Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/11/1991 . .~. , . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 December 11, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Adjourn to executive session (15 minutes) II. ROLL CALL ill. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: Meeting of November 20, 1991 IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PROPOSED CLEARING AND GRADING ORDINANCE: City-wide. REZONE REOUEST - 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. (Continued from November 20, 1991.) 2. 3. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 90(10)10 - WHEELER~ Northeast corner of Rhodes Road and Park Knoll Drive: Request for extension of a conditional use permit to allow a duplex in the RS-9, Residential Multi-Family District. 4. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA 91(12)124 - PORT OF PORT ANGELES. 439 Marine Drive: Request for a permit to establish a graving dock in which concrete floating bridge sections can be constructed. 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 Grover, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vice-Chair; Jim Hulett; Roger Calls; Larry Leonard; Bob Philpott; Bill Anabel. Planning Slaff: Bmd Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist; John Jimerson. Associate Planner; David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . .- .. -- Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 s. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 91(12)08 - CLALLAM COUNTY. LI. Light Industrial District: Request for amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1709, as amended, which would allow public detention facilities to be permitted uses in the Light Industrial District. 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE DEVEWPING GUIDELINES FOR DEALING WITH BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS: (Continued from November 13, 1991.) V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM TIlE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VIT. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Vill. 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 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 Grover, Chair; Cindy Souders, Viee-chair; Jim Hulett; Roger CattJl; 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. . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington December 11, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gruver called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. Mr. Collins indicated an executive session was not needed for the City Attorney's memorandum, unless the Planning commission wished to discuss it. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Ray Gruver, Bob Philpott, Bill Anabel, Larry Leonard, Jim Hulett, Cindy Souders, Roger Catts. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Brad Collins, Kenworthy. John Jimerson, Gary . III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Philpott moved to approve the minutes of the November 20, 1991, Planning Commission, as submitted. Mr. Anabel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSED CLEARING AND GRADING ORDINANCE - City-Wide Mr. Collins reviewed the series of staff reports and memos, and explained that a first draft of the proposed Clearing and Grading Ordinance was given to the Planning commission in early 1991. A second draft was presented at the second meeting in August and given a public hearing at the October 9, 1991, meeting. A third revision, based on public comment and Planning commission direction, was distributed at the October 23, 1991, meeting. Mr. Collins stated the December 6, 1991, revision was based on the Public Works Department and builders' comments and'was included in-the'December 11, 1991, packet. The staff recommendation in the September 20, 1991, memo now pertains to the December 6, 1991, version. . Mr. Philpott asked if plans can be modified once work has commenced. City Engineer Kenworthy responded that an approved plan may be modified during the process to address any changes in circumstances. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 2 . Fran Burch, 1036 East First street, representing the Board of Realtors, stated that the purpose statement should also note the importance of protecting private property rights. She went through the proposed ordinance, identifying specific provisions which add to the cost of development and therefore increase the cost of housing. She expressed concern about the fiscal impact the City would absorb in administering this new ordinance. She stated the public was promised a 30-day advanced notice in which they may obtain and review the proposed ordinance, and that this latest version was not available until December 6th. This did not provide her adequate time to review it. The Planning commission asked Mr. Collins to address questions raised by Fran Burch. He responded that much of the engineer- ing work specified in this Ordinance already is required for development. The Ordinance would affect the timing on when engineering would be required, with more engineering required prior to application for a building permit. Mr. Collins indicated that the October 23, 1991, version was not substan- tially changed by the December 6, 1991, packet revisions. City Engineer Kenworthy added that one additional full-time staff position would be needed for administration of the Ordinance. . Art Dunker, 2114 west Sixth Street, representing the North Olympic Peninsula Homebuilders Association, stated he was concerned about the lack of time provided to review the ordinance. The requirement for off-site information to be provided within a 200-foot radius around the site is unreasonable. The Ordinance could affect the affordability of housing. Single-family residences should be exempted, unless located in an environmentally sensitive area. with reference to Section 12, Mr. Dunker asked why private property owners would be