Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10242002 Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2002 CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 3, 2002 This portion of the October 24, 2002 mee~ing is continued from October 3,2002, to receive comment and vote on Suggested Amendment #6, language in Emibit 6-6, regarding average setbacks, and to also consider ADUs. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Members answering roll were Frank Benskin, Lyn Hersey, Naœy Dorgan, James Irvin, Alice King, and Michael Hyland. Richard Berg arrived at 7:04 p.m.; Bernie Arthur was unexcused. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Senior Planner Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA The agenda was amended to include the November 11, 2002 public hearing. Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the agenda as amended; Ms. Hersey seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Dorgan made a motion to accept the minutes of October 3,2002 as amended; Mr. Hyland seconded. All were in favor. Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the minutes of October 10, 2002 as amended; Mr. Hyland seconded. All were in favor. V. PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VII. NEW BUSINESS Chair Thayer opened the portion of the meeting continued from October 3,2002 to receive comment and vote on Suggested Amendment #6, language in Exhibit 66. A. AMENDMENT ~ SETBACKSILOT COVERAGE (Continuation of Open Record Public Hearing from October 3, 2002) Prooosed Findings and Conclusions -- Main points and essence Circumstances have not changed but the number of variances and issues brought to Planning Commission attention by BCD show the need of some relief to allow minor encroadunents, and in those situations where there are non-conforming residential neighborhoods; and, the Planning Commission supports revisions to the zoning code to allow some minor encroachments. Planning Commission Minutes, October 24, 2002 / Page I · · · The assumptions of the Comprehensive Plan are still valid, butthey want to forward accessory dwelling units as affordable housing and of variety housing types; it complies with GMA; affordable housing is a community value. Ms. Surber referenced new exhibits introduced tonight, Exhibit 618, amendments to the text of the Port Townsend Municipal Code; and Exhibit 6-19 amendments to the table for Residential Zoning Districts-- Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements. She noted an error on Exhibit 6-19, Maximum Lot Coverage, R-II, which will be corrected to, "35%, except 40% where an ADU is to be erected on the same lot:' She explained Exhibit 6-19 reflects: - the 20-foot increased setback for garages in R-II when the doors are facing the righ~of-way; - lot coverage; - resolving language for allowing minor encrCRchments into setbacks. She discussed draft amendments to the text based on some codes such as Renton and Edmonds and trying to incorporate Planning Commission concerns. She elicited input from BCD personnel Jan Zimmer and Jean Walat and received comments from Jan Zimmer regarding consistency with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which is reflected in Ms. Surber's revisions: I) 120 square feet in floor area. A simple change recommended by Ms. Zimmer to become consistent with the UBC revision. 2) Minor encroachments into setbacks based on Planning Commission concerns. 4) Average Front Setback. Another idea to help people in the Historic District do infill development without having to go through a variance. Ms. Surber thought this was the last piece for Amendment #6, whether or not the Planning Commission wanted to approve the text amendments on Exhibit 6-18. OUESTIONS OF STAFF AND COMMENTS: Q. Ms. Hersey: When the BCD Director allows this will it be under the permit process and not have to go thrrngh something special? A. Mr. Randall thought the way it is drafted now it would basically be through the same permit. From his personal experience, he expressed concern with #4's last sentence -- the applicant presenting the documentation. He approved of the concept but suggested a simple, small permit process not requiring public notice, something administrative, so the City can be the lead, and the applicant can request the City for modification of the setbacks. The City in turn could be responsiblefor communicating with utility providers who would be more apt to listen to the City. Mr. Randall asked the Commission to look at this as a concept since what Ms. Surber prepared is not an amendment to the Comp Plan, but a text amendment. He suggested OCD look at it a little more in detail and adjust it before it goes to Council. He was interested in, and thought Council would be interested in, Commission feedback, though maybe not verbatim language. Ms. Dorgan: Thought BCD Department contact providelS for street vacations and receives comment letters whether any providers have any objections to or comments on street vacations, so they would not frod it too unusual to get a similar request for something like this and would frod it fairly routine. Mr. Randall: BCD has a rapport with providers and thought the same thing, a short cover letter making their request, asking for comment and whether or not they object. Something very simple. Ms. Surber noted she sent this proposed revision to Ms. Streissgu1h, PSE, but because