Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/20/1991 . I. ll. ill. . IV. 1. AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 November 20, 1991 7:00 P.M. Special Meeting CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of November 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REOUEST - REZ 91(11)04 - NllCHEL/llURWORTH. South Del Guzzi Drive: Request for rezone of approximately 26,000 square feet of property from RS-9, Residential Single-Family, to RMF, Residential Multi-Family. (Continued from November 13, 1991.) 2. REZONE REQUEST - REZ 91(11)05 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES. Between Peabody and Chase and 5th and 7th Streets: Proposed rezone of approximately 9.3 acres from RMF, Residential Multi-Family, to OC, Office Commercial. 3. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 91(11)7 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES. Housekeeping Measures: Proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 1709, as amended, which would constitute regular maintenance of the City's Zoning Ordinance as amended, Subdivision Ordinance No. 1631, as amended, and Parking Ordinance No. 1588, as amended. Amendments to standards and improvements to administrative provisions. . 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; Jim Hulell; Roger Cans; Larry Leonard; Bob Philpoll; Bill Anabel. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist; lohn limerson, Associate Planner; David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIC 1. Request for Interpretation - Guizzo VI. STAFF REPORTS VD. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VID. 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. All correspondence penaining 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 Grover, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice-Chair; Jim Hulen; Roger Calts; Larry Leonard; Bob Philpott; Bill Anabel. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist; John Jimerson, Associate Planner; David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington November 20, 1991 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gruver called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ray Gruver, Bob Philpott, Bill Anabel, Larry Leonard, Jim Hulett, Cindy Souders and Roger CaUs. Staff Present: Brad Collins, John Jimerson. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Mr. Philpott moved to approve the November 13, 1991, Planning Commission Minutes, with three changes. Public Works Deputy Director Ken Ridout should be added to those staff present. Page 3, f"Irst sentence should read "northCmeant south)"; and on page 4, second paragraph, the word rezone should be added. Mr. Anabel seconded the motion which carried 6-0, with Ms. Souders abstaining. Mr. Leonard moved to reverse the order of items one and two on the agenda. Mr. Hulett seconded the motion which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS REZONE REQUEST - REZ 91(11)05 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES~ Between Peabody and Chase and 5th and 7th Streets: Proposed rezone of approximately 9.3 acres from RMF. Residential Multi-Family. to OC. Office Commercial . Chairman_Gruver~,stepped . down ,from..the.dais..due.to .a,conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Souders assumed the chair and opened the public hearing. Donald Edgmon~ 619 South Chase, expressed concern about the ability to obtain financing for purchase of single-family homes or home improvements as he had spoken with local bankers who told him it is difficult to obtain financing for residential units on commerciall y zoned property. PLANNING COMMISSION November 20. 1991 Page 2 . Howard Doherty, 441 Hillcrest, owner of a home in the proposed area, asked if the area proposed for rewne is contiguous or if it creates islands of residentially zoned property. Staff responded that the proposed rezone area is contiguous. Jim Galvin, 316 East Sixth Street, called First Federal Savings and Loan, which had responded that they would not approve mortgage or home improvement loans for residential uses on property zoned commercial. He asked what the definition of the Office Commercial District (DC) is. Ms. Souders read the defmition of the OC District from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Leonard added that the permitted uses include not only services and offices, but residential uses as well. Michael Serwe, 317 East Seventh Street, asked if after a home is converted to commercial use and then back to residential, would the tax assessment revert back to residential values. Mr. Collins responded that assessments are made on a periodic basis, based on the value of the land and improvements and use on the site and in the vicinity. A rezone would not have an immediate effect because assessments are made on a periodic basis and because a change of use may not occur immediately. Mr. Leonard added that if a house has more value as a commercial property than a residential property it will be taxed at the higher value. . Ms. Souders asked staff to contact the Assessor's Office for procedures on tax assessment and tax rates. Mr. Catts asked what would trigger reevaluation of a change