Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05141998 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 30, 1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. Duncan's Hilltop Preliminary Plat, (Open-Record Public Hearing) Subdivision Application No. LUP97-00003 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Johnson/Enarson) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Workshop) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Commission Discussion VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings May 28, 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Open-Record Public Hearing June 11, 1998 Planning Commission Procedures (included in 4/30/98 packets) June 25, 1998 VII. ADJOURN May 14, 1998 . , · · · r ~".. -;,. .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting May 14, 1998 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Pope Marine Park Building by Chair Pro Tem Lisa Enarson. Other members in attendance were Lois Sherwood, John Boles, Craig Johnson and Nik Worden. Cindy Thayer and Karen Erickson were excused. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland and Judy Surber. Ms. Sherwood noted that she was absent at the last meeting due to a family emergency. Chair Enarson referenced the agenda and explained that specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will be discussed tonight, but that the Planning Commission recommendation of amendments to include on the docket "'111 be determined following the PI&ïning Commission's public hearing to be held at their regular meeting in two week.-s. She noted that citizens and City Council members present would be asked to speak as a courtesy only, if there is time. Ms. Enarson eXplained that City Council would be holding a full public hearing of the amendments on the docket later in the summer. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of April 30, 199& as written was made by Mr. Boles and seconded by Mr. Johnson. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail A memorandum was received from Mayor Julie McCulloch announcing the appointment ofNik Worden to the Planning Commission. Chair Enarson welcomed Mr. Worden and introduced him to Commission members who had not previously met him. IV. OLD BUSINESS -- There was none. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Duncan's Hilltop Preliminary Plat, (Open-Record Public Hearing) Subdivision Application No. LUP97-00003 COPIED TO COUNCIL <.::::'è~ BY. __.JJ DATE r;¡)o/¡¡ . . · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 2 Chair Enarson noted she had done business with one of the members of the applicant's team. She stated she felt she would be able to judge the application fairly, but would step down from deliberations if requested. There were no objections, and Ms. Enarson continued the hearing. L Staff Report (Judy Surber) Ms. Surber stated that due to being more than nine lots of record, a full subdivision is required to replat the approximately three acres of the H.L. Tibbals Jr. First Addition. She pointed out the location, stating access to the property is from 49th Street down to Jackman Street, up to Erin Street, and to 43rd Street. She indicated the property is bounded to the north by 43rd Street, on the south by 41st Street, with Gise and Wilson Streets coming through the property, and 42nd Street, a platted but undeveloped right-of-way, in the middle of the property. The area surrounding the property is largely undeveloped. To the south zoning is R-II, minimum 5,000 square foot lot sizes. Areas to the north are zoned R-I, minimum 10,000 square foot lot size. The Duncan application came to the BCD before the R-I, 10,000 square foot zoning went into effect, and therefore review of the application was under the old zoning of a 5,000 square foot lot size. The rights-of-way, 42nd, 41st, Gise, Wilson and 43rd Streets, are all platted at 60 feet. There is an unnamed 30-foot right-of-way between the Duncan property and the Lynnesfield planned unit development. As originally platted, there were 2210ts in Blocks 43,44,52, and 53 ofthe H.L. Tibbals Jr., First Addition. The lot sizes at that time varied from 5,000 to 6,333 square feet in size. Ms. Surber said the proposal is to reorient the lots to face Gise and Wilson Streets and to consolidate the lots along with the platted 42nd Street that lies internal to the project and create 15 lots where 22 now exist. With the consolidated lots, sizes would range from 8,924 to 9,393 square feet, just under the 10,000 square foot size of the neighborhood to the north. The application proposes development of Gise and Wilson Streets to city standards and construction of a trail that would link to the already approved trail of the Lynnesfield trail system which goes through the Lynnesfield development, past Townsend Meadows and to the Blue Heron Middle School. The trail is proposed to connect with the Lynnesfield 41 st Street intersection along the 41 st Street right-of-way, north along the unnamed 30-foot right of way to 43rd Street. Clearing, grading and paving, as well as final plats may be in two phases: Phase I -- along Gise Street V\l1th all the lots facing Gise Street being developed; Phase II -- lots being developed along Wilson Street. The site is primarily undeveloped with a stand of forest on it, but Mr. Duncan has developed two single family homes on Block 44 that were reviewed under a previous SEP A document along with development of 43rd Street. Subsequent to that review, Mr. Duncan acquired more . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 3 land in the area, came in with the proposal for replatting the area and went through another SEP A review to cover this development. The site is characterized as an east-facing hillside. Slopes on the site reach up to 23% which required geological and geotechnical reviews for potential and environmentally sensitive areas as defined by the city's ESA ordinance. It was determined not to meet the criteria as an environmentally sensitive area, because of the underlying stability and permeability of the soil. Drainage from the site goes along the topography to the Lynnesfield project which ends up in the Lynnesfield detention pond and Happy Valley wetlands. Ms. Surber pointed out: ~ Transit: Letter of concern received from Jefferson Transit regarding paratransit services to the Duncan Hilltop Plat -- requested 41 st Street be pushed thru and developed; City Engineer and Staff also recommend putting through as a developed right-of-way. ~ Streets and public ways: Applicant already proposing vehicular access and non-motorized trail access to the site; staff is in support of proposals to meet standards. ~ Water. sanitaIy and stormwater facilities: Stormwater preliminary plan was conceptually approved by the City Engineer. Applicant will be submitting a final stormwater management plan prior to construction of any utility or street development for the area. Mr. Duncan owns other lots in area -- Block 54, Lots 1-3, zoned R-II; and Block 38, Lots 1 and 2. Final MONS was issued May 5, 1998, as recommended by Jefferson Transit and supported by the City Engineering Division. Ms. Surber outlined the Conclusions noting Staff recommendation is that the project be recommended for approval as conditioned. She made particular comment on the following: ~ Condition 5.b: The. hydraulic analysis mentioned in Condition 5.b. has been submitted and is now being reviewed. ~ Condition 14: The only current access to the site is down 49th Street to Jackman, Erin Street and 43rd Street. There are a lot of other homes already being serviced by this access and with future development in the area it would be expected that a second access would become available at some point. The Fire Department recommends and the Uniform Fire Code requires provision for a second access when you are building 50 homes or more. Standard practice in anticipating improvements to serve a larger area without putting the burden on one person is a No Protest Agreement for future formation of a local improvement district (LID). ~ Condition 17: Soils are sandy and should accommodate on-site stormwater facilities for each residence as required with each building permit. ~ Condition 21: The final plat has not been received. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 4 Planning Commission questions: Q Boles: This was well done and well presented. Findings #1, para 1 -- "creating fifteen lots where twenty-two lots currently exist." Because of the two houses that exist, that straddle a lot, isn't that considered one lot, and the house that is underway consumes three lots, so there are 18 lots that currently exist. A Surber: It would be better to say there are 22 platted lots Q Boles: Finding #6 -- would you be more specific as to why this is vested; the application was received when? A Surber: The application was received January 13, 1997; will include the date when the zoning was adopted. Q Boles: The trail from 41 st Street will potentially be bisected by Wilson and Gise Streets at a future date, yet the trail seems to angle. Is the trail to be incorporated with that potential or what would become of that trail if those streets continued on? It looks like a conflict at both points. A Surber: Exhibit B, Required Modifications -- includes moving the trail of 41 st Street to follow the northern edge of 41 st Street adjacent to the property. We realized that it would be intersected by streets, and we did not want it also eroded by driveways; we knew that with the plat oriented for Duncan we would not erode it, if we put the trail on the north side of 41 st Street. We would have no control about the south side of 41 st Street. Q Boles: Is there any requirement for a cross walk in the completion of the streets as they are drawn? A Surber: The Engineering Design Standards may include things like that; would have to defer to City Engineer. Q Boles: Page 6, para 1 -- "Construction of on-site stormwater facilities for each residence. . . . there would be no increase of flow to Lynnesfield" Different people could interpret that differently. Are we talking a full French drain, or they