of a family death she was unable to comment. Ms. Surber assured her if she needs to comment they have until November 4 before this goes to City Council. Mr. Benskin: Thought Mr. Randall's point was well taken. Dealing with the proviœrs can be a nightmare, getting a timely response. This would actually expedite the process for everybody. Q. Mr. Irvin: Questioned Staff-- I) What are the criteria for the 2' setbacks; 2) Is that condition the absolute minimum? Would there be pressure to extend that? A. Ms. Surber: The existing code allows for eaves to extend 2' and she went with what the existing code allows for eaves. She said it may have come from either Edmonds or Renton, but it was already in the PTMC. 2) There is aivays pressure. Planning Commission Minutes, October 24,2002/ Page 2 · · · The absolute minimum would not be for averaging. Mr. Randall said Exception #2 is intended to be a hard line, where you can automatically extend up to twøfeet into the setback, provided you 1) Have no more than two projections; 2) Not wner than 100feet (meant to be each). The only BCD discretion would be if it were a similar structure. Exception #4 is more discretionary and would involve getting feedback from utility providers and Public Works. The amount of encroachment into the setbtck would depend upon averaging setbacks of adjacent homes, and could potentially be more than 2 feet. Ms. Dorgan: Exception #2 -- thought 10- feet looked really good for the porch. She had originally envisioned a beautiful wrap-around porch and coming out closer; this deals with that. As much as she loves those kinds of houses, she thought that was a major step toward the street. Exception #4 -- It was her recollection that in Edmonds they did averaging where you had a variety of depths of setbacks; if the block had built out up to 50%, take an average--. She quoted from the proposal, "For corner lots. the setback shall be the average between the required setback and that of the existing abutting principal building." She said that is not a whole lot to average; if you are on a corner you are probably going to have a house on either side; a side setback is someone else's front setback. She thought if you are going to average, you should at least be picking up the setbacks from the adjacent homes in both directions from the corner, rather than just one. She questioned what principal meant, and asked if it would be better to average so the whole corner works together more smoothly. She liked the concept of averaging, but thought it was not much Ì) average. Ms. Thayer expressed her concern regarding visibility with corner lots, as you are turning corners. If you do it uptown and do an average for the inside house and then the corner, you may get a setback out further thats going to make it diffrult to see around the corner. Ms. Thayer indicated she was talking about two houses. Ms. Dorgan asked if three houses would be better. Ms. Surber pointed out that site obstruction was written in the proposal, ". . . in conformance with sight oostruction requirements. . ." Q. Ms. Dorgan: Asked what the sight obstruction requirements are. A. Mr. Randall: There is a sight vision triangle dimension in the Engineering Design Standards; basically take the point of the intersection and draw a triangle, 20 feet down each street then draw the diagonal across it which would cross the private property. In that triangle you can't have a structure that is more than 3' or 4' tall. That is something we could say in here, that under no circumstances shall it . . . Ms. Surber: By principal building she meant-- something like a shed or gazebo could not be counted in averaging, nor could you set your gazebo further out. It is only for the principal structure. Q. Ms. Dorgan: Why did you not take both ad'þining homes and pick just one structure. A. Ms. Surber: Said she went by two examples, Edmonds-- something like 50% of the block built out. She pretty much took the Renton code and added a few things like sight obstruction and utility concerns. They cwld wordsmith this later, but declare if in concept this the direction they want to go; she wants to make it work for BCD personnel also, and to consider such things as "adjacent" versus "abutting." Mr. Randall said if they have strong feelings of things to be included, such as averaging of homes on both sides, he would input per their direction. He suggested maybe they could approve this in concept, and with their comments. He said they could take that on to Council, and if Council is happy, it could beadopted or sent back for more process. Mr. Berg said in reading this, he would assume that the corner lot role would apply in both directions. A 1 (}foot setback, 10' and 10' on the corner, and the next house to the left is 5', you can do 11/2' on that side. If not any closer than 10' on the other side, you can only do 10' on that side, but ifits 20' back on the right hand side-- if you average that with the 5', you don't get anything. He thought it seemed fme the way it is. Planning Commission Minutes, October 24, 2002 / Page 3 · · · He said usually when going around a corner, there are still areas like sidewalks between the road and the property line, or if no sidewalks, a bunch of grass. Even if getting within 5' of the property line, it is not usually getting way out there where it is blocking the intersection. Mr. Hyland: Agreed with Mr. Berg