Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/22/2014 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 January 22, 2014 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Thomas Davis (by phone), David Miller, Tim Boyle, Duane Morris, Scott Headrick Members Absent/Excused: Doc Reiss, George Reimlinger Staff Present: Sue Roberds, Scott Johns, Nathan West, Heidi Greenwood Public Present: Bruce Emery, Joshua Bunch, Field and Gena Mead, Andrew Chapman, George Kheriaty, Marie Souza, Bradley Peterson, Trudy Teter, Paul Stiger PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Boyle opened the regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Morris moved to approve the December 9, 2013. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Headrick and passed 4 — 0 with Commissioner Miller abstaining due to absence at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: Chair Boyle read the qualifying questions for quasi judicial proceedings to the Commissioners. All Commissioners responded that they had no Appearance of Fairness issues to report. No objections were noted from any member of the audience. REZONE APPLICATION—REZ 13-01 — GREEN CROW, Campbell Avenue/Porter Street: Proposal to rezone approximately 1.56 acres from RS-9 Residential Single Family to RHD Residential High Density. Associate Planner Scott Johns reviewed and summarized the staff report recommending rezone of the subject property to RMD Residential Medium Density rather than RHD Residential High Density as proposed by the application. He explained that during analysis of the rezone application, staff determined that a rezone to High Density could not be supported. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of the property, a land inventory, character of the streets serving the site, and available services would support a recommendation to Medium Density. Staff noted these issues to the applicant who agreed that Medium Density would be more appropriate for the site. A January 22, 2014, letter from Green Crow is included regarding Planning Commission Allinutes Januat),22,2014 Page 2 this matter. As a result., staff is recommending a revised Finding 9 to the original staff report and a new in support of a recommendation to RMD Residential Medium Density. Commissioner Morris asked several questions relative to the basis for zoning as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. He asked for clarification as to the difference between RHD and RMD zoning densities. Mr. Johns explained that the Comprehensive Plan is the primary guide for planning in the City with imprecise margins between land use designations allowing for flexibility relative to specific boundaries. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map allows morphing between an intended land use designation to another depending on specific circumstances outlined in the Comprehensive Plan document. All of the property south and east of the subject property is designated to be MDR Medium Density Residential but has not been developed to MDR densities by the property owner, to date. Much of the property in the area designated for medium density development has developed as single family such that the expected increased density for the area has not, and cannot now be achieved. Chair Boyle opened the public hearing. Nathan West, Director, City of Port Angeles Community & Economic Development, noted for the audience that this will be the only public hearing for this item. There will not be a public hearing before the City Council. Bruce Emery, Green Crow Properties, 724 East 8t" Street noted that his employer owns abutting properties to the east and south and it is not in the best interest of those they have sold properties to thus far, nor future purchasers, to overdevelop the subject property. They have a good deal more property to develop and they wish to be good neighbors. They agreed with staff's recommendation to increase density only to medium density rather than high density given the neighborhood sentiment, to protect the developing area, and established neighborhood. One reason for requesting an upzone to high density was because the property immediately abuts a high density use along Campbell Avenue and another is because a portion of the property is designated High Density Residential. When he originally applied for the rezone, he mistakenly reviewed the RMD Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance thinking the action would result in a density of some 19 units. They would agree to a RMD designation if approved. He agreed that the RED density would allow some 60 units, which would not be appropriate for the area. So he agreed that from a density perspective, the RMD designation would result in a more reasonable medium density for the area. The highest desired density is 22 units. Looking at 4 or 6 plex cottage units, a max build out would be 19. Eckard Avenue is not pedestrian or traffic friendly. Green Crow owns a good deal of property in the area adjacent to the subject property. In developing property along Campbell Avenue to a high density use several years ago, Green Crow an internal street was planned to access from Campbell to, within, and through the Green Crow property that was approved for a planned residential development. The subject property is part of that larger development. An easement was retained along the eastern portion of the most northwest lot owned by Green Crow within the larger site that could provide an interior access to the subject property rather than from abutting Porter Street. A significant amount of landscaping is required between medium density and single family land uses which should provide a good buffer to the single family neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes January 22,2014 Page 3 Mr. Emery noted that further upgrade to Campbell Avenue may be required when additional development occurs accessing Campbell Avenue from the larger Green Crow property. A medium density development access from that point may trigger that upgrade. But it is possible to access the subject property such that access from Porter Street is not necessary. The RMD zoning is a good transition zone between lower density and higher density development. Most importantly, the land use element of the Growth Management Act requires that all