimum
lot area of 7,000 square feet.
4. The approved preliminary replat was for ten lots ranging in size from 7,080 s.f.
.
.
.
Planning Conunission Minutes
Page 3
and larger. The ten lots on the final replat are substantially the same size and
shape.
5.
The necessary roadway and utility improvements have been installed, except that
the homes on lots 2 and 3 shall have sprinkler systems unless a fire hydrant is
installed at the corner of 3rd Street and Golf Course Road,
6.
The necessary utility easements are shown on the final replat.
7.
A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the proposal on April 26,
1990.
8.
Those structures identified on the plat as to be removed have already been
removed.
Conclusions:
A. The final replat is in conformance with the preliminary replat approval and with
the requirements of the subdivision ordinance.
B. The final replat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, specifically, those
goals and policies identified in Finding No.2.
c.
The final replat is consistent with the single family - residential (RS-7) zone
district.
D. The fmal replat is in the public use and interest.
Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Collins answered Commissioner Leonard that the review process is currently under
review for thoroughness.
DRAFT PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chairman Sounders noted that this is the second public hearing for the draft proposed
Comprehensive Plan. The first meeting was essentially an informational meeting where
the Growth Management Advisory Committee (GMAC) presented the proposed draft plan
and a land use maps.
David Sawyer, Senior Planner, noted this is the first opportunity for staff to make
recommendations on the proposed recommendation of the GMAC. The process began
over two years ago, and it is the City's goal that the final plan will be the community's
plan as a whole, not any individual group or groups. There has been a considerable
amount of public input to date. It is still very early in the process and should be
considered very flexible at this stage. He encouraged public comment in all areas. It
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
.
was stressed that staff comments are intended to strengthen the document as a legal
document and make it workable over the next twenty years.
The capital facilities element still needs to be completed, and should be completed after
the first part of 1993, along with the environmental impact statement (EIS) which is being
prepared for adoption of the plan. The capital facilities element contains issues such as
level of service, consistency and concurrency for development with urban services that
are required by the Growth Management Act. The concept of bringing the plan to a
public forum at this point is to assure that everyone gets as much input as possible early
on. A final recommendation on the proposed plan should not be made until after the EIS
and capital facilities plan have been completed.
Mr. Sawyer exlained staff's review of the draft proposal and incorporation of those
recommendations in the current proposal. He explained the careful use of the words
"should" and "shall". The document is meant to be a strong policy document, however,
where the word "shall" is used, it becomes a regulatory document. Mr. Sawyer
explained in detail six recommended staff changes. The changes are to recognize what
exists in actuality in certain areas.
.
The ultimate purpose of a cross-town route is to transport people from the west to east
side of town, and vice versa. It is not a bypass proposal. If a legitimate bypass is
considered, it will have to be other than Lauridsen Boulevard. The goal at this time is
to better circulation from one part of town to another. Staff agrees that Lauridsen
Boulevard could be used as an alternate cross-town route, but disagrees with the ultimate
termination of the route. It is suggested that the route should continue across Ennis
Creek along an extension of Lauridsen Boulevard to a connection with Monroe Road,
then north along Monroe Road to Highway 101, providing an access from that part of
town east without having to go north to the Highway and east out of town.
Mr. Sawyer answered several questions about the proposed cross-town route. If a cross-
town route is developed along Lauridsen Boulevard, it will be expensive, it needs to be
done right or not at all. A successful cross-town route will require detailed planning and
much cooperation from the community.
Chairman Souders opened the public hearing.
.
Bill LaRue, 222 West Park Avenue, stated his strong concern with the transportation
subcommittee's recommendation for a cross-town route and some of the new changes that
were mentioned. A cross-town route in the area of Lauridsen Boulevard will affect many
established single-family homes, a premium housing develoment, two schools, Peninsula
College and the Crestwood Convalescent Center, which is presently being expanded. All
these uses require quiet, and were located in that area without envisioning of the traffic
and noise that a cross-town route would bring. The school district will certainly be
concerned that the proposal will mix young children with a great deal of traffic. This is
not good planning. A route impacting more uses that require quiet could not have been
chosen. Another alternative route should be proposed where it will not impact people
who have purposely located in the area because of its present qualities.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
.