regarding blocking. He had never had his visibility blocked by a building; it is always vegetation or a vehicle. He did not see this as a problem. Mr. Benskin indicated there are situations in town where there are no sidewalks, no grass buffer. He has a road that is 2' from his property line and a stop sign right on the corner lot; there is zero visibility there as it now. If there were a structure, porch or something within 5' of that corner, it would be even worse. Ms. Thayer said that is dealt with in here with the Engineering Design Standards. Mr. Benskin stated he was recapping Mr. Berg's comments about there being situations. Ms. Dorgan stated that with her idea of obstruction;, she was not thinking so much of a car making a turn, but someone living further down the block who was accustomed to looking down the block and suddenly there was a house out further. She liked the idea of some flexibility, and liked the idea of avera3ng, would just like to see it incorporate more of the buildings in the area to get a softer change. Q. Ms. Hersey: If you had an old house that was built and had 2()'foot setbacks, is the corner lot going to be a detriment because of it? Somewhere in here it needs to say that if we are going to do averaging, we dont want to do detriment averaging. A. Ms. Surber: It says, ". . .may allow a reduced front yard setback:' Mr. Randall: In our Shorelines code we have a similar provision, which is nota particularly good example, but they have some samples. This may need some sample equations to really illustrate how it works. Ms. King: Was in favor of adding some kind of flexible language. Mr. Berg talked about pulling up to either side, rot the way this is written specifically to a front setback, you are really only pulling to one side, and why you are really only looking at the one. Ms. Surber concurred and said that is meant to imply only front yard setbacks. Ms. King: Asked, if they could do what Mr. Berg said. Mr. Berg added that one of them is the side yard and this role would not apply. Ms. King suggested this could be rewritten so that it does. She thought it might potentially solve a lot of headaches for BCD Mr. Irvin: Referenced an e-mail he had sent that Ms. Surber did not receive commenting on this issue. He saw one problem in talking about setbacks, he tried to determine the criteria for establishing setbacks in the beginning. He said he did not think the Commission hal discussed that, but are discussing it now, that it might be worthwhile knowing what the principle criteria are for establishing those setbacks. He thought they could all think of circumstances where it would be beneficial for the setbacks to be relaxed, but that there is an equal number of instances to not relax the setbacks, i.e., safety reasons, etc. Looking at Exhibit 6-5, and mentioning Renton and Edmonds, it seems Port Townsend is even more liberal with their setbacks except perhaps front setbacks in R-III. Chair Thayer commented the Commission discussed all that at length. Her concern was that they have already voted on this, and did not think they should go back and reinvent the wheel when they have already voted on it. She said they spent a great amount of time on this that at their meeting that is not fully incorporated in the minutes. What they are only doing at this meeting is giving Staff the idea if this is the way they want to go. If they need to prepare more, the Commission will do that. Mr. Irvin indicated he was trying to make it as clear as possible that he is strongly opposed to relaxing front setbacks, and thought he had made that point when they were discussing it. Reading through the minutes, he thought the vote was to reject the proposal as originally suggested by Staff. He was not sure what they are proposing now. Chair Thayer replied that in going through it, they also required 20' setbacks for garages; that was an important issue. Mr. Irvin said he understood that. Planning Commission Minutes, October 24,2002/ Page 4 · · · Ms. Dorgan: Said they wanted to deal with some of the small details that rather fell through the cracks, e.g., steps, a smaller porch or a bay window to give Staff some flexibility allowing those property owners that wanted those features to have them without going through the expensive variance process. To her that was the bulk of what she saw this being. They did vote on the setback issue; however, if they do have a case where adjacent properties are built out closer to the street than the existing required setback, you are not going to change the character of the neighborhood if you allow a new building to approach what is already there. She saw averaging as a reasonable flexibility for working with what is there; if they are at the existing setback now, the new house isn't going to gain anything. She thought it was just if the existing houses are closer that the new house gets to move up. Ms. Thayer indicated they do that all the time with waterfront, and it seems to work well because noone can go closer. Mr. Benskin referred to Mr. Randall's previous statement about Shorelines formula. Mr. Randall explained under this proposal new homes would just have to meet the normal I (}foot setbacks; there wouldn't be a reason to vary it and allow encroachment. Ms. Dorgan indicated she was talking about houses that were closer to the street than the current 10', if they are way up there like