have to daylight it out somewhere? It appears there is going to be a burden, but is not clear that the hydraulics show it -- an increasing demand on the Lynnesfield and Happy Valley detention. Is there any specificity to that? A Surber: She could request to be supplied with more specific information on infiltration of each site. The general concept is that the run-off is not being put through a conduit directly to Happy Valley, which would take all of the run-off and move it into that wetland. The natural infiltration is being kept on-site; so the hydrology is not changing from what currently exists. Q Boles: Understood from the soil analysis that it is likely to percolate very quickly down toward Lynnesfield. That could be a minimal requirement, and it could be an extensive requirement. It wasn't clear to me who was going to monitor that and what conditions were being placed on it to make sure it does what it is intended to do. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 5 A Surber: It is a condition above and beyond what is normally required, because typically if you are not creating more than 40% impervious surface, you are not required to submit a plan for stormwater facilities on residential property. This one will require with each building permit, a stormwater plan for that residence. Boles: Something like a French drain? Surber: Right. Q Boles: How would the No Protest Agreement be conveyed to future property owners? A Surber: It would show up on a title report when you purchase your property. Q Boles: 1) It says it will be recorded with the plat. On Page 11, para 14, it says, "The applicant shall sign a No Protest Agreement" and "shall be recorded and referenced on the face of the plat." It doesn't talk about communicating through the lot titles. 2) Also, it says, "for the future construction of streets." Doesn't the City Code require that there be a specificity to a No Protest Agreement, that it state with specificity what is not being protested. I heard you saying something about "a street," but not "streets." A Surber: Until we know what the development potential of this area is and who comes in first with another proposal, we can't really say which street is the most logical street to bring as a second access. Boles: But they are not going to be multiple streets? Surber: It will be a second access. Q Boles: How will it be conveyed to property owners? A Freeland: That runs with the land; it is transferred from buyer to buyer with the title report. Surber: No Protest Agreements are always reviewed and/or drafted by the City Attorney. Freeland: It is standard that it will travel with the change of title. Q Boles: Page 9, para 5b -- says a hydraulic analysis has been done and submitted, and I presume it does confirm that they meet the minimum fire flow rate, so that they can be met? Should we imagine amending that paragraph? A Surber: Not until I have approval from the City Engineer that he agrees with the results of the study. Q Boles: Why is the requirement for the trail to be a minimum of 6 feet and suitable for multi-use? Is that consistent with anything that exists? A Surber: I believe that came from our City Engineer who is familiar with other trails, like the minimum standards for the Lynnesfield Development. Multi-use is the way it is directed, and 6 foot is quite minimal for the multi-use trail width. Q Boles: The Non-Motorized Plan does not talk about a multi-use trail of this nature in that area. A Surber: The Non-Motorized Plan is not an adopted plan and does not apply to this project. The regulations provide for non-motorized as well as motorized access. Q Worden: Did you do any investigation of the grades of that section 41 st Street for road paving? A Surber: I was provided with the existing grade, and then preliminary plans that were submitted to Public Works would have to be finalized to the Engineering Design Standards. . Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 6 Q Worden: Also had concern with the No Protest Agreement. I think that could be made clearer for subsequent home owners. A Enarson: We will add that to Commission discussion. Q Enarson: Page 1, para 3 -- indicates that a portion of platted 42nd Street needs to be vacated, yet in the conclusions and conditions there was no further reference to vacation of the street. A Surber: It is not required to go through a formal street vacation process when you are replatting. You include a vacation or elimination of street that is part of a replat. Q Enarson: Page 8 -- phasing (wording of phasing and the difference between the two plats.) Since these are conclusions we are reaching regarding clearing, paving and installation of utilities, do you feel like this is clear enough for future city personnel to understand? A Surber: I tested this by asking the Planning Technician for comments on just the conditions and incorporated and clarified where she did not understand. Q Enarson: Page 12, Expiration -- It says, "The original and two copies of a final plat." Are you referring there to Phase I plat or Phase II plat? A Surber: I will clarify that as to Phase I and Phase II. Chair Enarson opened the hearing to public testimony. . 