development be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. The amended proposed rezone is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Green Crow realizes that the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically identify the entire subject area as being appropriate for RHD zoning and he believes that staff has correctly analyzed the potential provided for the Comprehensive Plan for Medium Density zoning. The Plan actually indicates that more of the area should have been medium density than is developed. Because a large amount of the Green Crow property has developed to single family, that potential no longer exists. The proposal to medium density would establish a medium density development in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In closing, Green Crow is willing to address concerns and mitigate any negative issues that are foreseen with medium density development. As landowners in the area, they are not interested in imposing negative impacts to the neighborhood. George Kheriaty, 1108 Eckard Avenue thanked the Planning Commission for their service and thanked Green Crow for being socially responsible, and staff for serving the public. The intersection of Porter and Eckard is extremely narrow being approximately 400 square feet in area, with the road being 24 feet in developed width. The intersection of Porter Street and Campbell Avenue is considerably larger at some 2,000 square feet in area. There is a wetland in the midst of the Green Crow property with a wet area in the middle of where the proposed access roadway would be. There is substantial water runoff in this area. Every home in the area has significant compaction issues. While he appreciated that the City and developer are trying to do what they can to address long standing water issues, water runs down the street every day. The use of Porter Street as an access point would not be ecologically sound. Access from Campbell Avenue would be great. Mr. Kberiaty acknowledged that people need housing. He strongly believes that access to the proposed site, if developed to a multi family density, should be via a better developed street [than Porter Street] with less impact to existing ecology conditions in the area which in this case would be Campbell Avenue. He responded to questions regarding the surface water issue for his property in the neighborhood. He responded to Commissioner Miller that an alternate access to the subject property would allow him to accept an upzone of the subject property. Andrew Chapman, 1158 Eckard Avenue lives on the corner of Eckard Avenue and Porter Street. The [half] street is a poorly developed street intersection: it is very narrow. He has water runoff in his yard deep enough to support ducks. Multiple family development will bring unacceptable traffic along Eckard and/or Porter Streets. The property owner already has a good deal of property designated for Medium Density development: why is it not developed? Bradley Petersen, 1151 Eckard Avenue has real concerns about access from the subject site to Porter Street. Eckard Avenue is not developed to handle a lot of traffic which is accessed from Planning(70minission Minutes January 22,2014 Page 4 Mt. Angeles Road. An entrance to the subject property would likely be from Mt. Angeles Road to Eckard Avenue to Porter Street. Eckard Avenue can't support a high volume of traffic: it is constructed with no lighting, no shoulder, it's very narrow, and there a lot of children. Paul Stagen, 1119 Eckard Avenue reiterated that residences in the area have standing water underneath. Water concerns in the area are well known. Joshua Bunch, 1111 Eckard Avenue reiterated that Porter Street is not pedestrian or even vehicle friendly. Traffic from Porter Street as a result of the proposal is a big concern. Field Lee, 1127 Eckard Avenue agreed with previous speakers and believes that access should not be permitted from Porter but should be from Campbell Avenue to this site. There are plenty of high density areas for development. Chair Boyle asked if there were additional speakers and noted that this is the only public hearing for this rezone proposal. Commissioner Morris noted that the concerns expressed are not selective to this particular neighborhood, but are common to many neighborhoods. He believes that many of the concerns expressed are those that will be addressed at the time of development. Planner Johns responded that virtually any development of the subject property will require improvement to the east side of Porter Street which is a substandard street. That street development will result in, at minimum, widening of the roadway abutting the developing property. If the abutting property is developed to a medium density rather than a single family density, that roadway improvement will result in not only widening to the full street width, but will include full amenities - curb, gutter, and stormwater. Even single family development would require improvement but not necessarily curb and sidewalk. He spoke briefly regarding roadway design techniques used to calm traffic patterns. He agreed with the applicant that multiple family development of the neighboring Green Crow property was always intended to access Campbell Avenue, not Porter Street. Trudy Teter, 1103 Eckard Avenue agreed with previous speakers. She noted that other neighborhoods have at least one side of the roadway has a sidewalk. She said that it is important to plan for pedestrian safety when designing neighborhoods. Her neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks. In response to Commissioner Miller, staff stated that the City does not enter into conditioned or contract rezones. There being no further comment, Chair Boyle closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morris thanked the audience for taking the time to participate in the public hearing process. He noted that the concerns expressed by the neighborhood will remain issues of concern by Commission members and by staff in making future decisions regarding any subsequent development processes. Planning Commission Minulev Januag 22,2014 Page,5 Commissioner Morris moved to recommend approval of a rezone to RMD Residential Medium Density citing the following 13 findings and 5 conclusions: Findings I An application for rezone of a 1.56 acre parcel from Residential Single Family RS-9 to Residential High Density (RHD) was received by the City of Port Angeles Department of Community & Economic Development on December 9, 2013, from Green Crow Properties. Green Crow Properties is the owner of the subject property. The application was deemed to be complete on December 11, 2013. 