In response to Commissioner Leonard, Mr. Collins noted that Lauridsen Boulevard has
been proposed since 1976 as the City's bypass route. The proposed use is a downgrade
of the bypass proposal.
Lorraine Ross, 418 East Front Street, noted that is very costly to bridge Ennis Creek
in the proposed area. It would be much more reasonable and much less impactive if a
cross route is considered at Third, Fourth or Fifth Streets, where the crossing would not
be over such a deep area of the Creek. The Boulevard is south of town, and Fifth Street
is at the center of town, therefore offering a more readily usable cross-town route.
Maybe more than one crossing should be considered to relieve some of the traffic.
Quentin Kintner, 1105 East Laurisden Boulevard, felt that a cross-town route at
Lauridsen Boulevard would highly adversely impact the schools in the area. The present
proposal will do more harm than good. A good alternative would be a one-way couplet
at Peabody and Lincoln Streets.
.
Pat Harkins, 1359 East Lauridsen Boulevard, stated his distress over the proposal
which would cause a catastrophe in the area of his home. The college in the area causes
a great deal of traffic already and there is no cross-town route, The proposal would bring
many more people to the area which is already greatly congested and is an area with
many substantial homes and residential uses, including an elementary school and
convalescent home. The only way to solve the traffic problem in Port Angeles is to
develop a bypass on Scrivner Road, which may cost more money, but will prove to be
logical planning and be efficient in the long run. The college is expanding and the
proposal will destroy the college.
Margaret Hampton, 322 West Tenth, wished to state support for extension of a
commercial district which is proposed as being from Cherry east to Race Street. She
added that in the early 1940's or late 1930's, a bridge across East Fifth Street in the
Sunrise Heights area fell down and was never replaced. Perhaps another crossing of the
White's Creek which would not be such an expensive endeavor should be considered.
Chris Muir, 214 West Second, owns property at the southeast corner of Peabody and
Lauridsen Boulevard. He agreed with the recommendation of the Planning staff as to not
changing the existing commercial designation along Lauridsen Boulevard from Chase to
Vine Street.
.
Kevin Thompson, 130 Front Street, President of the Port Angeles Downtown
Association, stated the Association's appreciation of the effort that has gone into the
preparation of the proposed plan and the work done toward that end. While the PADA
is in support of the proposed plan, more language is needed which focuses specifically
on the historic waterfront core. The plan should contain language which assures that the
historic CBD remains the focus of future retail and commercial develoment. The plan
should contain policies which are designed to strengthen the position of the downtown as
the primary retail/commercial center of Port Angeles. Language was proposed toward
that end in support of the City's committment of its historic downtown.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
.
Barry Berzowski, 607 West Thirteenth Street, Executive Director of the Downtown
Association, added that the Port Angeles Downtown Association is in favor of extension
and improvement to the Port Angeles Waterfront Trail use. Linkage of the trail use to
the major activity nodes, such as the college, courthouse and City Hall uses, of the City
was supported. Commissioner Souders suggested the PADA work with the Parks
Department on some of those proposals.
Barbara Ganmkle, 325 East Sixth Street, was concerned with staff's recommendation
to designate commercial use for the property between Sixth and Seventh between Chase
and Peabody Streets. Staff noted that that particular area was just rezoned to OC, Office
Commercial, and contains some office uses already.
Wendy Clark, 205 South Albert, stated that her neighborhood, between Second and
Fifth, Vine and Albert, should not be intended for medium density residential use.
Currently the area is developed in single-family uses, and it is not zoned for multi family
uses. The area is characterized by older homes of historical significance dating from the
early 1900's. The neighborhood is not capable of supporting multi-family dwelling units.