2. Public Testimony Mr. Michael Anderson, representing the applicant, Mr. Duncan Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Anderson said they have reviewed conclusions and findings of the staff and conditions of approval, with some minor points of disagreement. Mr. Anderson responded to Commissioners concerns: ~ Looping in paving of 41 st Street in Findings -- Agreed with the concept but disagreed with Jefferson Transit objection to that particular turnaround which he said is consistent with and designed to city standards. He said City standards may need to be changed for consistency. ~ LID, construction of Erin Street -- Mr. Anderson said Mr. Duncan constructed 60 feet of Erin Street. He said regarding a future LID, he feels Mr. Duncan should have credit to his benefit for future assessments for costs of his improvements around the subdivision and also the construction of the off-site road. Mr. Boles asked what portion of Erin Street Mr. Duncan constructed; Mr. Anderson pointed out on the map (45th Street east of Erin Street, to Erin Street, to 43rd Street). When asked, the applicant said he was unsure, but thought that portion of Erin Street was constructed in 1994. . · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 7 ~ Power lines underground where feasible -- These decisions should be made by the developer and power utilities and not by the city. ~ Stormwater development -- Existing soils are sandy; water will be infiltrated. There will be no surface water to contribute down stream. There are facilities on Gise Street and each individual house will essentially have a French drain. ~ Grades -- Are pretty steep, but does not think busses will have a problem with the 15% grade. Mr. Anderson said they disagree with Condition 19 for underground power and telephone lines and request that be changed. No one else testified in favor, and no one testified against the application. Chair Enarson then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. 3. Committee Report (Johnson/Enarson) Mr. Johnson said he felt the report was very comprehensive. Ms. Enarson agreed with Mr. Johnson, but expressed the following concerns: ~ LID -- Did not see the nexus for the LID; would like to have seen a code or LID statute quoted. Surber: Carried over from MONS. Reasoning in the MONS, it is the only access; the 50 building limit has been set by our Fire Department, and that Erin Street to 41 st Street is a rather steep incline, so if there were to be conditions such as frost, it might be difficult to supply adequate, reliable emergency services to this area. Since the developer was under the 50 threshold, the No Protest to an LID was used to mitigate the cumulative impact. Enarson: Looking for documentation for a rebuttal to the applicant's contention that no LID was put in place when the applicant constructed part of Erin Street. Surber: Does not know if a Latecomer's Agreement was a available to them at that time; that is something that is done by the Public Works Department now to compensate for those situations. Freeland: There are two different mechanisms -- 1) the LID is a way the development can participate in the future in the costs of providing a facility that might be needed in that area; 2) the Latecomer Agreement is a device for recapturing upfront costs for the development. Since the Duncans installed Erin Street in order to get access to their property, there was probably a basis for a Latecomer Agreement, but an LID wouldn't have been the device in that situation. They were asking that in the formation of the future LID, some consideration be given to the fact that they have provided an access generally for that area. I don't know whether that could be done or not, but the mechanisms are quite different. ~ Requirement to loop 41st Street when Phase II goes in -- Agreed with Staff for public safety. The steepness of the grade looks to be more than 15%, and have concern when it comes time to develop that street, that it actually could be developed as planned; however, with the . . . Planning. Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 8 language ""per the Engineering Design Standards" that condition would have been met Ms. Enarson recommended approval of the applicatioR 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions .. Boles: Regarding an LID and Latecomer Agreement with regard to the previously done Erin Street - not clear on the thinking of apportionment of costs at a future time; how the property owner might recapture anything with regard to something he's done outside of the area' of this particular property, because no LID would be imposed on anybody beyond them, unless they agreed to form it .. Freeland: No position. .. Boles: Is it correct to assume that his concern likely would not bè addressed? It certainly would not be conveyed in any LID no compete clause, with regard to his current proposal. .. Freeland: Not an expert on those matters, but bèlieve an LID