Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09182003 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm September 18,2002 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - August 28, 2003 V. General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) VI. Unfinished Business VII. New Business Open Record Public Hearing (Quasi-Judicial) Kah Tai Amendment - LUP03-031 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Testimony 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action Carlson Amendment - LUP03-033 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Testimony 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action City-owned Lots on Block 52 Amendment - LUP03-032 4. BCD Staff presentation 5. Public Testimony 6. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VII. Upcoming Meetings: September 25: October 6: County Presentation on Tn-Area UGA City Council Public Hearing on Comp Plan Amendments Joint Meeting with City Council October 9: VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 18,2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.rn. in the City Council Chambers. She reported that Planning Commissioner Jim Irvin will be on extended leave due to illness. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Frank Benskin, Bernie Arthur, and Jeff Kelety; Lyn Hersey and Alice King were excused. Richard Berg arrived at 7:13 p.m. Also present were BCD Jeff Randall and Senior Planner Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Kelety made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Arthur made a motion to accept the minutes of August 28, 2003 as amended; Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Pat Scott asked if there was a quorum present. Chair Thayer clarified that there are now seven members and four is a quorum. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VII. NEW BUSINESS Open Record Public Hearine: of the 2003 Amendments to the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan (Quasi-Judicial) At 7:14 p.rn. Chair Thayer opened the public hearing and explained the format for the meeting. She swore in all who had registered to testify, and all affIrmed to tell the truth. It was determined to change the order of amendments being considered to accommodate the participants. CARLSON AMENDMENT LUP03-033 Chair Thayer asked for Planning Commissioners to disclose any appearance of conflict of interest. Mr. Arthur declared he had been treated at Ms. Carlson's clinic and asked if it would be construed as a conflict of interest. Ms. Thayer, Mr. Berg and Mr. Ke1ety also declared the same. There were no objections raised. Chair Thayer called on Ms. Surber, Planner assigned to the Comprehensive Plan updates, to make the Staff presentation. Ms. Surber noted this amendment is for a proposed redesignation/ rezone of the Carlson property located at Lawrence and VanBuren involving three parcels. She pointed to Parcel A on the comer owned by James Carlson, stating it is a mixed use building with medical office on the first floor and apartment above; Parcel B owned by Janel Carlson, also a mixed use building; and Lot 6 which is currently a parking lot serving Parcel B. Lot 6 is tied through a restrictive covenant to Parcel B to service that lot for as long as parking is required for the uses in Parcel B. Existing zoning as shown in Exhibit DNS-A is currently R-II on Lot 6 and multi-family residential on Parcels A & B. R-II single-family residential designation also extends to the north. Across VanBuren Street is more R-III multi-family zoning; Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 1 · · · Across the street to the south on the opposite side of Lawrence Street is C-III, Historic Commercial; Next door, the fire department is Public Infrastructure (P-I); Across Harrison Street is more P-I (the library and Pink House). On the opposite side of that is again the C-III Historic Commercial zone. It came to the City's attention that the R-III zoning designation and R-II zoning was inconsistent with uses, and apparently historic uses, of these buildings. When a building inventory was done in 1994 as part of the Comprehensive Plan, it showed that Parcel B was a mixed-use building, and that Parcel A had undefmed building uses. In that it is valued to have the zoning and existing uses in compliance with one another, and that historically the buildings have been used as a mixed use, the City put on the docket for this year to reexamine the R- III zoning designation and see if that was really appropriate for this property. Ms. Surber also noted that in addition to the rezone approval rectifying non-conforming uses, there are also non-conforming setbacks on these properties that would be resolved through the C-III historic commercial designation. The additional benefits to the City would be that the fire station which is currently being redesigned, the existing building to be demolished and be replaced with a new fire station, the setback requirements would be altered, reduced for the front and side-yard setbacks. In P-I, if you are abutting residentially zoned property, you have to have a greater setback, but if commercial property, that setback is reduced. (See table in packets showing setbacks and density requirements for the various zones involved.) There were five comment letters received from the public in response to the pending threshold determination which raised various issues on the impact to the surrounding single family residential neighborhood, including such things as noise, and light. For the most part, even though the neighborhood feels the existing uses are compatible with the character of the single family residential, the rezone would allow many other uses that the neighborhood feels would not be compatible. C-III, which is put in this uptown area, includes uses such as laundromats, bars and restaurants, and other uses that could occupy these buildings in the future if they were zoned for historic commercial. Those were the majority of concerns voiced by letters and phone calls to Ms. Surber -- not the existing uses, but what if it is rezoned, maybe demolished and rebuilt, would those uses be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Surber stated that through the Determination of Non-Significance issued by SEP A Responsible OffIcial Jeff Randall, BCD reviewed those potential impacts and made the conclusion with the setback requirements set forth in our code, and with environmental review that would be necessary for demolition and reconstruction on these sites, the potential impacts would be mitigated through those regulations and SEP A review. She noted that if the R-III zoning designation stays, these buildings could be demolished and rebuilt with more intense multi-family that would not get any review by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). In C-III designation, any alterations or demolition and reconstruction would be reviewed by the HPC. Also, with C-III you get a setback requirement from surrounding residential property, a greenbelt requirement that says you have to limit and obscure access and visibility from surrounding residential. Ms. Surber said that given those reviews, BCD found it was not a significant impact to rezone this piece of property. Answers to questions from workshop: I) Why is staff recommending C-II/ historic commercial rather than C-I/ general commercial? There is no abutting C-II in this area; the closest C-II is over 1 mile. There is C-III in the vicinity, across Lawrence Street and also the opposite side of the library. It is in a national historic landmark district. It was thought C-III was the most appropriate, would accommodate both the existing uses and existing setbacks of those structures. 2) What was the site previously zoned before 1996-1997? Previously R-I, single family residential. BCD Recommendation: Approve the amendment. (See Page 6 of the Staff Report) Other options available to the Planning Commission are also listed in the Staff Report. One option, since there are 3 legal parcels (A, Band 6) would be rezone some, but not all ofthern. Basis for the Staff Recommendation: the location is within in the historic landmark district; there are non-conforming uses already in the building; setbacks are non-conforming; the site is physically suitable for C-III according to environmental review; located within Tier 1 where infrastructure is available for more intense uses; the new development would be mitigated by existing regulations and SEP A review. Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 2 . . -- Sue:e:ested Findine:s & Conclusions: Ms. Surber referenced her Staff Report of September 11,2003. Plan nine: Commission Questions: Q. Mr. Benskin: Exhibit A & B maps seem to show different information regarding location of the buildings on the property. Exhibit B shows a setback on the property line; when Exhibit A is blown up it shows that the larger building is about 5 feet over into the fITe department's property. A. Ms. Surber: Exhibit B is much more accurate when it comes to building places. Q. Mr. Benskin: Why do all of our maps have it the other way? If they are not accurate, why do we have it that way? A. Ms. Surber: Exhibit A is meant to show the surrounding zoning Q. Mr. Benskin: But all the other city maps, street maps etc., show the buildings mostly on Lawrence Street as being off the property lines and into the street. Does the building on Parcel B intrude into the P-I zone of the fITe department? A. Ms. Surber replied it does not. Q. Ms. Thayer: Isn't Exhibit A an aerial photo? A. Ms. Surber: No. Exhibit A is based off the City's offIcial zoning map. The buildings are placed on there, but they are not meant to be accurate as in surveys. Ms. Thayer: Exhibit B is a survey map. Q. Mr. Benskin said he did not see any information as to who the surveyor was and was curious who prepared Exhibit B. A. Ms. Surber: Exhibit B came from the short plat application. Mr. Randall: That is not the whole document; you can see it goes off the page. Q. Mr. Benskin: It goes off the page and some information is missing -- was curious as to when it was prepared and who prepared it. A. Ms. Surber: The short plat was done in 1994-1995. Q. Mr. Benskin: But these buildings were previous to that? Ms. Surber concurred. Mr. Benskin asked when Exhibit A was produced. It a says, "Tuesday, March 11." A. Ms. Surber: That is the date she accessed the GIS mapping system Q. Mr. Benskin: Does he make the assumption the GIS mapping system is fairly incorrect? A. Ms. Surber: Yes, when it comes to building placement. It is not based on survey information; for the most part they do not require surveys. Q. Mr. Arthur: Asked regarding Block Z, in relation to the City's fire station. A. Ms. Surber: Lots 1, 3 and 5 are part of the fITe station; lots 8 & 7 are in the residential district, zoned R-II. Q. Mr. Arthur: Lots 5 and 3 are city lots? A. Ms. Surber: Replied that was her understanding; that was reflected in the zoning. Chair Thayer called for public testimony from Proponents: There was no response; she then called on Opponents: PUBLIC TESTIMONY Ms. Pat Scott, 826 VanBuren Ms. Scott thanked Commissioners for the opportunity to participate. Her home is above Lot 8, just one block followed by the Catholic Church and the school properties that are about 750 feet from the Carlson property. She thought Ms. Surber's presentation was very accurate; she was here to reflect the views of the neighbors. She said she almost stood up as a neutral, because they are not in opposition in a status that they do not want this to go through in its entirety, but they do have some issues. She stated they have been uninformed about how staff interfaces with the citizens. She would like Judy Surber to be a friend of hers, that she found her to be delightful, but she didn't get the sense that she could, on behalf of the neighbors, come to a conclusion. She felt she had to come before this Commission and/or the City Council. She understood the Commissioners have packets that include all of the correspondence that has gone back and forth. She asked Commissioners if they have the Fire Department proposal for Lot 6 she believed to be issued on September 15. She presented a copy of the proposal, Exhibit Carlson 3. She noted the proposal specifically addresses Mr. Arthur's comments and has a big impact on that parcel and Lot 6. She indicated early on when they received the first couple of notices from the Building Department, they thought, as Ms. Surber pointed out, that this was something that had been overlooked, hadn't been caught up in the 90's and that didn't have a particular significance for them. Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 3 · · · One neighbor called and discovered that indeed the Fire Department, or perhaps the planners, had some concerns about this space between Parcel B and Lot 6, and the Fire Department, and as Ms. Surber pointed out there was insuffIcient clearance there for setback. She indicated that as it turns out in their meeting with the Fire Department they have, for other reasons not related to setback, moved their building plan further east toward Harrison. Now they are able to accommodate the setback the City wants plus they will be able to do what they refer to as bumpouts; interior places where they will hang hoses. She stated that rather took care of itself as of September 15th. Secondly, they heard there was exploratory discussion between Mr. Carlson and Mr. Timmons about the possibility of locating the Police Department in the area of Lot 6. That raised some questions in their minds about the public infrastructure. Chair Thayer informed Ms. Scott that information was in their packets. She pointed out to the Planning Commission Ms. Scott was beyond her allotted 3 minutes, and they granted her additional time to continue. Ms. Scott said the packet materials would show that the fITst little white house behind the fire station belongs to the Fire Department and will be included in the demolish and remodel. The next little house is under negotiation with the Fire Department, so that they would literally move the house to a traded land area and take that Lot 7. She pointed out on the map it would take the whole area and thought it would be turned into public infrastructure. Her neighbors impressed on her that they are totally in support of that Fire Department, and have been probably for 25 years. That is not a problem. They are going to be coming down towards the cherry trees on Lot 8 which is now residential. The Fire Department now tells them that on Lot 6, they are going to use that, compensate Mr. Carlson, but use that as a storage and operations facility for 15 months. She said that is just fme; they need a place to put their stuff; that's not a problern. What they see happening, it looks to them like an encroachment (she was not sure of the proper language to use with planners), and pointed out it is coming this way and it is fme. But what happens afterwards? What the neighbors would like is for the Planning Commission to send them back to the Staff with some direction to try to solve this. She said they are not against the commercial development; it's been there, and they enjoy it. They are glad to have it, but they have a problem; the City is making changes. They want to have a positive result; they want it to be there; they want it to be professional services. They want to support the Fire Department, but are very concerned about what is happening to that whole lot. Ms. Barbara Bogart, 716 Taylor Street Said she was not in this immediate area, but an uptown resident and is always concerned about the expansion of commercial uptown. She thought Pat Scott had pretty much clarified Ms. Bogart's understanding of what was happening. She did not know how much leeway the City has, but it makes sense to her, in very simple but not commissioner stance, that the fact the neighbors accept the professional offIces that are there and the height that is there, if there is some way that this doesn't have to be a blanket, C-III historic, if there is some way that the height could be limited to the 35 feet that is in C-II, that the parking not be forgiven so that it doesn't become a mass of street parking in a residential area, that lighting and noise does not affect this