responsible for maintaining storm drain systems, as that should be the City' s responsibility. Referencing Section 16, requiring the City be named as an insured, he asked why private parties should pay for the city's insurance. The Planning Commission asked City Engineer Kenworthy to respond to the maintenance issue. He responded that the City does assume maintenance of all storm water facilities in the public right-of-way, but the City has no authority to maintain facilities on private property. Wildwood Apartments is an "example ~where on...;site-'storm water' facilities' .were not main- tained and subsequent flooding problems occur. . Mr. Collins added that storm drain facilities are required for retention and detention of water. The Ordinance provides for maintenance of that system. Mr. Collins reiterated that the proposed Ordinance was available as early as October 23, 1991- The subsequent revisions made were based on comments received from the Homebuilders' Association and minor changes proposed by Public Works, but they did not substantively alter the contents of the Ordinance. Mr. Collins noted the concerns raised by the first two speakers were directed at language PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 3 . found in the October 9th or 23rd drafts and not the December 6th revisions. He offered to review the specific December 6th changes for the Planning commission. The Commission did not find that necessary. Roger Wheeler, 1355-C Erving Jacobs Road, stated that the grading permit would expire after only six months. A one-year time period would be more appropriate and most consistent with other permits issued by the city. The city Engineer, responding to the Planning Commission, stated that the intent in limiting the permit to six months would be to encourage all the site improvements to be made within a reasonably quick time after grading begins, to minimize erosion and other impacts. Genelle Doyle, 904 East Front street, questioned whether this ordinance is really needed by the city. The Ordinance may affect the provision of affordable housing. Mary Craver, 3002 Maple street, stated the Ordinance provides for too much discretion on the part of the City Engineer. She identified the specific provisions throughout the Ordinance where the City Engineer has discretion. . There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Leonard asked why public agencies would be exempt from the Ordinance. City Engineer Kenworthy responded that most public work occurs in the street right-of-way and does not involve any massive grading. The city is not exempt from installing erosion control, and the Planning Commission could eliminate this exemption if they wished. Mr. Leonard asked where a hydrologist would come from, to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. City Engineer Kenworthy responded that a hydrologist would not be required except for very large projects affecting streams, in which case, a hydrologist may have to come from out of the area, as there may not be any available locally. Mr. Leonard asked what the short form consists of. Mr. Collins responded that the long form would require that an application comply with Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Ordinance. --~The~short~'form'would'Tequire the~applicant.~to comply with only those provisions deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The intent of the short form is to reduce as much of the cost as possible on smaller projects. . The Planning Commission discussed the 48-hour notice require- ment wherein an applicant must inform the city of any work prior to commencement. Concern was raised as to whether that created coordination problems for the developer. Mr. Collins stated that the issue is a matter of scheduling. It would not necessarily take the city 48 hours to conduct an inspection after the request is made. However, if there is a scheduling PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 4 . conflict due to many requests, the 48-hour notice creates an opportunity for the city to schedule every inspection request as soon as possible. Mr. Leonard asked if the Ordinance would cost between $30,000 to $40,000 to administer on a yearly basis and asked if the Ordinance had been in effect for 1991, would there have been around 35 permits issued. city Engineer Kenworthy indicated those numbers are reasonable estimates. Members of the Planning Commission expressed concern about the availability of information for properties within 200 feet of a site. If the City already has that information on file, why is an engineer's stamp required to certify the information. staff responded that much of the information is available; much of it is being incorporated in an automated GIS system, but the city is not responsible for designing of a project. The information is available for the applicant and his engineers, but it is their responsibility to confirm its accuracy and to engineer the project design. . Mr. Leonard asked if staff had conducted an analysis of the impact the proposal would have on affordable housing. Mr. Collins responded the City has not prepared a fiscal impact analysis, but can. The SEPA review did not include housing affordability, as fiscal impacts are not required; it addressed the impacts on housing stock. Ms. Souders stated the Ordinance would affect lots over 9,000 square feet in area. When you are considering grading a 14,000 square-foot site for one single-family home, you are not talking about affordable housing. Mr. Leonard asked about the requirement that the city be listed as an insured entity. Mr. Collins responded that it is standard language used in many consultant contracts to protect the City in case a lawsuit is filed. It does not fund the City'S insurance; rather, it protects the City from insuring the applicant. The added cost of the insurance used to be about $50 per each additional insured party. He did not know if that has increased