some of the uptown homes, then a new house, rather than having to be set back from where those houses are already -- it gives the new people a chance to avoid the current restrictions with this averaging. She said to Mr. Irvin she did not think this impacts the neighborhood negatively. She had the same reservations, that somebodys side setback on the corner is somebody's front further down the block, and she is very sensitive too. She wants to average around the corner, and not just the principal side on either direction. Mr. Irvin spoke about Mr. Benskin citing an example that also applies to lÎm, where the street righ~of-way and the lot line are co-incidental. The street is built on the extreme edge. He thought if they allow extreme relaxation of front setbacks, a corner lot or even if someone else had built that house, you are creating a sáety hazard situation. A. Ms. Thayer replied site obstructions are dealt with in here in the Engineering Design Standards, Chapter 6. Mr. Randall thought it could be more clearly referenced, could say, "However under no circumstances shall structu'es be built within the site distance triangle established by . . . provision of the Engineering Design Standard;' He said it could be more explicit. Mr. Randall explained in response to Mr. Irvin about action taken when he was absent during tk deliberation and vote, that when you read through the minutes you see motion after motion that deny many parts of the discussion, but approve some parts of it. What happened does not actually come through totally in the minutes. He quoted from the las1couple of paragraphs on the top of Page 7, that stated it was determined to look at some options to bring back on the 24th. He said what a number of the Commissioners decided that night was they wanted to give Staff more time to draft some more langua~ and come back on the 24th. That is not explicitly stated, but that is the direction they got and why it came back. Mr. Irvin thanked Mr. Randall for the clarification. Ms. Surber suggested to Mr. Irvin and Ms. Dorgan they might like Edmonds average front yard setbacks better. She quoted, "If a block has residential buildings on more than Y2 of the lots on the same side of the block, the owner of a lot on that block may use the average of all the setbacks of the existing residential buildings onthe same side of the street as the minimum required front setback for the lot:' Ms. Thayer liked that better and thought was fairer to the block. Ms. Dorgan indicated the original application was for something for a corner lot. Ms. Thayer cowtered if you start doing clear around the corner, all of a sudden you may have a setback on a side that is different. If they are only dealing with front setbacks that is fine, but you could be changing the whole dynamics of the block by doing both sides She liked the idea of doing on the street, because once you turn the corner, you are dealing with another street. Ms. Surber said she was trying to give an option to the administrative adjustment, which was specifically such things as, the historic district, existing homes and nOl1-conforming setbacks. It was not specific to corner lots; she thought this was another course to get there. Mr. Berg said regarding the Edmonds wording, he did not know what blocks were in Edmonds, but if they are an)king like Seattle, there are 10 or 12 houses on a block. But in Port Townsend there are often two on a block, maybe three or four at the most. Ms. Thayer said she had dealt with this on waterfront properties. There may be only two in the neighborhooQ or one on each side; it seems to work really well for averaging. Planning Commission Minutes, October 24, 2002 / Page 5 · · · Mr. Berg said he would imagine on a four lot block where there are two houses each on a double lot, which often happens in Port Townsend, one house means 50% built out. He thought he role would work the same. Ms. Thayer said all they are trying to do is allow a reduced front yard setback, not trying to change anything else. Ms. Dorgan indicated it is not categorically for the whole town, only in those circumstances where there ¡re anomalies already. At 7:40 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony. There being none, she closed the meeting for public testimony. Chair Thayer asked Ms. Surber if they had given her enough impact and ifth~ should vote on some of the issues. Ms. Surber suggested acknowledging consideration of: Exception #2, agree in concept; #3 was no change, just a relocation; #4 like the direction of the average front setbacks. They could then go with intent, work on s}l)cific wording and let Council know that is the direction the Planning Commission wants to take. If the Commission wants, they can come back and continue to wordsmith so everyone is comfortable with it. Ms. Dorgan added that this could tie in to somecne being able to site an ADU on their property; a couple of feet could make all of the difference in the world. She thought this amendment came to them with an ADU perspective, what could they do to tweak the coverage and siting of the home to allow ADU amstruction. Chair Thayer called for a vote: Exhibit 6-18. Exception #2 CONSENSUS TO APPROVE -- Unanimous, 7 in favor by voice vote Exhibit 6-18. Exception #4 Mr. Randall suggested breaking Exception #4 into -- Does the Planning Commission suwort: 1) Applicant apply to the City, and the City