residential neighborhood. She thought it quiet there at night. Everybody wants the fire station to remain there. Her other concern is kinds of business that would be allowed in C-III historic which is rather wild and woolly, which belongs down further, not on those residential boundaries. She thought the simplest of all would be if there were some way to make it limited to professional offIces and the kind of day businesses, not necessarily retail which brings more noise and more cars. At 7:45 p.rn., Chair Thayer closed Public Testimony on the Carlson Amendment and called for Planning Commission deliberation. Entered into the record as Exhibit Carlson #3, Fire Department Proposed Tents for fire Engine Storage & Operation. Staff Response: Mr. Randall explained that as discussed at the neighborhood workshop, the Fire Department does have a current proposal to demolish the fire station. The City has in the past acquired property; he pointed out on the map an older house and a garage, and stated that at least the house is to be relocated. The basic proposal is to have the rebuilt fITe station occupy a site he pointed out with a setback as indicated that would comply with the current zoning, the current setback requirement from the R-III zoning. There would be a parking lot on Lot 5 and screening on the north end of Lot 5 because of the nearby residential zoning. The new information that has come about in the Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 4 · · · last 2 weeks or so with a lot more specifics as of this proposal, Exhibit Carlson #3, has been that before the Fire Department demolishes this building they have to relocate everything to continue to provide fITe services. They basically have a location for their Staff, which he believed to be the Pink House across Harrison Street, and propose to park the engines on the parking lot in temporary structures. They initially proposed some sort of tent or fabric- covered type of Quonset such as you see in the Boat Haven, and currently the idea is that shortly afterwards they would build some metal building, e.g. pole building that would be there for the duration of the 15 month anticipated construction period. When that is over, those buildings would be .removed and the site restored to what basically is there now, a parking lot that serves the business on Parcel B. Right now, the entire proposal is based upon current zoning, because the decisions they have to make and the schedule they are tied to do not allow them to wait until the rezone is acted upon for proceeding. They have funding from the federal government; the timeline they are using is based upon current zoning and complying with current setbacks. Ms. Thayer asked regarding Lot 7 mentioned by Ms. Scott. Mr. Randall replied that right now no part of the project involves Lot 7, but in discussions at department head meetings, he recalled some talk about that. He could not elaborate other than what Ms. Scott said. He stated that is now zoned R-II, that the City may be interested in acquiring that for possible expansion of this complex to serve the Fire Department. He could not answer stating he did not know anything more, but right now it is not part of this project; they don't have funding for it. He does not know if the City is trying to acquire it with other funds, but it is not part of this project. He said BCD has not been notified they are to anticipate any permits for it at this time. Ms. Scott was in disagreement. Mr. Randall explained he had not been told that is a proposal; right now this is still zoned R-II. He is not aware of a proposal to rezone to P-I, not to say the City Manager couldn't come to him next week and want to do that next year, but it could not happen any sooner than next year's Com Plan amendment cycle. Questions of Speakers Q!. Staff: Q. Mr. Kelety asked Ms. Scott ifhe understood her concerns as specifically as possible, e.g. setbacks and heights. He hears a group of citizens very supportive of the Fire Department, but they have some concerns. Partly what he hears, is there a way we can work through those concerns before a vote here. Ms. Scott concurred. Mr. Kelety continued that what he didn't hear apart from the term "encroachment" is what the specific concerns are now on two levels: 1) the specific proposal; 2) your concerns as to what is not on here, some other information. He asked for her to separate those two out for him, specific line items before the Commission now. A Ms. Scot replied they would be very interested in keeping the 35-foot limit rather than 50 feet under historic commercial. They don't know what a contract rezone is on Lot 6, one of the options suggested by BCD. If it has to do with settling it, they would be pleased to do that. They would be interested in talking about grandfathering that section, because is does provide some needed parking. They would like restrictions for Parcels A & B to those kinds of professional services that are offered now by those doctors. They are concerned about Lot 8. She hoped she was clear about that, that it was not in the package, but it is very much a part of it because it faces Lot 6 and it is going to face the Fire Department. She said, knowing she was under oath, the Fire Department told them on the 16th that they are in negotiations with the Smallwood family on moving the little white house to a traded land so they could take that land. She indicated what Mr. Randall said is true, she does not think they are going to spring into action on that lot immediately. Ms. Thayer made the correction that was Lot 7, and Ms. Scott concurred. She was hoping, and said perhaps read too much into it, that she was thinking of a Planning Commission as being a body of people who are looking at the big picture. They have an infrastructure picture, a commercial picture and a residential picture and are trying to work it. Q. Mr. Berg asked Ms. Scott for clarification -- if when she said grandfathering the parking, was she talking about the parking lot on Lot 6? A. Ms. Scott thought the professional doctors would be in a tough spot if they didn't have places to park; in the Plan it talks about commercial places and parking that goes with it. She thought it probably not reasonable for them to take away the parking. They would like to see it kept residential because it provides a buffer for Lot 8. Mr. Berg asked Ms. Scott if what they would like to see is, kept residential? Ms. Scott replied yes; they are not asking to rid the parking lot; it gives them a buffer. Q. Mr. Benskin: Asked that since the parking is a non-confirming use for that right now, can they actually make Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 5 · that a confrrming use, give a conditional use permit for R-II? A. Ms. Thayer asked if it was approved for parking in the short plat. Ms. Surber replied it was an existing parking lot at the time of the short plat. She was not sure actually how long it has been used as parking. She suggested Ms. Carlson might answer that question. Ms. Janel Carlson, Owner of Lot 6 and Parcel B They bought what is now Parcel A and Parcel B in 1971. It was a pre-existing chiropractic practice in the building on Parcel A. The office was downstairs and they lived upstairs. They built the garage. In 1976, in what was their back yard, they built a new office. At that time the City required them to have the parking lot, required so many parking spots per the square footage of the new offIce building, so they bought Lots 6 and 8 with the anticipation of being the parking lot. She said she cannot have her business there without having that parking lot. It is a private parking lot for the patients and for the renters in the two apartments she has upstairs over the offIce. She said obviously she has a very vested interest in keeping that parking lot, because she can't have the business there without it. She indicated she has a big vested interest in keeping the business there for a long time, in fact now into the second generation. She stated her concern when the City came to her and asked for the rezone, was it going to change her reality at all-- 1) she wants to stay where she is; 2) she did