over the past few years. Chairman Gruver stated that several insurance companies refuse to add cities as insured entities, as it may expose the . -.insurance"'companies. to. risks~beyond..thelimits of a project. As an alternative, the Ordinance could require the applicant to show proof of adequate insurance to the city and require notice from insurance companies to the city when coverage is cancelled. . The Planning Commission discussed the issue of thresholds for exemptions as they relate to single-family development. Staff indicated it is open to suggestions for different thresholds other than those provided for in the Ordinance. However, some square footage ceiling is needed to avoid administrative problems with enforcement. PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 5 . The Planning commission took a break at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened at 9:30 P.M. At this point, Mr. Anabel excused himself from the remainder of the meeting, as he was feeling ill. He left the meeting room. Mr. Leonard moved to re-open the public hearinq. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hulett and carried unanimously. Chairman Gruver then continued the public hearing to January 8, 1992, at 7 P.M., in the city Council Chambers. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 92(12)6 - CLALLAM COUNTY - LI. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT: Request to allow juvenile detention facilities in the Light Industrial District city- wide. In response to a request from the applicant, Mr. Leonard moved to continue Item 5, zoninq code Amendment, ZCA-91 (12) 08 - Clallam county, to January 8, 1992. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hulett and carried unanimously. . 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. (Continued from November 20. 1991.) Chairman Gruver stepped down from the dais, due to a conflict of interest. Vice-Chairman Souders assumed the Chair and opened the public hearing. Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. . Don Edgmon, 619 South Chase Street, was concerned with the new proposal to rezone the Senior Center site to PBP. If there is such a demand for Office commercial, why are we now proposing to rezone a portion of this site to PBP. He asked what the vacancy rate of existing office buildings is and if it is the City'S assumption that existing residents will move out in order to accommodate a new office development. Who will be responsible for new public-improvements"; ~ i. e.-i" 'will residents be required to provide improvements which benefit new office development? He asked what banks were consulted when asking about the impacts a rezone would have on financing; if the requests made for Office Commercial zoning were recent, or if they occurred before the two new office buildings; where the information regarding the appraised value of homes near the Hospital came from; and how does city Hall create demand for office space. Vice-Chairman Souders asked staff if neighbors would be required to pay for improvements. Mr. Collins responded that PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 6 . if improvements are made on the basis of a local improvement district, those property owners who benefit from the improve- ments would pay for them. An LID could be created regardless of the zoning and land use. LIDs are initiated by property owners and require that property owners vote to approve them. The City does not initiate LIDs. New developments would provide improvements at the time of development. He also indicated that the requests for OC zoning were within the last year and pointed to the staff report analysis of OC demand affects on the subject area's housing market. Mr. Jimerson stated the banks contacted included Security Pacific Bank, Great Northwest, First Federal, and Northwest National Bank. Appraisal information was obtained from the County Assessor's Office. . Werner Quast, 3800 Park Knoll Drive, stated at the time the City Hall site was chosen, the City council purposely left the area in the vicinity zoned RMF, the intent being to keep people in the area at different times of the day. The Senior Center vicinity may be a good location for a low-income housing development. There being no further public testimony, Vice-Chairman souders continued the public hearing to January 8, 1992. Chairman Gruver returned to the meeting. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP-90 (10) 18 - WHEELER. Northeast corner of Rhodes Road and Park Knoll Drive: Request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a duplex in the RS-9, Single-Family Residential District. Mr. Catts left the hearing room due to an appearance of fairness. Mr. Collins also left the Council Chambers, due to appearance of fairness. . Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 10:30 P.M. Roger Wheeler, 1355-C Erving Jacobs Road, stated he did not act on the Conditional Use Permit as his time was consumed by .'his -business. '''The fill 'which 'had been placed on-site came from another construction site, and he considered it was more appropriate to place it on this site than dump it in a ravine. The water channel is not year-round; it runs three to four months out of the year. The impact of the duplex would be no greater than a single-family home. Jane Shefler, 3717 Park Knoll Drive, stated the duplex is not the issue. Rhodes Road right-of-way is insufficient. The city's minimum standard is 60 feet; there is only 30 feet at this location. The stream is year-round and the property contains a wetland. The filling which occurred on-site is in PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 7 . violation of the permit condition requiring a drainage plan. She requested that an option discussed in the staff report be implemented that would deny the extension request and require compliance with right-of-way standards and the critical Areas Ordinance be included in a new application, when