The streets are local in design and nature and the capacity for traffic is a major
constraint. The proposal does not comply with draft comprehensive plan goal B. The
neighborhood's adaptability to multi-family housing could perhaps occur along Second
and Seventh Streets. A detailed neighborhood survey of existing land uses will indicate
that the area should be intended for low density residential housing.
.
Dick Elmer, 731 South Alder, stated his strong objection to the proposed cross-town
proposal for Lauridsen Boulevard. This route is not necessary, there are other routes.
He concurred with the previous testimony against the proposal. It is detrimental to the
City. A bypass should be south of town.
The Commission took a 10 minute break. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 P.M.
David Stalheim, 205 West Fifth Street, presented a lengthy slide presentation with
display items for the Commission's consideration as well as a land use map designating
uses in the area as well as historic buildings in the area. He stated his objection to the
proposed high density residential designation in the Lower Cherry Hill area. His
testimony covered design issues, waterfront and downtown design issues as well as policy
guidelines for development. He commended the Downtown Association for their efforts
in developing policies and recommendations to the Planning Commission. He generally
felt the draft proposed comprehensive plan carefully develops a framework upon which
a vision of neighborhoods, conservation and community goals can be achieved. He
objected to there being no restricting oil ports in Port Angeles. He asked that it be
reinstated.
.
The Lower Cherry Hill neighborhood has less than six vacant lots and is characterized
by historic single-family homes. Although his neighborhood is currently zoned high
density, it does not mean it is right. The historic neighborhood concept which is
observed in the Lower Cherry Hill neighborhood is pedestrian oriented and was planned
to be a very close neighborhood. A high density housing designation for the area could
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
.
destroy the historic quality and integrity of the existing neighborhood. A medium density
designation would be more appropriate for the area.
Mr. Stalheim stated commercial development standards and a policy concerning the
gateways to Port Angeles should be included in the proposal. He suggested that a
stoplight at Fourth and Lincoln Streets may be needed.
Commissioner Leonard asked what constitutes a historic use.
In response to Commissioner Leonard, Mr. Stalheim answered that historic buildings have
to have a context to the history of our community. Historic buildings are those which
are tied to the community's common beginnings and can include significant structures
which were unusual for their time.
.
Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, wished to express great appreciation to
all the people who've given so much time to an enormous job of updating the
Comprehensive Plan and to see it through to completion. The document is generally
outstanding. Ambiguities in wording should be fine tuned, such as "should" and
"encouraged" vs "shall". She suggested the wording "should" should be replaced with
"shall". Wording should be more definite and not be so general in nature. Due to the
nature of the area, requirements should be in place to dictate that all new development
will have underground utilities. In closing, Mrs. Mantooth noted many suggestions for
revision to several elements and policies contained in the proposed document.
Kirk Thompson, 1633 East Fifth Street, asked why the alternate cross-town route
includes use of Penn Street. A considerable improvement has just been made in Golf
Course Road, directly to the east of Penn Street, so why use Penn Street? He objected
to the use of Penn Street in a cross-town manner as it would be an additional expense
when Golf Course is so close.
Everett Winters, 1724 East Second Street, objected to Penn Street as a secondary
access as Golf Course Road is so close and has just been upgraded.
.
Ken Sweeney, Port of Port Angeles, spoke on Industrial Policy F2 (pg.27) of the
proposed plan. The Port recently had a need to review City policies regarding uses
allowed in the Light Industrial District found in the Airport Industrial Park. Research
indicated that it was anticipated that limited commercial activities would be allowed in
the Light Industrial Park. The Urban Land Institute's The Industrial Development
Handbook states that "office commercial functions and certain public and semi-public uses
are emerging as important new elements in the industrial environment. The presence of
office buildings and office park areas within the industrial parks illustrates the
increasingly fine line to be drawn between industrial and commercial activities". Many
of the existing land uses in the current industrial park could be considered
commercial/office in nature. There have been several inquiries from prospective tenants
in the past several years requesting uses which could be considered commercial/office in
nature. The Port Commission requests the City broaden the uses in the LI District.