not want to retrofit the building to look like a Disneyland Victorian. They assured her both of those were not issues, so whatever worked out was fme with her. She could not speak to Parcel A, but she knows that Lot 6 has to stay a parking lot for her to continue what she does and for her daughter to continue for the next 30 - 40 years. She reiterated the parking lot was built in 1976. Q. A. Q. · A. Mr. Benskin: Clarified, if it does change to C-III historic and falls under the historic guidelines, anything you want to do there you get the historic police. Ms. Carlson: Does not want to do anything to that building. She recognized that places an encumbrance upon her, but she doesn't have any big plans. She added that the Fire Department needs help. She said she is losing a parking lot of its use and is assuming that the Fire Department is making all that right with the City. Mr. Benskin: Is this being negotiated with you? Ms. Carlson: She hadn't heard all that Ms. Scott had. She told them to let her know when they figured it out. They know that she is making the parking lot available so that fITe trucks have some place to be. She is trusting the Fire Department will take care of that. At 8:00 p.m. Chair Thayer asked if there were any new issues. There were none. She closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing on the Carlson Amendment and called for Planning Commission deliberation. · Plannine: Commission Deliberation and Questions: Mr. Arthur asked staff, if the Carlsons made an offIce building there, a medical building or whatever the zoning was in 1976 and they were required to have parking, if it were rezoned to C-III which doesn't require parking, would the Carlsons be alleviated of that requirement? Mr. Randall: That C-III zone is the most lenient in terms of parking. If it is rezoned C-III, any future changes of use in that building are going to be looked at the most leniently in terms of parking. Typically, it needs to be a historic building to have zero parking requirements. He did not believe it would qualify as that; it would need to be at least 50 years old, and it would depend upon the use that was proposed if any parking was required. In his experience, in changing uses in existing buildings, there is a lO-car parking credit that applies in C-III. In modest sized buildings like this, jfyou change to a more intensive use, typically, there is not going to be a parking requirement once you have done the calculations. Mr. Arthur: If rezoned to C-III, the Carlson chiropractic clinic will not be required to have that parking lot, even though it is not a change of use? Mr. Randall: Was hesitant to answer without having a chance to work on it a bit; the owner would definitely be allowed to maintain it as optional parking; the City would not say they could not have parking there because that's residential and the parking lot is residential and your building is commercial. It could definitely stay the way it is. He will have to get back as to whether or not it is required. Mr. Arthur: In 1976, they were required to have parking, so if they maintain under a grandfather situation, in his understanding of the legal ramifications, the City couldn't come and say they couldn't have a parking lot there. But, if it is rezoned, does the City remove that parking requirement from that building immediately? Mr. Randall: It was developed under the 1976 parking code; that no longer exists. If it's rezoned C-III, they obviously can keep their parking if they want. Mr. Arthur: Could they build a building on Lot 6? Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 6 · · · Mr. Randall: Ifit's rezoned, C-III, probably. Ms. Thayer: Can we do a contract rezone C-III with limitations on height, parking for Lot 6, and limiting professional buildings or something else? Mr. Randall: Answered that because they are making recommendation to City Council, he thought they had a little flexibility in how they phrase it. He urged them to think in their own terms of what they are hearing tonight and debate what their recommendation would be. If they would recommend some sort of rezone to commercial, subject to a certain height limit, allowing only certain uses, subject to anything else they feel appropriate, he felt that would be a fme recommendation. What BCD would have to do then is take whatever the Planning Commission recommended motion is, talk with the City Attorney about it and draft it in terms of something that would work with the zoning code. BCD would put it into that language and present that to the Council. If there are any problems with that, which at this point he does not foresee, theoretically, he thought that could work. Ms. Surber: Added that height restrictions are much easier for the City to ensure compliance; however, with use restrictions, you don't always require a permit, so it is a lot harder to ensure compliance over the years and would require old records. Another alternative to the whole thing being C-III with restrictions to both height and uses, would be to leave Lot 6 as a residentially zoned property with the understanding it is grandfathered as parking for service to Parcel B and apply the rezone to Parcels A & B only. Ms. Thayer: Ifwe rezone Parcels A and B to C-III, leave Lot 6 as R-II, they could build a house on it. Ms. Surber concurred. Mr. Benskin asked if they wouldn't also have to have a buffer between the two. Mr. Arthur: No, they made an agreement, if an agreement is worth anything, for a parking lot. Ms. Thayer: Ifwe rezone it to C-III . . . Ms. Surber: There would have to be some action of that restrictive covenant. Mr. Kelety asked Ms. Carlson: The parking is required for your business? Ms. Carlson: Concurred, stating, even if they don't have to have it. Mr. Kelety: Said that she: 1) requires parking for her business. He asked Mr. Randall if it is confirmed the Fire Department is going ahead with their plans relative to where they are going to touch these three properties, based on the current zoning? Mr. Randall replied that was correct; they are proceeding with plans for a fire station and plans for a parking lot based on current zoning. Mr. Kelety: So they are okay with the current zoning, made their plans based on the current zoning. He asked if there is a legal requirement for Ms. Carlson to keep the parking lot the way it is? If we did nothing, everyone is okay, legally? Ms. Thayer interjected it is a restrictive covenant. Mr. Randall answered, yes in terms of the parking. Mr. Kelety said that if today they did nothing -- the Fire Department has what they need; Ms. Carlson has what she needs; residents have what they need -- with the exception of conformity . M Randall thought he was basically correct, but the trouble is they have non-conforming uses in those two buildings on Lawrence Street, the two medical buildings and that creates issues for refinancing, for other changes. Mr. Kelety stated, so, the only issue is non-conformity - which didn't trouble Ms. Carlson nor the Fire Department nor the residents. We are down to the issue of non-conformity, which is the City's requirement. Mr. Randall interjected it is a zoning requirement. Mr. Kelety asked Ms. Carlson if there is no project in the foreseeable future. Ms. Carlson replied there was not. Chair Thayer called for a motion concerning this amendment. MOTION Mr. Arthur Table this amendment until later Chair Thayer asked, to table until when? Mr. Arthur replied there were concerns brought forward by the public he had not had opportunity to analyze for making a decision. Among other things he was curious as to what was brought up about Lot 7, downzoning from commercial to higher/lower residential, etc. Chair Thayer called for a second to the motion. SECOND Mr. Benskin Chair Thayer asked for discussion. Mr. Benskin called for a point of order stating there is no discussion with a tabled motion. VOTE Failed, 3 to 2 by show of hands; Mr. Benskin and Mr. Arthur in favor Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 7 · Chair Thayer called for another motion concerning this amendment. MOTION SECOND Mr. Kelety Recommend to the City Council denial of Carlson Amendment - LUP03-033 Mr. Benskin Discussion: Mr. Kelety stated it looks as if they do not approve this tonight, that all parties would be happy with exception of the City regarding non-conforming. He felt at this time, with no projects forthcoming, it was reason not to move forward. Moreover, to support what he heard from Mr. Arthur and residents, there are things potentially coming down the road which would allow this set aside for a broader look. He thought it does not buy them anything. Mr. Arthur stated that with considerations of the speakers and staff, he felt the situation was being rushed and could be better analyzed when people had more time to figure out what is best for the whole neighborhood and come back. He said they don't want to hold up the fITe station, and it appears this will not do that whether or not they take an action. He felt uncomfortable with the information brought forward at this meeting that he has not studied. He agreed with the motion. Mr. Berg indicated if they were going to recommend approval, he would be leaning toward putting on some kinds of restrictions on the C-III zoning, e.g., height, etc. The point of doing so would be to rather encourage the owners to leave everything the way it is, and it looks like maybe they have accomplished the same thing by leaving the zoning the way it is. He is not opposed to the motion. Mr. Benskin suggested everybody would be well served to leave the zoning that it is. He could not see the benefit of going to C-III right now with all the pending things, when no one is sure of the outcome for the rest of the property. VOTE Passed unanimously, 5 in favor by Roll Call Vote Chair Thayer stated that at this time the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council denial of the Carlson Amendment LUP03-033. It will go to the City Council October 6, 2003. It was noted City Council could take other action, that this is only the Planning Commission recommendation. · Ms. Surber asked those present to notify neighbors of the City Council public hearing on October 6th. KAH TAl AMENDMENT LUP03-031 At 8:20 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the hearing on Kah Tai Amendment LUP03-031. She explained this is a quasi-judicial matter, and she called for any disclosure of appearance of fairness issues. There being none, she then asked for the Staff Presentation. Ms. Surber indicated this rezone designation is for property owned by the City of Port Townsend between Kearney Street and Kah Tai Lagoon. She explained the area's importance for recreational purposes, as a wetland, migratory waterfowl uses and its designation as priority habitat, and she further delineated other environmentally sensitive areas at Kah Tai and the surrounding properties. She stated that our Comprehensive Plan has a goal to acquire inholdings around Kah Tai to improve the buffer around this sensitive resource in the middle of the city. The City purchased the property in 1998 from the PUD. The resolution stated one of the reasons was to provide this added buffer around Kah Tai and to use it for park purposes. The existing zoning is Public Infrastructure (P-I) that allows for some uses such as government buildings that would probably be inappropriate at this location given the goals stated in the resolution and the Comp Plan. In the northwest quadrant, a portion of the site is also within Shorelines jurisdiction because Kah Tai is shorelines of the state with its existing Shorelines designation. The designation in this area is conservancy, recognizing the natural features ofKah Tai Lagoon and the significance of it as a natural resource. For these reasons the proposal is to downzone it from public infrastructure to open space parks and recreation, P/OS that is much less intense. It does not allow nearly as many uses as P-I, has a much more restricted lot coverage and impervious surface related to it. It is much more appropriate in an area with this kind of sensitivity. · BCD Recommendation: Recommend approval. Sue:e:ested Findine:s & Conclusions: Ms. Surber referenced her Staff Report of September 11,2003. Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 8 · · · The site involving 22 lots is physically suited for the proposed zoning, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space and Parks Plan, and also the Shorelines Master program for that northwest quadrant. There were 12 public comment letters in support or the rezone and one additional comment letter from the Audubon Society recommending approval. Staff question posed ill; August !±.. 2003 Workshop: Are the soils at the site contaminated? Ms. Surber stated the fITst Health Consultation by the Department of Health basically said they did not do any testing of any of the soils there, but in 1986 there was some testing of some of the sediments in the lagoon, not at the upland site at all. Ms. Surber said the Department of Health revisited the 1986 soil samples and said that basically things have changes a lot since then and they concluded there was an indeterminate public health risk because these soils came from the boat haven site with these potential contaminants. It was followed by another health consultation. Again there were no soils tests taken; the conclusion was basically the same, but Ms. Surber said she noticed the difference between the two reports was that this was giving more recommendation on how to go about taking soil samples, both upland and sediment soil samples. She called to follow up with the Department of Health. They had changed staff members; Trace, who was involved with both of these two consultations, no longer is in that section. The new person referred her to the Department of Ecology; she contacted the DOE soils person who has taken new samples that have not been analyzed to date. Ms. Surber said they should note that parks and recreational facilities are allowed in either P-I or P/OS. By making the change in the zone, they are not increasing the risk. Chair Thayer opened the hearing for Public Testimony and called for those in favor. Public Testimonv Ms. Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend Highly recommended approval to City Council, stating it is an action long overdue and should have been taken at the conclusion of purchase of the property in 1998. She stated there was a change of political climate in 1999 that led to some efforts to actually divest these parcels back to the PUD for development. She indicated there wasn't time in 1998 to do the rezone considered tonight, that at the same Planning Commission hearing in 1998 there was a proposal by the PUD to put commercial zoning on those parcels, that it was partly that effort that led to the acquisition by the City as an extension ofKah Tai park. She noted the Staff Report has indicated all the reasons why it should be done. Ms. Dorgan pointed out that the main entrance from uptown is down the Clay Street right-of-way, and there is no Clay Street right-of-way in the parcels once you cross Kearney Street. She indicated it is a very important access point that these parcels be part of the park. In 2001 the Kah Tai Alliance added a new trail to the park that is just outside the parcel lines to the left where the two arrows are; it comes off the main trail, parallels the water, follows the parcel line and links to a little trail that comes off the back comer of the bank property. She indicated it is a lovely mowed turf trail that a lot of people still haven't discovered, really a beautiful new way of doing an internal loop in the upland part of the park and not just going up and down the same trail coming and going. She declared it is a beautiful part of the park. The Kah Tai Alliance planted pines along the bio-swale just off the ditch there at Kearney Street, spaced quite far apart because they are quite sensitive to maintaining those sight lines into those parcels you now have. As you go along Kearney Street it is a beautiful way to look very deep into the park and really appreciate it from quite the traffIc- intensive vantage point you have on Sims Way. She asked to very frrmly plant in the Commission's minds the idea that Kah Tai is a park, has been for