contact utility providers; 2) Averaging; 3) Corner Lot-- Average both streets. The Planning Commission Supports: Applicant AIm!! to the City. and the City contact utility providers. CONSENSUS TO APPROVE -- Unanimous, 7 in favor by voice vote Concept of A verae:inlZ CONSENSUS TO APPROVE - Unanimous, 7 in favor by voice vote Mr. Randall clarified the vote that houses on corner lots should be able to choose a front yard setback and have it reduced by the average of the home immediately adjacent to one side or the other. Ms. King asked for clarification if they could already pull closer on their side yard setback. Mr. Randall replied they couldn't. If it is a corner lot and there is street frontage on both sides, it is 10 feet on both sides. One reason this was proposed, it was felt people on corner lots ended up with two front yard setbacks. Ms. Dorgan indicated there was a good reason for that; it is somebody else's front. If you are going to be 1IDre flexible you have to look at what could be two different neighborhoods. Chair Thayer called for a vote of either one direction or both directions. Mr. Irvin asked for a third option to determine which is the front and adhering to setback requœments as exists. Planning Commission Minutes, October 24,2002/ Page 6 · · · Mr. Randall said on the corner lot the applicant is allowed to choose the front yard setback; it does not matter which side their garage faces, or which side their door faces. What it affects is the rear yard setback; your rear is opposite your front, and your rear is 10 feet. Mr. Irvin cited an example of what worries him-- 12th street where there are a lot of streets that don't go through because of the steepness of the hill, essentially one direction without an option of turn~ it -- flexibility perhaps for someone needing another 5 feet, or whatever. Ms. Surber spoke of preserving the character. If you are in the Historic District and everybody is up against the street, if the new house is set back 10 feet, it looks a bit odd. Mr. Irvin thought what they were talking about was a lot of new construction in all zones. Mr. Berg noted there are not any zones in the city where houses are closer to the street than the setback, except in the Historic District because the zoning has been in place for many years. He thought they were allowing this mainly in the Historic District. Ms. Hersey suggested making this broader. Both Mr. Berg and Ms. Thayer thought this was not that complicated. Ms. Thayer felt uncomfortable having Bffi make those decisions, if they are going to do this it ought to be clear. Mr. Randall asked for the vote to include: Homes to be Built on Corner Lots: Choice for ~ Street Frontae:e to Request Setback Reductions Based upon Adiacent Properties Beine: Non- Conformine: PASSED 6 IN FAVOR BY SHOW OF HANDS; Ms. Dorgan and Ms. Hersey Opposed Setback Reductions Allowed in Both Directions FAILED BY SHOW OF HANDS; Ms. Dorgan and Ms. Hersey in Favor Mr. Benskin said this came up in Shorelines when they did a project. There was clarification of what structures were; it made a difference of how the averaging came out for house to be set. He noted good clarification language in the Shorelines and a formula, a diagram, to help people understand v.here they can put their house. Including such things as decks throws off the line of site -- the structure being the main body of the house, rather than an extended deck, etc.. He indicated there is a defmition that fits really well. The portion of this meeting continued from October 3,2002 was concluded and Chair Thayer called for the remainder of business for the October 24, 2002 meeting. Cindy Thayer, Chair Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, October 24, 2002 / Page 7 · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2002 VII. NEW BUSINESS (continued) B. Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to Council Ms. Surber referenced the Planning Commission Summary Report and Recommltldation Regarding Year 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments indicating it incorporates what happened at the hearings, testimony taken, deliberations and any Planning Commission changes. She pointed out this is a draft report for Planning Commission consideation, and the fmal report will be forwarded to Council. Amendment #6 was held open for tonights continued deliberations. Ms. Hersey recused herself from the proceedings because of her recent professional involvement in Amendment #1. She also recused herself from all of the remaining amendments because she was not at the meetings where they were previously considered. She then left the meeting casting no further votes. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for consideration of each amendment AMENDMENT #1 Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment #1 as written. AMENDMENT #2 Revise Comprehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment #2 as written. AMENDMENT #3 Revise Lot Coverage to P/OS and P-I Districts 1) P/OS(B): CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment #3(1) and the minority report. 