Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092905 MinutesCITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:00 -7:00 PM -Shoreline Master Program 7:00 - 9:32 PM -Formula Store Ordinance Meeting Materials: 1. SMP Chapter 3 (09-27-OS) Summary of Inventory and Chazacterization 2. Merging CAO limitations on impervious surface azea into the Draft SMP 3. SMP/Planning Commission Residential -transient in Urban draft reg; DR-5.10.1 4. SMP Section 5-13 Point Hudson Draft 4, Sept. 29, 2005 5. SMP Section 9.3 Alteration of Natural Landscape -Clearing, Grading... 6. Cambalik, Memo, Staff to Staff Informal Comments on Draft SMP (09/21/05) 7. Surber, Staff Report: Draft SMP -Point Hudson Mixed Used Facility 8. Surber, Staff Report :Draft SMP -Planning Commission Edits, with Table (09/29/05) 9. Agenda: Planning Commission Hearing, September 29, 2005 10. Guest List: September 29, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 6: 00 PM II. ROLL CALL The following commissioners were present: Mr. Randels Ms. Capron Mr.Emery Ms. King Mr. Lizut Ms. Slabaugh Ms. Thayer Mr. Kelety (Leave of Absence) was excused. IH. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Thayer moved to accept the agenda; seconded by Mr. Randels. Agenda was approved, as written, by unanimous consent. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Randels reported that the draft August 25 minutes would be held until the following week because he and several other members had not had the opportunity to review them. Ms. Surber fumed over her written edits to the Recorder to be incorporated. V. NEW BUSINESS Open Record Public Hearings: Hearings on the following items were conducted sequentially: Proposed Revisions to Shoreline Master Program and Formula Store Ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 1 A. Shoreline Master Program Staff Report EXK 8 StaffReport and Table: Ms. Surber said that the Meeting Materials included several exhibits that reflect strikeout and underline language directed by the Commission, as well as the Staff Report and table that lists additional edits she noted and redrafred while working on the revisions. Many of these seem necessary in order to address inconsistencies between different sections of the document. She then briefly explained each entry in the table. EXH 1. Chapter 3 Summary oflnventory and Characterization. She said this chapter contains no policy or regulation, whazsoever. It is a required chapter, according to DOE guidelines. EXFI2.Impervious Surface Ms. Swber explained that this document reflects discussions dwing eazlier meetings. It summarizes exactly how the SMP would be slightly more restrictive than the CAO. Also presented is [he new language that would appeaz as development regulations within the Conservancy and Shoreline Residential sections of Chapter 5. EXFI. 3. Residential-transient in the Urban Designation This is the drafr reflecting the discussion of the previous meeting, to be reviewed and further deliberated by the Commission. What is close proximity? Is 25 Feet the appropriate figure? Ms. Swber described a remaining issue that the Cownission needs to decide: what happens to the other 25%water-oriented use in the event restoration occurs, under an incentive agreement, and some portion of the original use requirement is altered or waived? Mr. Sepler has also suggested a graphic that visually depicts the setbacks, buildings, vegetation, and the sepazation of public and private space as it relates to this section of the regulations. EXH 4: Section 5.13 Point Hudson This drafr reflects The Planning Commission strikeouts and underlines. Also, on page 44, line 4 is the policy regazding RV's. Noting that there is no corresponding DR (development regulation), she asked commissioners whether the intention had been to add one; Ms. King recalled that, yes, although the wording had not been suggested. Ms. Swber asked Mr. Watts for advice on how to write this type of regulation, who suggested the possibility of working with someone like Michael Sullivan. One idea would be to develop a ratio of new development to existing square footage, and the number of RV spaces, or the like. However, it would take some time to work out, but the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council to pwsue that, or some other approach. On page 49 is the new shoreline mixed use facility, which reflects the Commission deliberations and work on this, to date. Ms. Swber has drafred a staff report, EXH. 7, that discusses some of the concerns raised by City Council regazding potential size of a mixed use facility in Point Hudson, and included some draft language should the Commissioners wish to set more specific bulk and scale requirements. EXH. 5. Section 9.3 Alteration of Natural Landscape -Clearing, Grading Stall' had recommended that the Commission defer this section until it was