decades, and will remain a park. This is an important part of the City's holdings that are really scattered all the way around the park now. The County intends to donate all of their holdings to the City as part of the park. Ms. Dorgan then stated that the Port and City co-signed the grant agreement in 1982 to receive IEC monies to develop the park, so the Port holdings now that have been the subject of various discussions in this last year as part of the Port's comprehensive scheme, really fail to recognize the fact that the Port signed that grant. As part of signing that grant application, they signed into federal legislation the Land and Conservation Fund that was administered through Olympia, the IEC rather like the distributor of the federal funds that come from offshore drilling, etc. The requirement for anyone receiving those funds to either acquire park parcels or to develop, which is what the 1982 grant was -- the Port's holdings were developed with inner lagoon, picnic shelter, bathrooms, trails -- all was done with federallEC administered funds. It came with the requirement that land be held in perpetuity for recreation for the citizens ofthe State of Washington. The Port does not have the option of now commercializing and divesting those parcels unless with the proviso they provide the citizens of the State of Washington an equally Planning Commission Minutes, September 18,2003/ Page 9 · · · valued piece of land. She asserted that would not happen, that is a park and she thinks this rezone is another step in the direction of really protecting and furthering the concept of the Kah Tai Lagoon nature park. Ms. Surber added that she. had distributed the e-mail from Seldon McKee, also in favor of the rezone. Exhibits Ms. Surber entered into the record: Exhibit 4 Kah Tai, e-mail from Selden McKee in support Exhibit 5 Kah Tai, Health Consultation 1981 There being no further public testimony Chair Thayer closed Public Testimony and called for Planning Commission deliberation. Plannine: Commission Questions: Q. Mr. Arthur: Asked 1) Has that site had an historic use? In his recollection, at one time that was rather a bottling plant or something. The area could be contaminated with that kind of thing. 2) Will this have any affect on the rest home or bank properties and their ability to maintain or improve their facilities any different than what they are now; is it going to require the nursing home to have a 100 foot setback and the people across the street, are they going to be affected? A. Surber: As far as historic use, she did not know. There are some stormwater facilities there. She will look up regarding the setback requirements. Mr. Arthur: Was curious as to the effect on the private properties that surround that section; can we allow them to have use of their property or would we be taking their property without compensation? Chair Thayer called for a short recess to give time for Ms. Surber to research the question. At 8:40 p.m. she reconvened the meeting. Ms. Surber: Replied no, it would not affect setbacks of the adjoining commercial properties Q. Mr. Benskin: In Staff Recommendations it was suggested that with approval of the zoning change, we could reference some concerns about health of the citizens by signage or that they could have the soils tested before there is any sort of disturbing activity on the property. He asked the process for doing that. A. Ms. Surber: Thought as Mr. Randall previously stated, they could make a recommendation, check with the City Attorney and then take it to City Council. She thought, however, that signage at the location they are talking about now, one of the main entries to the Kah Tai Park, would certainly fit well with the recommendation. It should be noted though that it is designated at a nature park; it is less likely to happen as far as turning into more active play grounds, soccer fields, where soil disturbance and more contact might come into play. Mr. Benskin: Was thinking about the development of trails and things like that also because you disturb the soils there. Not all kids are susceptible to the levels that are represented here, but there are people that are super-sensitive to this kind of thing. He has friends in this community whose children are that way -- exposure to minor things causes major health concerns. He said given the background on the lagoon and where it came from, it is a concern to him. Ms. Surber: Suggested if it doesn't fit with this rezone, passing the concern on that there should be signage could be taken up in some other avenue as well. At 8:45 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public testimony, and called for Planning Commission discussion and action. MOTION Mr. Arthur Recommend City Council approve Kah Tai Amendment, LUP03-031 in accordance with the Staff Report, BCD Recommendations, Findings and Conclusions SECOND Mr. Kelety Discussion: Mr. Benskin requested a friendly amendment to recommend signage to state there is a potential health risk from soils, and further testing of soils be added to our recommendation for approval. Mr. Ke1ety felt it was a valid concern but should not be tied to this motion. He said he would like to come back to it in a different way, and did not accept the friendly amendment which consequently failed. VOTE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5 in favor by roll call vote Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 10 · Chair Thayer stated that the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council approve Kah Tai Amendment LUP03-031, and asked if there was a further recommendation. MOTION Mr. Benskin Recommend to City Council that signage at Kah Tai Park be added and possible testing if any soil disturbing activities occur there, per recommendation of the State Health Report SECOND Mr. Arthur Discussion: Ms. Thayer was not in favor of signage, but was in favor of testing if there is any soil disturbance. Mr. Kelety thought it was worthy of investigation, but he was not prepared for this body to recommend signage. Ms. Surber stated the DOE had taken samples and suggested they hold on to this action for those results. MOTION AND SECOND WITHDRAWN Ms. Surber said she did not know what the time line is, but she would bring back the results when she gets them. CITY-OWNED LOTS ON BLOCK 52 AMENDMENT LUP03-032 At 8:55 p.rn., Chair Thayer opened the hearing for Public Testimony on this amendment of City-Owned Lots on Block 52. She again stated this is quasi-judicial and called for disclosures of appearance of fairness issues. Mr. Arthur disclosed his son owns property there, and Mr. Arthur was a partner in Fleet Marine for years, has dealt with the Port and Point Hudson. He said he has definite opinions on this. He recused himself from the deliberation and excused himself for the remainder of the meeting. · Chair Thayer noted for Mr. Arthur and other Commissioners that next week's meeting is for public hearing of the C-II Design Standards. This corrects the notice for the September 25th meeting on tonight's agenda. Mr. Arthur informed Chair Thayer he would be gone from September 29th to the end of October. Ms. Surber also pointed out new fmdings for the Carlson amendment would be fmalized at the September 25th meeting. Chair Thayer called for the Staff presentation. · Ms. Surber explained that this application referred to as Block 52 is the actual location of the temporary skateboard park, as most people know it. It covers five lots all owned by the City of Port Townsend, comer of Jefferson and Momoe Streets. The temporary skateboard park is basically covering Lots 8, portions of 6 and encroaches a bit into 5 and 7. The remainder of 5 and 7 is a parking lot. She pointed out where Lot 4 drops off, which is encroached upon by private properties. Some of Jana Allen's property extends into the City-owned Lot 4. The zoning would remain the same, but the proposal is to change the district. Uses in the Shorelines Master Program and the Urban Waterfront Plan would trump the zoning. She noted district divisions: 1) Civic, where City Hall is located; 2) Point Hudson Marina including Point Hudson proper. She indicated