means to apportion the cost of the facility that is being built to the properties that benefit. .. Boles: Retroactive gain? .. Freeland: Would be surprised if they could get credit for something that was done in the past, but I am not an expert in that,· and that should be left to the future when an expert would be involved. .. Boles: The importance is, if it comes up further in committee, how to reword Finding 14 if the Commission feels it is appropriate to include that .. Freeland: I am not sure if can be done. .. Enarson: Suggested in Finding 14 makfug the word streets singular. .. Boles: Could change wording to "'for the future construction of an appropriate second access to the site. . ." .. Enarson: Would be comfortable with language. .. Worden: Don't see a potential for abuse there. All we are doing is asking the applicant not to obstruct an LID. .. Boles: The second problem I have with it is that our code does call for specificity. I don't know what legal requirement that is. As a potential hypothetical property owner, I would be worried about that I think you would want to construct something that is as reasonable as possible for him to market his property. Amendments: .. Enarson:. In favor of Finding #19 (underground power and utility lines) as written. Public Works has final say. Boles agreed, .. Boles: Finding # 1, change to 22 platted lots. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 9 MOTION Sherwood Approve the Duncan's Hilltop Preliminary Plat Application LUP No. 97-00003 with the following changes: Finding #1-- change to 22 platted lots; Finding #6 - include dates to show basis for the vesting; Condition #14 change to -- future construction of an appropriate secondary access to the site SECOND Johnson Friendly Amendment: VOTE: By Surber and agreed by the maker and seconder: Condition #21 change expiration -- Final plat for Phase 1 and 2 Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote For the Record, Mr. Boles questioned the 6-foot width requirement for a trail. Chair Enarson stated that requirement is according to current code, and it is not in the Planning Commission's purview to change the code. Mr. Boles asked if they should include anything about the trail crossings of Wilson and Gise Streets, and Ms. Enarson indicated she felt it was covered by reference to the Engineering Design Standards. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Workshop) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Mr. Freeland explained that the window is now closed to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He discussed the Staff Report of May 6, 1998, and indicated the Planning Commission task now is to determine which policies have the most merit to proceed into public hearings, which amendments should be sent forward on the docket to be considered for adoption by the City Council. Mr. Freeland pointed out the following: ~ Evaluation factors for placing proposals on the docket according to the Municipal Code are need, urgency and appropriateness. ~ If determined urgent: ask if it is really needed, more important than other things? ~ If a proposal is adopted, the Planning Commission shall develop findings and conclusions and make recommendation to Council as outlined on page 3 of the May 6th Staff Report. ~ City Council is scheduled to consider the Planning Commission's recommended docket at their second meeting in June. Decisions will not be made until after public hearing. " . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Freeland walked through the following and asked for questions: Possible Mapping Errors: Designations in the Land Use Map -- (No fee to property owners) ~ Site # 1 -- Land of Jefferson Transit. (Exhibit A) Inadvertent mapping error -- portion on the Transit Base on Sims Way and McClellan designated General Commercial (C-II). Freeland: Will attempt to find in minutes. ~ Site #2 -- Bishop Park Apartments. (Appears to staff an R-IV designation should have been made. ) ~ Site #3 -- Lands of the Port of Port Townsend. (Exhibit B) Cross hatching inadvertently missing on three parcels. Error is already corrected in the printed map. Proposed Policy changes: Allow businesses in residentially zoned areas -- (Require changes to the Land Use Policy 7.14) ~ #1 -- Foresight Science & Technology, Inc. -- to allow small high-technology businesses in residentially zoned areas. (Exhibit C) Freeland: Questions? -- none. ~ #2 -- Bernie and Germaine Arthur -- to expand the allowable uses in the R-III zone to include low impact businesses. (Exhibit D) Boles: Look at the difference between this and the Home Occupation Ordinance. Is it consistent with Policy 7.l4? Urgency? Freeland: Interpreted as Administrative Use permit. ~ #3 -- David Fischer and Malcolm Dorn - to add a subsection "d" to Land Use Policy 7.14 . . ." (Exhibit E) Reconsider th~ C-IIfMJJ Zoning Distriçt CII/MU Community Serving .