the applicant is ready to build. Werner Quast, 3800 Park Knoll Drive, stated that other resi- dents in the vicinity have had to dedicate property to the Rhodes Road right-of-way. He showed a map where property owners to the west of the site dedicated 15 feet. The drainage plan submitted in response to the original condition is insufficient, as it deals only with the impact created by impervious surfaces. The larger storm drain issues of the area need to be addressed. When the applicant commenced filling of the site, a bulldozer was driven through the drainage channel, which obstructed the flow. The City should purchase the property and use it as a flood retention basin. In re~uttal, Mr. Wheeler stated that the stream is not on his property and clarified that the condition required a drainage plan be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit and he had complied with that condition. . There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 10:55 P.M. Mr. Leonard asked staff if construction of a single-family house would require dedication of right-of-way. city Engineer Kenworthy responded it would not. Mr. Leonard questioned whether the water channel can be considered a stream. He did not think the wetland is significant. Chairman Gruver stated that the right-of-way dedication is needed and this is the appropriate opportunity to obtain that right-of-way. In the short term, it may not have much value; but in the long run, it would allow the City to eliminate its sub-standard streets. Ms. Souders added that there is a need to begin complying with the critical Areas Ordinances. Mr. -Iieonard" moved "to approve the 'extension of --the conditional Use Permit, subject to the first condition, citing the following Findings and Conclusions: CONDITION: . A. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed duplex, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to occupancy of the structure, all improvements required by the drainage plan shall be installed by the applicant and approved by the Department of Public Works. PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 8 . FINDINGS: 1. The property is in a Residential single-Family Zoning District (RS-9) which allows duplexes on 14,000 square- foot lots as a conditional use. 2. The property is 14,600 square feet in area, is located at the corner of Park Knoll Drive and Rhodes Road and is currently undeveloped. 3. The surrounding area is zoned RS-9 and is currently occupied by single-family dwellings and vacant land. Areas to the east are platted, while areas to the north, south, and west are unplatted or short-platted into larger lots. 4. The open space provided, aesthetic design, and parking of the proposed duplex are similar to and compatible with the single-family residences in the neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS: A. The proposed duplex, as conditioned, is compatible with the intent of the RS-9 Zoning District and with the surrounding land uses. . B. The proposed duplex is in the public use and interest and is not detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was seconded by Mr. Philpott and carried 3 - 2, with Ms. Souders and Chairman Gruver voting "no" as the motion did not include a requirement for additional right-of-way or compliance with the City's critical Areas Ordinances. Mr. Catts and Mr. Collins returned to the Council Chambers. Mr. Leonard moved that the Planning commission continue with the meeting, as it is after 10 P.M. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hulett and carried unanimously. The Planning Commission took a break at 11: 20 P. M. and reconvened at 11:25 P.M. 'SHORELINE-"MANAGEMENT 'PERMIT -..SMA;;'91'(12)'124 - PORT OF PORT ANGELES, 439 Marine Drive: Request for a permit to establish a qravinq dock. . Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department report. Mr. Hulett asked if this permit would cause the previous permit to fill the pond, to expire. Mr. collins responded, not necessarily. Chairman Gruver opened the pUblic hearing at 11:35 P.M. Bill Conley, Port of Port Angeles, Director of the Airport, stated he is in concurrence with the recommended conditions of PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 9 . approval and findings and conclusions. The Port would like to keep the door open to proceed with the work as set forth in the previous permit in the event they do not win the bid for the graving dock. Because of Army Corps of Engineers requirements for mitigating loss of wetlands, they have not proceeded on that permit at this time. Mr. Jimerson noted oversights in the staff report, adding three conditions to the staff recommendation to which Mr. Conley again agreed. Roqer Reidel, 6726 Biqhway 101 west, stated he is in support of the project. He is with the AFL-CIO, and the project would provide industry which creates jobs. . Charles Bridge, 109 south Beveraqe street, Sequim, stated the project is good for the local economy and will help create diversity. Dan Moore, sequim, stated he is with Local 1303 of the Carpenter's Union. Unlike a recent construction project at Daishowa, where specialized skills were needed by many of the contractors, the jobs in the proposed project would be filled by carpenters and that demand could be filled by the local labor force. As a result, the proposal would not substan- tially affect demand for housing. He thought that the Port's estimate of 300 jobs being created is high and that 170 might be more realistic. There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 12:00 midnight. After a brief discussion, Chairman Gruver asked for a new finding about the proposed closure plan to preserve 4.3 acres of the marine pond habitat. Hr. Philpott moved to recommend the City Council approve the shoreline substantial Development permit, subject to the followinq conditions as proposed by staff, and citing the following findings and conclusions: CONDITIONS: . A. Prior to