currently the parking lot and all of the city-owned lots referred to fall within the Point Hudson Marina District that is intended for marine-oriented uses. Any new development is supposed to be marine oriented. Ms. Surber stated the Civic District allows considerably more flexibility with uses to accommodate the fact we are historic downtown, and we want to promote the redevelopment and reuse of historic structures. Public Works Director Ken Clow requested the change to the parking lot, that it did it did not seem like a marine-oriented use. He questioned it as part of the Point Hudson Marina District. It seemed to be more linked to the downtown Civic District; it provides parking for businesses that are within the Civic District, e.g. the building that includes Four Legged Friends and Dr. Rienstra's clinic, services Memorial Field and is en used for parking by City staff and the skateboard park. Shifting the district would allow for a skateboard park. The City has been awarded a grant from lAC for a permanent skateboard park at this location, and since skateboard parks are non water-oriented uses it would be dependent upon whether or not this district was changed. Ms. Surber referred to materials provided by Planning Commissioner Arthur and included in Commission packets indicating reasoning why this had been included in the Marina District originally. She said that although it didn't speak directly to it, it basically indicated this parking lot could also be used for parking to support the marine- related uses at Point Hudson, that it is true you try to keep parking lots away from being directly on the waterfront. Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 11 · · · She stated it is not a bad location for a parking lot, but it should be noted that whether it is in the Civic District or Marina District, it doesn't have to stay parking. If the City should decide to use it for some other use and that parking would go. Options in the Staff Report include redistricting only portions. Mr. Clow suggested redistricting 5, 7, 6 and 8. Ms. Surber pointed out those areas noting they are the actually flat, developable areas of the skateboard park and parking lot. Mr. Clow suggested leaving Lot 4 in the Point Hudson Marina District; there is a break in the elevation. It is being encroached upon by a piece of property currently in the Marina District. She thought potentially in the future, they might suggest the property is encroaching upon the City property and maybe they would want to buy it. Ms. Surber thought it to the City's benefit to have it in the same district as that adjoining property. Planning Commission Questions: Mr. Kelety asked for clarification. Ms. Surber explained the grass yard and fence in Lot 4 is associated with development on Lot 2, Jana Allen's property in the Marina District. Lot 4 it is a break in slope, is now blackberry brambles, other than the grass and fencing of Jana Allen's. Use of Lot 4 to the skateboard park would be for buffering but not to improve it as parking or impervious surfaces. She stated that if you are not needing Lot 4 for anything but buffer, and the neighboring property is already encroaching upon it, it may make sense at some future point to surplus it; if you do, you want it to be consistent with the districting. She noted it was a thought, and it didn't make any difference to Mr. Clow, as long as there can be a buffer there. Mr. Benskin asked if there is a public unplatted street between Lots 5 and 3? Ms. Surber noted that line on the map is a chain link fence, and there is no public right-of-way. Mr. Benskin asked if the street is basically right on the edge of Lot 6 where it makes the curve around the skateboard park.. Ms. Surber concurred. . Mr. Berg asked the location of Bruce Tipton's building. Ms. Surber said Bruce Tipton's and Jana Allen's buildings are both on Lot 2. Mr. Benskin explained it is right on the property line. Ms. Surber continued that there were public comment letters from Bruce Tipton and Jana Allen that are in the packet as part of the DNS. She referenced the questions asked at the August 14th meeting and noted in her Staff Report: !J. the Citv vlanninf! other than the skateboard vark on this site? Public Works Director Clow and BCD Director Randall indicated nothing other than the skateboard park is proposed. Does the fill!. varkinf! lot show!Æ on ~ gfthe Port gf Port Townsend's Comprehensive Scheme? No, the Comp Scheme only covers Port owned properties. Whv are we lumving it all together when Lot 1. iJ. not vart gfthe varkinf! lot? Because it is in City ownership. They learned from past experience it is better to give too much for consideration than not enough, because if you want more you have to renotice and start over. Whv was the district boundary drawn like this in the first place? Mr. Arthur's information is pointing perhaps to a link for parking at Point Hudson. BCD Recommendation: Approve as proposed. Sue:e:ested Findine:s & Conclusions: Ms. Surber's Staff Report of September 11,2003. Public Testimonv Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend Spoke to Lot 4 saying she is a firm believer in protecting buffers. She indicated they need a buffer there, and it seemed to her that was part of the buffer in the site plan. If that is part of our use of our property, she thought it should be protected with the same zoning that is accorded the rest of the same site. She wants to see the skateboard park project go forward in this location, but fears there will be more last minute efforts to stall the construction. She feels it is wonderful to have a place for kids downtown; they have a wonderful idea and she thinks the buffer would be a good thing to have there. She suggested if leaving it as water oriented and with a chance of redevelopment from the other side, they could end up with another loss at Point Hudson. Ms. Surber said she was reminded that Mr. Ken Clow was about to submit the SEP A checklist and permit applications for the permanent skateboard park in the next couple of days.. There being no other public testimony, Ms. Surber called for Planning Commission questions and deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Planning Commission Minutes, September 18,2003/ Page 12 · Q. A. Q. A. Q · A. Q. A. · Mr. Benskin: Is it correct the skateboard park is site specific? Staff concurred and he then asked for the timeline for the grant money. Mr. Randall stated he did not know but that Mr. Clow was well aware of the timing on the zoning, and he thought the proposal fits in with the permit process he has in mind. Mr. Benskin: You mentioned Mr. Clow was getting ready to submit for permits. Are there any drawings on the proposal for the park? Mr. Randall thought there are at least conceptual site plans. Ms. Surber: Exhibit E of the DNS is the conceptual site plan. Mr. Randall: They have it pretty much nailed down as to what they are interested in and how much land it will take, down to costs, kinds of structures. He thought the recommendation coming out of the committee was pretty specific. Q. Mr. Berg: stated regarding Ms. Dorgan's comment, that he is also concerned that the buffer be maintained, but it was unclear if maintaining the buffer is really about a City decision whether or not to sell the land, or about what sub-district it is in. Does it have any bearing on whether it remains a buffer or not? A. Ms. Dorgan: Replied it does because the sub-district governs it. The skateboard park can't go in a water oriented district. Chair Thayer called for an answer from Staff to Mr. Berg's question. Ms. Surber: Spoke to buffering between the uses. Lot 4 may not all be necessary for buffering. She said you see there is a break in the slope that would indicate where Lot 4 is; you can see the fencing. It doesn't appear that all of Block 4 is necessary for buffering, and if the City were looking for making the best use of Lot 4 in the future, perhaps the best use for it would be to belong to the neighboring property. Mr. Benskin: Was hearing that it doesn't matter what the zoning is on the four parcels and the fifth one being different; the buffer can still exist there as long as