rewritten, because it was too complicated. Ms. Surber said she and Mr. Inghram had reworked it to mesh better with other local standards, particularly buffers and setbacks. EXH. 6. PSAT had sent comments about many of the SMP chapters. Due to its late arrival, Ms. Surber only had time to add her written comments/response in the mazgins of the PSAT document. Mr. Cambalik was present in the audience to answer any questions that might arise from the Commission. Urban/ Historic Waterfront Division Decision -- Ms. Swber noted that the actual motion and vote on this particular item had been inadvertently missed during a previous meeting when it and two other boundary designation decisions had been brought before the Commission. Therefore, that item of business needed to be added to the SMP agenda at some point. Public testimony: Chair Randels invited any late arrivers to sign in if they wished to speak. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 2 John Cambalik Seauim Office PSAT Regional Liaison Mr. Cambalik introduced himself, and offered to answer any questions regarding the comments he had submitted (EXH. 6). He said that early the following week, PSAT would be submitting a version of the comments in a formal letter, signed by the PSAT Director. Eric Toews Port Townsend Mr. Toews said that he wished to make a few comments about the implementation of Policy 5.13.2, the subject of Ms. Barber's staff report, EXH. 7, Point Hudson Mixed Use Facility. He said, that based on his experience, he had no idea how one would implement Policy 5.13.2, the focus of which is encouraging certain uses: adaptive reuse, as well as, implicitly, this mixed use facility. He mentioned the possibility of additional language in DR-5.13.5. or Policy 5.13.2. For example, the policy could chazge the City with periodic review of the effectiveness of policy 5.13.2. He said he did not know, as a practical matter, how the staff would go about implementing regulation 5.13.5 in its present form. Mary Winters Port Townsend. Port of Port Townsend Attorney Ms. Winters spoke about her recollections of the Planning Commission meeting in which the Policy 5.13.2 was deliberated. She said she did not know what mechanism could be applied to ensue that the RVs would be phased out by a particulaz date, or within a specified number of years. She said, " I continue to think, legally, you can't have a permitted use that you then say shall be gone at a certain date. The only mechanism that I'm aware of is to have anon-conforming use that you phase out, but this is not a non- conforminguse and I don't think the City can..." "I mean, that would be a question for John Watts if it got that far." " But, I don't think, legally, we could take a permitted use and then say upon this happening, it shall be gone. If you feel like you do need something beyond the policy, a review is a more common way to make sure that your policy is implemented." "Then, fuming quickly to the new language on Point Hudson and this mixed used facility, I think Judy's (Surber) staff report does a really good job of explaining the rationale... this one has been, as we said before, hard for the Port, because we are not really out there promoting the mixed use facility. We aze more promoting the idea that if the community wants the RVs gone, that revenue has to be replaced somehow. That's the idea we aze comfortable with. That being said, I was at the City Council meeting and heard the concern on the size. And I said this to Judy (Surber), too: I think that the development regulation that exists, which says that new development, redevelopment, shall be compatible with the scale, bulk, materials and design of the Point Hudson station buildings, that gives your Shoreline Administrator and your hearing examiner a lot of ability, if someone came in with too large a building, to say it's too large -that's out of chazacter. None the less, and trying to be sensitive to the concerns we're hearing, we did work with Dave Robison, as a SAG member, and Eric (Toews) and I worked with Judy, to come up with some limitations that we thought were workable. And this was so difficult, because this isn't a Master Plan, and we don't have architectural renderings, and we don't know what would come in, but looking at these numbers, the 12,500 (square feet), which is consistent with the larger size of the buildings already there, and keep in mind that the 12,500 and the 10,000, those are the footprint(s) only, which are probably bigger than 25,000 or may be . I didn't have time to go check with Larry (Crockett) and Jim (Pivarnik), who were out of town today. But, those are footprint sizes. So, I did have some comfort level in saying, "Yeah OK, we could live with this square footage limitatioq if [he Planning Commission thinks that makes it more palatable." She said "I think Dave (Robison) spoke with the architect