2) P-I: CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment #3(2) as written. AMENDMENT #4 Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Randall noted that Ms. King commented via e-mail regarding fairly minor additions to some findings cross referencing the status of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan aid providing some analysis of some of the criteria. He incorporated her comments that did not affect the text of the amendment but were suggestions supplemental to the findings. Amended as follows: Page 8 - Paragraph 4 of Description£ Last sentence, eliminate "noted" and end with . . City Council. Page 9 - Include Vote Summary: 7-0-0 Page 9 - Last paragraph, line 3: Change "permitting" to "allow designation of' Page 10 -- Line 7: Change ". . . recommends designation of' to ". . . recommends expansion of' Page 10 - #2 , Paragraph 2: Line 2 Change from "City County" to "City Council" CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment #4 as amended. AMENDMENT #S Revise Density of R-III and R-IV Zoning Districts Amended as follows: Public Comment: Line 1 change to read, "No public testimony was given at. . :' Paragraph 2, Line 5, change to read, "Administrative problems were imminent: Staff also noted. . ." CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment #S as amended. AMENDMENT #6 Revise SetbackslLot Coverage for Corner Lots Amended as follows: Planning Commission Minutes, October 24, 2002 / Page 8 · · · Page 12 -- Add to Public Comment: reference to a support letter for reducing setbacks received from Ms. Linda Streissguth, PSE, Exhibit 6-3. Page 13 -- Change to: "RecommendationN ote Summary: The motion was divided?' Page 13 -- A) Change to: "Planning Commission recommends denial of the request to reduce setbacks, but recommends that some flexibility be allowed through revisions in the zoning code in regards to minor encroachmems and front yard averaging;' CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment #6 as amended. AMENDMENT #7 Revise Zoning Use Tables to Allow Group Homes Outright in Certain Zones CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment #7 as written. AMENDMENT #8 Strike the 50% Rule for ADUs CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment #8 as written. RON P AK: INDIAN POINT AMENDMENTS lLUP-02-048): CONSENSUS: Accept the Draft Summary of Amendment LUP-02-048) as written. Chair Thayer questioned procedures for hearing Kelly -- Jefferson Transit Rezone (LUP-02-046) on November 21 st. Mr. Randall clarified that normally the SEP A is an administrative process, but since the two types of applications are submitted at the same time, 1hey roll into one. On November 21 st Planning Commission will be hearing: - Staff presentation - Appellant presentation - Applicant presentation - Testimony for and against the SEP A appeal and also for and against the rezone At close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will deliberate and take action fIrst on the SEP A appeal of the project and then on the rezone separately. Commissioner Benskin said regarding the Kelly project, he has spoken to City Attorney Watts about his recusing himself the last time it was voted on. Mr. Watts determined that his previous participation with Mr. Kelly is not a conflict at this time and he will be able to participate on November 21. Chair Thayer and Mr. Randall said he would need to declare that at the meeting. Ms. Surber asked for volunteers to review findings and conclusions for Amendment #6. Main points and essence of what she proposes: - Circumstances have not changed but the number of variances and issues brought to Planning Commission attent:m by BCD showing the need of some relief to allow minor encroachments, and in those situations where there are nOR conforming residential neighborhoods; and, the Planning Commission supports revisions to the zoning code to allow some minor encroachments; - The assumptions of the Comprehensive Plan are still valid, but they want to forward the accessory dwelling units as affordable housing and of variety housing types; - It complies with GMA. - Affordable housing is a community value. CONSENSUS: Approval of suggested fmdings and conclusions and that Ms. Thayer would be notified when concluded. Planning Commission Minutes, October 24,2002/ Page 9 · · · Chair Thayer asked regarding representation at the City Council public hearing. Ms. Surber suggested the Planning Commission present their recommendatims and also if someone cared, to speak on behalf of the minority reports. It was determined Chair Thayer would present Planning Commission recommendations as the extensive work of the Planning Commission. Mr. Randall reported concluding his draft revision of the Comp Plan process, amendments to Title 2004 that would ' change the schedule for such things as comprehensive plan amendments. He noted requirement for doing an environmental review, an environmental checklist, to issue a determination on the ordnance adoption before a Planning Commission public hearing, and before Council's adoption by the end of this year. Chair Thayer pointed out it is also time for Planning Commission election of officers for the ensuing year. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS November 4 City Council Open Record Hearing November 18 City Council (Possible Hearing) Ordinance Adoption November 21 Planning Commission Open Record Hearing -- Kelly-Jefferson Transit Rezone (LUP-02-046) IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Dorgan and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. /jl . .f1 ~"L~ Cindy Tha , Chair ~~ Sheila A vis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, October 24, 2002 / Page 10