it is City-owned property. If the City decides to sell it at a different time, a portion of that lot could be sold off to the neighbors and maintain the buffer for the skateboard park; is that correct? Lot line adjustment would be suggested by the topography of the lot itself? Ms. Surber. Concurred saying she was just trying to recognize the existing encroachment. Mr. Berg: Ms. Dorgan suggested that if Lot 4 was included in the change of districts, that property could be considered part of the skateboard park. If it's not, it can't be because the park is not a water-related use. He asked it that was true. Ms. Surber: Thought the Shorelines Master Program would not stop you from buffering two uses next door to each other. Strictly speaking, if you were to extend pavement, parking or the skateboard park to that area, it would have to be in the Civic District. Talking with Mr. Clow and looking at Exhibit E, the only use they were going to have for Lot 4 was buffering and was why she offered that as an option. Mr. Randall: Potential impacts they have heard associated with the skateboard park are noise, lighting, and time of hours. They haven't gone through the permit process yet, haven't done the environmental review and mitigations for the skateboard park. If there were some mitigation that would require a sound-deadening wall or something to be constructed on that lot, he thought someone could argue that it would need to be part of the site plan. He thought it was rather hair splitting. He clarified that Ms. Surber's recommendation was to adjust the line so it ran between Lots 5 and 3 and Lots 4 and 6, rather than including Lot 4 just because this lot could potentially be a water-oriented development if the City ever divested itself of it. Keeping it in that current district, in BCD's opinion isn't inconsistent with the buffer. He thought the main thing in the proposal, they are not encumbering this lot with any part of the skateboard park. Q. Mr. Kelety: Asked Staff if this is clearly related to the skateboard park proposal. A. Mr. Randall answered it is totally driven by the skateboard park proposal. Q. Mr. Kelety said the verbiage currently says "temporary." In essence, they are actually talking about skateboard park which is a little premature because the proposal isn't in, etc. Based on that, in its current designation, Marine-Related, you cannot put a skateboard park there, even though we have skateboard park there. We have a skateboard park there now simply because. . . So, it is informally placed right now, but if we were to come back in a formal designation it is going to have to change its usage. A. Mr. Randall: Concurred, if is to become a permanent skateboard park site it really needs to have that change.. Q. Mr. Kelety: Really, not "needs" but "must." A. Mr. Randall: Did not think it is approvable without the change. Planning Commission Minutes, September 18, 2003 / Page 13 · · · Q. Mr. Berg: Was trying to get a sense of whether the owner of Lot 2 would have a preference whether Lot 4 is marine or not. He knew they opposed the whole change. In a sense they have stated they would prefer to have Lot 4 stay marine. Is it to their advantage if we leave Lot 4 marine? A. Ms. Surber: Not speaking from the point of the property owners but from a planning perspective, yes it would be to their advantage.. At 9: 15 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public testimony and called for discussion and action.. MOTION Mr. Kelety Deny the request for any action at this point MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION Mr. Berg Recommend City Council approve change of district for Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 in accordance with the Staff Report, BCD Recommendations, Findings and Conclusions, but leave Lot 4 in its current district SECOND Mr. Benskin Discussion: Mr. Kelety said his concern is there is stuff coming down; the proposal for the skateboard park has not yet hit the ground, what their specific needs are going to be. There is no project now. As it stands now, parking is useful for the Point; this is good parking. He is In favor of the skateboard park, and maybe this is the right thing to do, but he would rather make a decision of what to do with this property based on an actual use than on an anticipated use, not knowing where they are going. He said they are just talking about non-conformity, which in his view is not a rationale to change, much less with the ire of local property owners. He would almost rather see it tabled so they can give time for the actual land use to come in here. It may be the same thing that ends happening. Ms. Thayer said it is like the chicken and the egg, but the permit can't be issued unless the zoning is right. Mr. Randall indicated they cannot proceed to hearing and can't do environmental review for the project and come up with positive findings supporting the project with it being in the Marine zone right now because of the SMP. Mr. Kelety asked from the mechanics point of view, this change must precede the movement to skateboard park. Mr. Randall concurred, saying they could not do it until next year. He did not know the mechanisms for funding, but thought that could throw it off. Mr. Kelety asked if you can't accept a proposal. Mr. Randall replied they could accept a proposal, but they could not say it is consistent with zoning, can't recommend approval because they have a barrier. Mr. Kelety asked if they don't do zoning changes based on proposals. Mr. Randall said it would not be heard until next year. Mr. Kelety asked that functionally without making this change they would delay it for a whole year. Mr. Randall concurred. VOTE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 4 in favor by roll call vote Chair Thayer explained these amendments would go to City Council for their public hearing on October 6th. Ms. Surber requested a Planning Commissioner present Planning Commission recommendations at the City Council public hearing on October 6th. It was determined Chair Thayer would represent the Planning Commission.. HOUSEKEEPING Staff Report, September 11,2003, recommends that Table IV-2, "The Land Use Map-Acreage Within Each Land Use Development" (attached as Exhibit A), in the Comprehensive Plan be updated to reflect the approved redesignation/rezones. MOTION Mr. Berg Recommend Table IV-2, "The Land Use Map-Acreage Within Each Land Use Development" in the Comprehensive Plan be updated to reflect the approved redesignations/rezones SECOND VOTE Mr. Benskin APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, 4 in favor by voice vote Ms. Surber pointed out that Staff would need to finalize Findings and Conclusions. The public hearing will be continued to September 25, 2003, for Planning Commission vote to fmalize Findings and Conclusions. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Commission Minutes, September 18,2003/ Page 14 · · · September 25,2003 Public Hearing, C-II Design Standards, Finalize Comprehensive Plan Findings and Conclusions City Council Public Hearing on Comp Plan Amendments Joint Meeting with City Council October 6, 2003 October 9,2003 Mr. Arthur will be on vacation from September 29th to the end of October. Mr. Randall asked regarding the Planning Commission's interest in BCD's 2004 workplan and if they wished to schedule a meeting. It was determined that since Commissioners are interested in having input in setting priorities for 2004 a meeting would be desirable before the end of the year.. IX. COMMUNICA nONS -- There were none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Benskin and seconded by Mr. Berg. All were in favor. The meeting was concluded at 9:30 p.m. to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m. September 25,2003 in City Hall Chambers. A vote will be taken to finalize the Carlson Amendment Findings and Conclusions. Planning Commission Minutes, September 18,2003/ Page 15 . . . GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Planning CQmmission Public Hearing. Comp Plan September 18.2003 Name (please print) Address öZ-bV R~·~Q.6 £!? 'Ið4- ~ '8 lS' Va. v~ ~ reJ'\. ( e.. Ý\ Testimon ? Yes No ,/ v V' ~ /