- Kearney Street ~ Land Use Committee request by vote of 3-0. (Exhibit F) Freeland: Need to be changed? ~ Denny and Lynda LaVigne. (Exhibit G) Freeland: Zoning -- remove requirement that residential be required? Uses of CII/MU correct? Various Amendm~nts by the Port of Port Townsend ~ See Freeland Memo of May 14, 1998 relating to the Port letter of May 11, 1998, to the Planning Commission, and attachment B. Freeland: Questions? -- None . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 11 Site Specific: Mr. Freeland said this is a gray area in the law. The GMA envisioned a single period of each year and the whole process legislative. However, courts say individual pieces of property are quasi-judiciaL Mr. Freeland asked the Planning Commission to decide if the following should be on the docket: ~ Trudy Adams (Exhibit H). Capital Facilities and Utilities Element, Policy 18.1 -- when new development must connect tó sewers. Freeland: 17.81 -- not sure if issue lines up with policy. (Trudy Adams was in the audience. Will be out of state on May 28th; asked if there were questions.) Freeland: Question of Public Works, does this create the problem? Boles: Questioned tiering also. Chair Enarson asked for review of Policy 18.1 and inf"tll elements of tiering. ~ Robert and Darby Greenway (Exhibit I). Agricultural Designations in the Comprehensive Plan. Freeland: Boles: One reason for the request is to get a tax break as an agricultural use. Your property can be valued on its production, rather than on its current land value. When the IA zone was in effect, the county assessor looked for that IA zone as the agricultural designation. Mr. Freeland explained the change in the zoning district to the tax assessor who said he would consider the permitted use of agriculture in the R-I zone as the same as the old I-A zone, and also a Conditional Use Permit in the R-II zone. Mr. Freeland said they will need to see if the tax assessor still needs an agricultural designation and consider that May 28th. Also, under the Growth Management Act, there is a prohibition against agricultural designations in Urban Growth Areas. It was discussed at length. Somebody else came to the meeting, and we specifically made sure it was included, because we were reluctant to give that up as a designated use. We liked it and it was clearly our intent to have it included in some way. It is permitted in R-I and Conditional in R-II. Freeland: ~ Barbara and Michael Anderson (Exhibit J). Eliminate Policies Related to Tiering of Infrastructure. Public Works feedback. ~ Barbara and Michael Anderson (Exhibit K). Delete Transportation Policy 10.2(e) Capital Facilities Element -- Public Works feedback . . . Pl&ll1ing Commission rvtinutes May 14, 1998 Page 12 2. Commission Discussion Formal action was discussed for the next meetirlg. Planning Commission Annual Assessment of Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit L). .. Done in February 1998. MOTION Sherwood The Planning Commission makes no amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for 1998, and agrees with the Staff Report of February 19, 1998. SECOt\T]) VOTE: Johnson U iìaüimous, 5 in fa~·or Automatically on docket: (Fee required) Site Specific Formal Applications to Amend the Land Use Map and Zoning rv1ap (Exhibit M) .. Application of Robert C. Harper, LUP989-07 ... Application of Roger Evans, LlJP98-16 .. Application of Jefferson County PUD #1, LUP98-30 .. Application of Rite Aid Stores, LUP98-31 Chair Enarson pointed out that on a couple of occasions, Mr. Jeff Randall has indicated to citizens they could testify at upcoming meetings. She said the Planning Commission welcomes public testimony, but that it needs to be presented at the proper time. :Mr. Freeland will discuss th.e matter with Mr. Randall. V1. fu""T}-~OUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled :Meetings "Kau ~8 199 8 In ,¿. _ 1 _ Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Open-Record Public Hearing rImming Commission discussion oÍ amendments ÍUl' the docket Íor City Council. A transmiítalletter signed by ¡he Chair will accompany the recommendations. June 1 L 1998 Planning Commission Procedures (included in April 30, 1998 packets) .1 . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1998 Page 13 June 25 1998 Absences announced: Mr. Boles -- May 28th meeting; return in July Ms. Sherwood --last meeting in June and first meeting in July VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Boles and seconded by Mr. Worden All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:40 p.m. ~~ Lisa Enarson, Chair Pro Tem ~~ . Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Guest List ~.- Meeting of: fJdAlJl/1/G é:O¡<f/1/$Slf7.Af Purpose: Date: IIAý I'll ¡qqJ . . Name (please printl Address T estimonv? '., YES ~ i / / Äj;~¡ '>~î/~ l,V/ßz¡¿¿þ- "10 10 r7 ··11s.h/';-Y j~tJ~GI. (f. ~ ~,f.l4\-r 4,1 . t,.....,,¿.-o , ;,,' ¿~f J .t!';_-. rt &kl_5Ò) -, L ' /" ,-\:"' /" :;(;'0-< ..:[,..1-__ lox' <-'" " C:'''''_( ~'~7c."U· 1'\_ ,LJ , \. -:>' /) "]'" /'1 ,..-. _\ . ~~ ù (~ " 'IN\.<) ,ç~ c~~~ \==\Ir ( \... I ~'¥I t:t(..l,,(,1 l.-\h ! >l A , U fv\ 6 \ (0 "'-'.-.t:::::ö ~ V-. ''''Z'oo I I 7 ¡:. ,~ J: L, ç1- 'I n ¡::: J ~ \.~ l . .',::.r0. v I ~~ í"'::: \~{~- -<'11-7 ç~+ { ! I I ~