construction, the site for deposit of dredged materials must be approved by the state Departments of .. ".Natural -Resources, 'Ecology, -Game and 'FiSheries, and if within the City of Port Angeles Urban Growth Area, Public Works and Planning Departments. Upon discovery of evidence of possible archaeological significance, the Planning Department shall be notified, and the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to inspect the site and make recommendations for how to proceed. B. C. The project shall not exceed the noise standards as contained in WAC 173-60-040. PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 10 . D. Submit parking plan to Public Works and Planning for review and approval. The plan shall account for the parking requirements for the entire site, including the K-Ply Mill. E. A revised plan showing the excavation avoiding the Valley Creek culvert or relocation of the culvert should be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval. F. The Public Works Department shall review and approve an access plan which addresses all phases of the project. G. Upon commencing work on the graving dock, the previous Shoreline Permit for filling the pond shall become null and void. FINDINGS: . The request is to construct a graving dock at the exist- ing K-Ply Mill pond site. Improvements to the site include expanding the 3.9 acre pond to about 5 acres, and supporting the new walls with sheet piling; dredging the east portion of the existing pond from one foot to six feet deep; installing a 90' wide gate east of the existing tidal gate; installing a sump with pump, and concrete slabs at the bottom of the pond. 2. The site is located in an existing industrially developed site and will be used for manufacture of bridge sections to be transported by water. 1. 3. The property is designated Heavy Industrial (M-2) by the Port Angeles Zoning Code. 4. The Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan, and zoning Ordinance have been reviewed with respect to this proposal. 5. The Port of Port Angeles assumed lead agency status for the purposes of SEPA and issued a Determination of Non- significance for the proposal. 6. A portion of the pond may be refilled, but restoration of 4.3 acres of pond for marine habitat is to be preserved at the completion of this project. - " '. " . - '., A. CONCLUSIONS: . The proposal is consistent with the Port Angeles Shore- line Master Program, specifically General Regulations C.1, C.4, and C.6; Land Use Element Policy D.l.a, D.2, and 0.7; Natural Systems Element E.7.b; and Use Activity policies F.l.a and d; F.B.a; F.g.a, b, and d; F.12.b, c, e and fi F.14.c, d and ei and F.18.b and c. B. The proposal is consistent with the policies and PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 11 . regulations of the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. C. This proposal will not be detrimental to the shoreline. The motion was seconded by Mr. Catts and carried unanimously. PROPOSED ORDINANCE DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR DEALING WITH BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS: (continued from November 13, 1991. l Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 12:15 A.M. There being no public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public hearing at 12:16 A.M. Mr. Leonard moved to recommend the City Council deny the proposed boundary line adjustment ordinance. The motion died for lack of a second. . Following discussion relating to the difference between boundary line adjustment and a zoning lot covenant, Hr. Philpott moved to recommend the city council approve the boundary line adjustment ordinance version which does not make city approval mandatory, but rather sets guidelines for City approval when a property owner requests approval, citing the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS: 1. RCW 58.17.040(6) exempts boundary line adjustment from Chapter 58.17 RCW, which sets forth requirements for subdividing of property. 2. The City has not adopted any formal procedures for review and approval of boundary line adjustments. 3. Boundary line adjustments could alter lot area, dimen- sions, configuration, and access to public streets. 4. Boundary line adjustments could render existing public easements inadequate to serve their purposes. - ... .:. 5. Boundary line adjustments can occur with inadequate survey information. CONCLUSIONS: . A. The Boundary Line Adjustment Ordinance would ensure that boundary line adjustments approved by the city do not result in inadequate lot area, dimensions, configuration, public easements, and access to public streets. B. The Ordinance would ensure that boundary line adjustment . . . PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1991 Page 12 decisions approved by the City are made on accurate survey information. C. The Ordinance would ensure the City would have accurate and accessible records for purposes of administering the cityfs Zoning, Subdivision, and other development codes. D. The Ordinance would promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The motion was seconded by Hr. Leonard and carried unanimously. V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VI STAFF REPORTS Mr. Collins thanked the Planning Commission for the effort they have put into the planning process in recent months, noting that agendas have been consistently full and the meetings have been lengthy. VII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Mr. Philpott expressed concern over the microphone system in the Council Chambers, especially with the problem of feed-back noise. VIII ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Hulet the meeting. The motion was seconded by......Mr- unanimously. The meeting was adjourned a oved to adjourn atts and carried :40 A.M. .~ Secretary PREPARED BY: John Jimerson PLAN 535 . . . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Name Address "(;' i" ," . ''', ~~. ''';>' .