of use. Mr. Collins stated that staff will contact local financial institutions and the Assessor's Office to obtain information on these issues, as well as the City Attorney's Office to investigate the legality of denial of financing to a residential use in a zone district that allows residential uses. Lorraine Ross, 418 East Front Street, stated the same concerns with tax assessments were expressed when the area around the Hospital was rezoned to Office Commercial. She recently studied tax assessments in that area and noted that there is a significant difference between residential land use assessments and commercial assessments within the OC District. Charles Devoney, 320 East Sixth Street, also was concerned with the ability to fmance home sales. He asked if area to be rezoned was so large so as to include the senior center. Mr. Collins responded tha(the origination of the rezone (1986) occurred long . before the senior center was proposed at that site. The senior center is not listed in the Office Commercial (OC) or Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Districts as a permitted use. . Donald Edgmon, 619 South Chase, stated that many of the notices of public hearing were sent to the financial institutions and not necessarily the owner. Mr. Collins responded that the notices are mailed to the taxpayer of record, which in most cases is the legal property owner, but in some cases, they would be mailed to the bank. The Planning Department could amend the notice format to include a request that if the person receiving the notice is not the property owner the notice should be forwarded. PLANNING COMMISSION November 20, 1991 Page 3 . There being no further testimony, Vice Chairman Souders continued the public hearing to December 11, 1991, 7 PM, City Hall. REZONE REQUEST - REZ-91(1l)04 - NIICHELIHURWORTH, South DelGuzzi Drive: Request for rezone of approximately 26,000 square feet of property from RS-9, Residential Single-Family, (Continued from November 13, 1991.) Mr. Collins explained that the City Council had continued the Planned Residential Development (pRD) Ordinance review to December 3, 1991, to allow those Council members absent from the November 13, 1991, meeting to be in attendance for the decision. He suggested the Commission proceed with their recommendation on the proposed amendment. The applicant could not apply for a PRD because the site is less than the minimum of one acre, but the Planning Commission could require PRD approval. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 7:55 PM. . Bill Lindberg, 319 South Peabody, stated the applicant had met with the Mantooths and the Hares, who accepted five conditions proposed to be placed on the rezone, stating that the applicant found the conditions were preferable to the PRD review process. Mr. Leonard asked what would be the maximum number of units the site could accommodate. Mr. Lindberg answered that there could be 15 apartment units or up to 20 units of senior housing with reduced parking and smaller units. Mr. Philpott asked if conditions of a rezone are transferrable. Mr. Collins answered that if the property was sold, the City and new property owner(s) would still be bound by the conditions. . Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, stated that it is important to retain the single-family character of Lindberg Road. It is not appropriate to use the finding that there are an existing 200 units approved as justification for approving this additional rezone. The incremental effect of this rezone is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan requirement that multi-family development in suburban areas shall occur only as an occasional use. She ask~ for additional protection ,beyond ,the conditions proposed by Mr. Lindberg and would like the City to make any rezone conditional on a PRD review. She asked that Del Guzzi Drive be closed to the south to all but emergency vehicles, so all traffic north of Lindberg Road would access the site from Highway 101. She expressed concerns over environmental impacts of development in the area on Ennis Creek, including increased pollutants resulting from maintenance of landscaping. Six units on a 26,000 square foot site would be an appropriate density. Mr. Leonard interrupted Mrs. Mantooth's testimony concerning the Ennis Creek Estates decision and began to comment about it. Chairman Gruver attempted to stop Mr. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION November 20, 1991 Page 4 Leonard, but Mr. Leonard finished his comment questioning the appropriateness of testimony on past decisions. Mrs. Mantooth asked if she should stop testifying, and Chairman Gruver asked her to finish her testimony which she did. There being no further testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 8: 15 PM. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of approving a conditional rezone using the conditions proposed by the applicant. Mr. Collins stated that staff will not support such a conditional rezone. It is not an appropriate manner in which to proceed with planning as it ties not only future property owners' hands with respect to future use of the land but also ties the City's hands. He said staff would go along with a rezone conditioned on PRD approval, since the PRD was in effect a rezone that could be changed by future City zoning action. Mr. Leonard stated that PRDs are not meant for small developments. They are for larger developments where the advantage of clustering or density credits can be applied. He then moved to approve the rezone request citing the seven fmdings and three conclusions contained in the staff report. The motion died for lack of a second. Following substantial discussion regarding options of requiring a PRD approval or a conditional rezone, Mr. Catts moved to recommend approval of the rezone request as proposed, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS: A. The maximum number of dwelling units be limited to six (6). B. Site access and drainage shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to development. C. Construction shall commence within five (5) years and be completed within six (6) years from the date of final approval. D. Noncompliance with any of the above conditions (A-C) shall cause the property to revert back to its original RS-9, Residential Single-Family designation. The following findings and conclusions were cited: ~ ....... 1. The request is to rezone a 26,000 square foot site from RS-9, Residential Single- Family, to RMF, Residential Multi-Family. 2. The property is not developed; therefore, the rezone will not result in non- conforming uses or structures. 3. The site is bounded by the Golf Course to the west and south, and RMF-zoned property to the north and east. PLANNING COMMISSION November 20. 1991 Page 5 . 4. The Comprehensive Plan includes several Goals and Policies relating to the proposal, including Goals Nos. 3 and 5, and Residential Policies Nos. 1,2, 4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18. 5. The applicant has indicated an intent to construct six (6) town home condominiums. The zoning could allow as many as twenty (20) units. 6. The site has no direct interface with low-density residential development, with the Golf Course to the west and south and Ennis Creek Estates PRD to the north and east. There is low-density development further to the south, along Lindberg Road, and further to the east along Del Guzzi Place. 7. There are existing roadways and utilities available to support the rezone. The site has access to an arterial road (Highway 101) via Del Guzzi Drive. 8. A PRD (application) is not allowed for sites of less than one (1) acre. Conclusions: A. The rezone is in the public use and interest and is compatible with the surrounding zomng. . B. The rezone is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goal Nos. 3 and 5, and Residential Policies Nos. 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18. C. Circumstances have changed since the property was zoned RS-9 by the City of Port Angeles. Adjacent property (12 acres) has been rezoned to RMF, and PRD approval has been granted for multi-family development on that 12 acres. D. Six (6) dwelling units is an appropriate density for the (subject) site. The motion was seconded by Jim Hulett, and passed 5 . 1, with Ms. Souders abstaining due to her absence at the previous meeting where public testimony was taken on this issue. Ray Gruver stated that he voted "no" because he has consistently heard from Planning staff( at least five different planners) that there are too many ramifications with contract rezones. He has never heard professional staff indicate contract rezones are apP~Qpriate. He believes itis important to trust the insistence of the professional stiff that contract rezones are not a good idea. . Mr. Collins asked the Commission to consider sending a member of the Commission to the Council meeting, December 3, 1991, to present the Planning Commission's recommendation, as staff will have a difficult time presenting the Planning Commission's recommendation when staff will have a different recommendation. The Planning Commission agreed to have a member present the Planning Commission's recommendation. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION November 20, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Lindberg asked staff to recommend Council set the public hearing for January 7, 1992. The Commission took a break at 9 PM. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 PM. Mr. Leonard moved to reverse the order of the remaining agenda items to hear the interpretation request flI'St, and the remaining agenda item second. The motion was seconded by Jim Hulett, and carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 1. Request for Interpretation - Guizzo Following a brief discussion comparing beauty shops, kennels and veterinarian offices, their similarities and locations, Larry Leonard moved that pet grooming be considered the same as beauty shops. Continuation of public hearings: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 91(11)7 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES, Housekeeping Measures: Proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 1709, as amended, which would constitute regular maintenance of the City's Zoning Ordinance as amended, Subdivision Ordinance No. 1631, as amended, and Parking Ordinance No. 1588, as amended. Amendments to standards and improvements to administrative provisions. The Commission questioned the proposed non-conforming provision with respect to parking which would require a facility which is abandoned for a year or more to meet parking requirements prior to its further use. Options were discussed which could be employed by property owners including the creation of a PBIA (parking Business Improvement Area), parking variances, remodel of the site to provide parking on-site, or off-site parking within 100 feet of the site. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate the proposed clause. Discussion ensued which resulted in minor changes to the proposed landscape and design standards. Mr. Leonard moved to recommend the City Council approve the proposed amendments .with the changes noted, citing the fmdings and conclusions as follows: Findings: 1. Zoning Code Amendments may be initiated by the Planning Commission and City Council as authorized in Sections 9 and 10 of Article XI, Ordinance No. 1709, as amended. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION November 20, 1991 Page 7 2. The Planning Department has identified several minor amendments to the zoning and parking ordinances which serve to clarify, reorganize, eliminate duplication or otherwise improve specific sections of these ordinances. On November 20, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a duly notified public hearing in conformance with the requirements of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. 3. Conclusions: A. The amendments to Ordinance No. L 709, as amended, are in the public use and interest. B. The amendments to Ordinance No. 1588, as amended, are in the public use and interest. C. The amendments. to the Ordinance are consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. D. The amendments improve and clarify ordinance format and provisions. The motion was seconded by Jim Hulett and carried unanimously. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Collins reported the City Council had continued the PRD Ordinance amendment to December 3, 1991. He also noted that Ray Gruver and Jim Hulett's terms will expire in March, 199 L. Mr. Hulett has served two and a half terms and is therefore not eligible for renewal. At the City Council's November 20, 1991, meeting, Mr. Gruver was reappointed for a full four-year term beginning March L, 1992. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Mr. Leonard suggested the Commission consider placing contract rezones of a minor nature for projects that are not large enough to allow for. PRDs on a Jong-range agenda. Mr. CollIns pointed 'out that the City Attorney was proposing to allow for PRDs to be required by the City and reiterated his concerns that contract rezones bind the City and property owners and that the City is not able to foresee all potential ramifications which may result in contract rezones. He once again strongly urged the Commission not to consider such an option. Following discussion, the consensus was to direct staff to draft a new zoning district which would provide for medium residential uses that may be more appropriate in some areas but limiting the density to less than what the existing RMF zone allows. In creating such a district, the City may have more flexibility as to where multi-family zoning is located. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION November 20, 1991 Page 8 Jim Hulett asked that when interpretations of the Commission are requested, staff present the interpretations without reference to the specific individual or site, so the Commission does not focus on site specific issues but on the more general zoning application. Chairman Gruver apologized for not maintaining order during one of the public hearings and requested that when the Chairman asks members to restrain from comments they do so or ask for the Commission's approval before continuing. Mr. Leonard agreed with the other Commissioners and apologized for not following the Rules of Order. Brad Collins noted that the City Attorney is drafting a memorandum to the City Council and Planning Commission explaining that it is not appropriate for members of the Council nor boards/commissions to discuss matters or debate them with members of the public as they give public testimony. Questions may be asked of the public after they have completed giving testimony, and positions may be taken after the public hearing is closed. The Commission carried on a discussion regarding Robert's Rules of Order. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Anabel moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. Mr. Hulett seconded the motion, which passed animously. ~~ Brad Collins, Secretary Prepared by: John Jimerson JJ:sr . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of M~ ~annin;, com:~ Date M /.I?? 'J..I1-1 j .I 99/ Location 321 E. 5th Street - City Hall Name Address <: Il') E. L/~ I h /.r :S;;~7 r!/~_ 3 (. q t ~ 1 i-l. 'lA ~l 7 ~ '/ !!t' .:? I (" ?- c.;of- .t-f+i S 8?4 "1A- V- , . 2c:?f? b. Lt'k~ ~ \ . ~ ,- 62-0.?- &~/ <t--"I ( H-J!-eU'~ y 18: 1.-13 ~ 2- SfL F Pff ; (JD / :)_ 1.,yu,<eL I;~, i-/9;Ii-(A~ .7d/ ?Y-M !~A-_ .