Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10271994 Min Ag · · · copied to PCOMM iI///q4 lêp PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 1994 I . ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Cindy Thayer, Mark Welch, and Karen Erickson. Bob Rickard and Ernie Baird entered the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Staff members present were Judy Surber and Pam Kolacy. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of September 29, 1994, were approved as written. Cindy Thayer stated that she made a statement at the last meeting that she learned later was incorrect and wanted to note for the record that when determining residèntial setbacks, the front door of a residence does not necessarily have to be facing the front of the lot. III. CURRENT COMMUNICATIONS: N.one IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Jonathan Dudley, Rezone Application #9405-06 Thayer stated that she lives up the hill from the property in question, but outside the 200 foot notification limit. Her view would not be affected by the project, and she believes she can consider the proposa¡ objectively. .1. Staff Report (Surber) Surber presented the staff report and exhibits regarding the applicant's proposal to rezone seven lots located at 600 Sims Way. The applicant proposes that Lots 1-4 be downzoned from C-3 to C-2, and lots 5-7 would be upzoned from R-1 to C-2, with attending changes in applicable bulk, dimension, and general requirements of the Port Townsend Municipal Code Chapter 17.20. A fast food restaurant is currently located on Lots 2 and 3 of the site. Applicant proposes a two-story, 6,000 square-foot professional office and retail building with associated access, parking, and landscaping. A street vacation for an unimproved portion of Hill Avenue has also been requested. . Planning Commission Page 1 October 27, 1994 · · · The Commissioners directed several questions to Surber. There was some discussion about whether Hill Avenue or Hill Street is the correct name. Surber replied that the name on the original plat list is Hill Avenue. Applicant will amend application if necessary to indicate official street name. Enarson questioned the first recommended condition requiring any other proj ect but the present proposed. one to be subj ect to a conditional use permit. Surber replied that the reason behind this condition was that the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was based on a 6,000 SF building and all attendant studies, traffic, etc., were based on that particular use. Rickard questioned the statement in Finding #15 that most alternative sites in the city zoned for this type of project have been developed, particularly in light of the new Businesss Park. Erickson asked for clarification of Condition #8. It reads as though the decision regarding fair share contribution for stormwater would be made by the applicant. Surber explained that the applicant is required to submit a report analyzing the project's run-off volumes. If the volumes increase over existing conditions, the applicant is required to submit a proposal regarding the amount and timing of the fair share contribution to the Director of Public Works for approval before the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2. Public testimony: Applicant Jonathan Dudley stated he has owned the subject property for at least 17 years and feels the present timing is right for the rezone and that the project fits in nicely with other changes in the City, particularly the Gateway Plan. He asked that any questions Commissioners had be directed to his representative, Rick Sepler. Sepler noted that the applicant concurred with and accepted all of the conditions recommended by staff. He requested clarification of Condition #1 and whether it would mean that the construction of a 6,000 SF building would require a conditional use permit. Surber replied that the intent of that condition was not to require a conditional use permit for the building as shown, and that the wording could be changed to "any other" rather than "all future proposed". Sepler stated that the applicant has been responsive to the concerns of neighbors as well as safety concerns, particularly the unsafe intersection. He noted that the project effectively eliminates any turns onto Sims Way, in accordance with the Gateway Plan. He also noted that the building was sited with concern for view impacts, and the applicant had no intent to affect viewsheds. Planning Commission Page 2 October 27, 1994 · · · 3. Committee Report (Erickson/Enarson) Erickson stated that her questions about the proj ect have been answered and she recommended approval. Enarson complimented staff for the thorough presentation and clear exhibits. She believes the neighbor's concerns and Port concerns have been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions A motion was made by Erickson to recommend to City Council for approval of Rezone Application #9405-06, with the following modifications: Condition #1 to read: The uses established on the subject rezoned C-2 property shall be limited to a 6,000 square-foot professional office and retail building; any other future buildings, expansions, or uses shall be subject to a conditional use permit and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Condition #10 to read: To mitigate impacts associated with noise generated from on-site development activities, the outdoor construction period shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7am-6pm, excluding national holidays. Any exceptions needed for extraordinary circumstances must be approved in advance by the Planning Director. Findings of Fact #7 typographical error corrected from "promimity" to "proximity". Findings of Fact #8: typographical error corrected "Requirments" to "Requirements" Findings of Fact #15, first paragraph to read: The applicant proposes a mixed-use building with both professional offices and retail. The mixed-use building would be allowed in the M-1, C-3, and C-2 zones. Alternative sites exist within the city, however, given the growth of the community, additional commercial and mixed-use development is desirable. The motion was second by Thayer, and passed unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS: None VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings The next meeting is scheduled for November 10, 1994, with Admiral Marine Works, Inc., Variance Application #9401-13 (Thayer/Welch) on the agenda. Thayer asked about progress on the Accessory Rental Unit Ordinance. Planning Commission Page 3 October 27, 1994 .~ · · · It was noted the work was nearly complete, but Planning & Building Dept. was involved in Budget and Comprehensive Plan presently. It was also noted the next meeting will be Bob Rickard's last. VI I. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn was made by Erickson and seconded by Baird. All were in favor. The me~ting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. o~ cÞ!tfa&J Pamela Kolacy Administrative Assistant Planning Commission Page 4 October 27, 1994 . . . Guest List Afeetillg of: P LPrIV 1J I tJ 6 r ~<;1~ P,111JOse: I Date: J D - ~ì-C¡ ~ - Name (please printl Address Testimonv? YES NO JcNkn1 ON DUDl,cY ¡/ ,e..\ C-f( ~Pt£¡e. ~o7A í'(l.£~ ST. ./' , ~ , - ----- - I - --- -- -- I _.J-<'._.__"~. I II