Wording such as "public uses such as government offices, public service buildings and
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
other public and other quasi public public office facilities and services along with
commercial, administrative, professional and business offices may be allowed in certain
industrially designated areas in the Airport Industrial Park and zone as it is presently
applicable for this type of policy. Conversation with City staff has noted that if the
Port's intent is to lean heavily on commercial rather than light industrial uses in the LI
District, those more industrially oriented uses will have to locate in the Heavy Industrial
zone in the future.
Bruce Becker, 1311 East Lauridsen Boulevard, property owner in the College area,
stated that residents need to be very specific about offering mitigation measures
concerning a possible cross-town route, including greenbelts, etc. Possibly alternative
routes should be looked at further south of the college along PUD property.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Souders closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued as to when the next meeting should be on the proposed plan.
Commissioner Catts moved to hold a special meeting workshop on December 16,
1992, for further discussion. Commissioner Leonard seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously.
It was also decided to hold a public hearing on January 27, 1993, for continued public
testimony.
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIC
VI. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Collins stated that the City Council has established a Capital Facilities Advisory
Committee and would like a Planning Commissioner to serve on that committee.
Commissioner Winters volunteered to serve on that committee. The Commission
concurred.
Mr. Collins reviewed recent City Council actions regarding the Planning Commission's
November 11, 1992, minutes. The GARDNER Parking Variance request was discussed
at length. The Commission expressed strong concern that the City Council did not seem
to be aware of the significant amount of time, including two public hearings following
which the Commission tried unsuccessfully to find a way to assure that the City's laws
could be upheld by granting the requested variance. A great deal of deliberation went
into the Commission's decision to deny. It was not an easy decision. It did not appear
that the Council understood that serious, thoughtful consideration had been given to the
situation.
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Commissioner Philpott strongly suggested the City consider extension of services beyond
its boundaries. It is very important to encourage growth in the area. Growth hinges on
sewer servIce.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
Commissioner Leonard reported that the Downtown Parking Association is close to
making a proposal to the Planning Commission on a revision to the Downtown Parking
Ordinance.
Commissioner Winters restated his concern with regard to the final subdivision which had
been reviewed earlier. Brief review of the plat showed obvious errors. He was surprised
to find that Public Works does not review plats from a survey standpoint. He requested
City staff re-evaluate its review procedure with regard to this type of approval as the City
is assuming certain liabilities by signing off on final plats without review for correctness.
Mr. Collins said he would discuss the situation with the Public Works Department.
Chairman Souders noted that Family Learning Night is December 3, 1992, in the Vern
Burton Community Center. There will be booths and it will be a family oriented learning
experience, and a time when members of the family can discuss things about their
neighborhoods they like and don't like, etc. She volunteered to man a.booth which could
discuss comprehensive plan elements, policies, etc., with those of all ages.
Chairman Souders reported that the workshop between City staff, the Departments of
Ecology, Wildlife and Fisheries went well and afforded an opportunity for a good
interaction with a promise of more cooperation and understanding in the future.
Commissioner Leonard wished to revisit the City's Wetland Ordinance in the near future.
Vill. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11: 15 PM.
~~
Brad Collins, Secretary
Cindy Souders, Chairman
PREPARED BY: Sue Roberds
A:minutes.18
.
.
.
PLEASE SIGN IN
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
Attendance Roster
Type OfM~~S~
~:tion~ r ~-i . 119.;2-
::Drck ~ e~
(Ol ~l ~ ~u/~
P/l-f' V- 1/ d;< If 4 ;./ 1/ f{ /()I;' 5
:;2cQ () CO .~
(p ~6
;;2 oS- W J ..s~
--1.- ~:5 tAl:;' M....
;1 /' j) S
,0\ ~l ~l
30 ~ -SD. L1r\ CO {tv ~.
,J,St:;' ;;;., 'liJI.I~