2. The subject general vicinity is largely developed with low density residential uses south of Park Avenue and west of Porter Street. Properties located east of Porter Street and north of Campbell Avenue are partially built out with a mix of multi-family and single family uses. 3. The site is located in the Mount Angeles Neighborhood which is in the City's East Planning Area on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The entire City Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were reviewed with respect to the proposal. The following elements, goals, and policies were found to be most relevant to the proposal: Growth Management Element Goal A, Policy 1; Land Use Element Map Goal A, policy 2; Goal B, Policies 1,3, & 4; Goal C, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4. These references are attached as Attachment B to the January 22, 2014 staff report. 5. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides an expected framework for land use decisions within the City. The zoning of any property must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that illustrates where certain classifications of uses may occur within the City. 6. Changes to the City's Zoning Map must be in the public interest and must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map in accordance with Section 17.03.020 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. 7. The subject property is identified on the City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as being mostly in an imprecise margin area between the High Density Residential (HDR) designation (to the north), Medium Density Residential (MDR) (to the south and east), and Low Density Residential (LDR) (to the west). A small area of the site (18%) is located within the HDR designation. 8. Much of the land designated for medium density residential (MDR) use in the vicinity has been developed at single family residential low density standards, leaving little MDR land available for medium density development. 9. Approximately 17.3 acres of land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood is zoned as Residential High Density. Of that land zoned RHD, 8.5 acres or 49% remains undeveloped. Approximately 13 acres of land is zoned as RMD in the Mount Angeles neighborhood. Of that land zoned RMD, 3.5 acres or 29% remains undeveloped. Based on this analysis, there is a greater need for RMD zoned land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood than the need for RHD zoned land. Planning Commission Minutes January 22,2014 Page 6 10. The subject site is located between existing RHD zoned areas and RS-9 zoned areas. The Comprehensive Plan(Land Use Element, Goal C, Policy 4) indicates that RMD zoning is appropriate to use as a transition between different land uses. 11. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance on January 21, 2014. This satisfies the City's State Environmental Policy Act review. Future development actions will require individual review dependent on the action. 12. Notice of the rezone application was placed in the Peninsula Daily News on December 15, 2013. Surrounding property owners were notified by mail on December 13, 2013. The site was posted on December 11, 2013. Written comment was taken on the proposal until December 30, 2013. Several comment letters in opposition to the proposal were received from neighbors as a result of the legal notification and site posting. 13. Several comment letters were received from surrounding property owners indicating that they do not believe high density development is appropriate for the area. Loss of neighborhood character and adverse traffic impacts were the most commonly cited reasons for the objections. Conclusions: A. Other properties exist within the general neighborhood that are currently zoned RHD. There is not a lack of available property zoned for high density residential development in the general area. As such, the proposal appears to serve a single private interest. No supporting documentation was submitted to indicate a need for additional high density residential zoning in the City or in this particular neighborhood. B. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates that most of the site is located between three land use designations in an imprecise margin. Only the northeast portion of the subject property, comprising 18% of the site, is designated High Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. The majority of nearby lands are designated as MDR Medium Density Residential. Information was not presented indicating a need to extend the High Density Residential (HDR) designation to encompass the subject property. C. Development trends in the area and in the City do not indicate a recognized need for higher density housing. Such a need would have to be documented in order to approve the proposed rezone. Currently, the rezone is inconsistent with the growth and population trends of the City of Port Angeles. D. Rezoning the property to Residential Medium Density meets the land use needs of the city and neighborhood, reduces expected neighborhood impacts, and continues the established urban design of the area. E. Rezoning of the site to RMD Residential Medium Density rather than RHD Residential High Density would not reduce the allowed density below the proposed number of units that are indicated in the application materials as being anticipated for development on the site provided in the rezone proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Jantimy 22,2014 Page 7 Commissioner Scott Headrick seconded the motion. Commissioners Headrick, Morris, and Boyle voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Miller and Davis opposed the motion. Motion passed 3 - 2. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None STAFF REPORTS Commissioner Morris asked if staff can use Google Earth maps for presentations. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Z `Vr 4 Sue Robc`/ds, Secretary Tim Boyle,le, r PREPARED BY: S. Roberds