for the Maritime Center, and just for a low number of rooms, that doesn't give you enough if you don't also have some..., at least, the lobby and some accommodations on the ground floor"... "So, that's why there's that `up to 50% transient on the ground floor', which leaves room for a smaller, water-enjoyment use, like a restaurant, an art gallery, some marine trades, the other things we want to see as part of this facility. If you are going to have a size limitation, it does seem critical that you loosen up a little on the transient accommodation, which in the definition is not clear. It doesn't really say one way or the other. So, there's some of the thoughts behind that section. I think that's all." Staff Response to Public Testimony: None Commission Deliberation and Action: Mr. Randels suggested that the Commissioners move to consideration of these items, and anything else on the Commissioners' minds. I'd suggest we take them in the order presented, starting with Judy's memo, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 3 dated September 29. Mc Randels: Does anyone have any questions, concerns, suggestions, complaints about this? Ms. Thayer: " I suggest that we approve this, as written ". [Several Commissioners asked for a specific reference; afrer some initial confusion, the Commissioners agreed that the scope of the first item being considered was the entire set of additional edits specified in the table of suggested edits on the second and third pages of the staff report, beginning with Exemption for exploration (II-7) and ending with Complete defmition for Utility XV. The staff report is identified as EXH. 8 in Meeting Materials above.] Mr. Randels: Any objection to approving this, as amended? Hearing none, so ordered. Mr. Randels asked for any substantive comments on the Chapter 3 draft. Ms. Capron requested a brief pause to check her notes, then affirmed that all her changes were minor, and could be e-mailed to Ms. Surber. Mr. Randels: Subject to any minor additions/corrections from the Commissioners, it is in order to consider Chapter 3 for basic approval,' is there a motion to that effect? Mr. Lizut so moved; Ms. Slabaugh seconded, all were in favor of the motion. Mr. Randels indicated that the next topic would be Impervious Surface, and consideration of EXH. 2, Impervious Surface language. Before getting in to that, he said he would like to check with Mr. Randall on a related question. Mr. Randels had sent an e-mail to Mr. Randall on Consistency of the SMP document with the CAO. He asked if Mr. Randall had had a chance to review the issues. Mr. Randall: The Shorelme Master Program incorporates the Critical Areas Ordinance by reference. We selectively lifted sections of the CAO and put them in the SMP, where we thought it useful to have at hand, rather than requiring the reader to consult another document. So, by that mere reference, there is no inconsistency. There aze instances in the SMP when you may have adopted a more stringent standard, specifically, and in those cases the issue will be resolved by the conflict resolution process in the SMP, which says if there are conflicting provisions, the most restrictive applies. But, the entire CAO has been incorporated by reference, so there is no inconsistency. Mr. Randall added that this general answer applies to all of the specific cases cited in Mr. Randall's a-mail. Next, Mr. Randels asked staff to differentiate the explanatory portion of EXH.2 from the proposed text. Ms. Surber: You'll see a line about a third of [he way down (page 1). It says, "In Conservancy and Shoreline Residential, replace existing 35% impervious with..." All that follows is replacement text. Mr. Randels: Isn't anything waterwazd of the ordinary high water mazk public land? Ms. Surber: "Not necessarily." Mr. Randall: It may be subject to the public tmst doctrine, but often times they aze private title; in some cases, it is public land, like the Fort property ....[inaudible]. Mr. Randels: Then, any suggestions on page 1 of the new drafr text? Ms. Capron and Mr. Randels both had minor corrections, which were to be e-mailed. Mc Randels: A possible substantive question: You use the phrase "Any one single family development; you mean one house, right? But, in out zoning, a single family home includes as many as four units, is that right? Mr. Randall: "Single family attached includes duplex, triplex, four-plex; single family detached is one unit. Ms. King: Do we use single family detached? Mr. Randels asked if the word development is a term of art? Mr. Randa1L• It might be more clear to say "Single family detached residence and accessory dwellings". Mr. Randels: I was leading up to the ADU issue; you would want to include them, as well. Mr. Randall: Yes. You might say "single family detached dwelling or residence, and accessory stmctures." Mr. Randels: Okay, so I would suggest making that change in both of these new sections. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 4 Ms. Thayer: I recommend that we approve this [EXH. 1J, as amended. Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. EXH. 3: Multi family/Indian Point. Mr. Randels referred to Page 1; B.b.ii. He noted that the numbering seemed inconsistent with the rest of the document. In addition, "The remaining 25% of the floor azea shall be..." should be changed to "maybe..." He said, "On page 2, item 1, you allow private gardens, patios and furniture in the setback area." "That, I think, gets very close to the real question that we debated the other day. If those uses get too close to the walkway, they inhibit the public nature of the walkway, because you feel like you aze intruding on somebody. So, we need to say how close you can make your garden, your patio, your 36 inch tall divider, to the public walkway within the setback, In other words, part of the setback should be blank." Ms. King: Yes, I thought we did say that. Mr. Randels: The wall is here, but it should not be right next to the public setback That's my concern. It's like that photograph we had from the San Francisco development. That had an awful lot of blank space-- a lot more than we can possibly get. Ms. King: I thought the wall kind of separated the public azea from private azea, so that patios and furniture would be on the other side of the wall. Ms. Surber drew a diagram on the board. "Water, the trail easement w/vegetation on either side, a small wall or hedge (with bench incorporated, or picket fence, or vegetation), and then private garden azea; 25 foot setback for the building; and a 3 foot grade separation. And the idea was that the living space and looking into someone's bedroom or living room was really the issue -- that shouldn't be neaz the public azea. Mc Randels: I think it was both --indoor and outdoor living space aze important; a good portion of that 25 feet, say 10 feet, should be on the public side of that fence or wall (ideally, with vegetation); then the remaining part of the 25 feet (in this case, 15 feet), would be between the wall or fence and the private building side. Ms. Slabaugh: Well, the other option is to widen the public access, so maybe that's another approach. Mr. Randall: What is left of the private property right in that 10 feet? Ms. Surber: How about, "If you have a ground floor residential situation, the public access walkway shall be sepazated from the private property by a 10 foot vegetative buffer. Mr. Randels: And the buffer can be part of the 25 foot building setback. Mr. Randall: So, it sounds like what you are concerned about is improved private and public open areas? Mr. Randels: Yes, if you have people using their patio that is right next to the sidewalk, even if there is a 3 foot fence between, if someone is using the sidewalk, they will feel like they are intending on that private space, and the resident will also feel intended upon. Mr. Randall described an alternative, i.e. the arrangement at Point Hudson where the new trail passes between the beach and the Commodore's HouseBed and Breakfast. There is only a small vegetative area and the lawn between the trail and the house. A discussion followed, about how best to specify the concept they desired, and to clarify the difference between buffer and easement. Mr. Randall suggested that they refer to a "public access easement and a buffer specified as vegetative." Ms. Surber added, " a 10 foot vegetative buffer within the public access easement " Ultimately, there was agreement that the public access easement should be widened to 35 feet. Mr. Randels moved that the draft, as amended, be approved. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thayer and approved by all. However, Ms. King said she would like to return to b. ii. She pointed out that the earlier change to may would not have the intended result. After a brief discussion, Mc Randels and others agreed. The language was changed back to shall. Ms. Surber had another question: For close proxtmtry, on page 1, item C , shall I put in parentheses within 25 feet? Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Randels: We still have Judy's question about the waiver: "waived and replaced with either non-water oriented or residential, or other"? Afrer considering the limited options, and the goal of giving staff flexibility for negotiation, Mr. Randels suggested adding language to B. a. to the effect of"not withstanding section x above" or "unless waived by.." or "unless waived under section y below .". Ms. Thayer moved that EXH. 3 be approved, as amended. Ms Slabaugh seconded and all were in favor. Mr. Randels: So ordered. Since there was no time remaining, Mr. Randels deferred the Point Hudson business until the following week. Chair Randels closed the SMP portion of the meeting at 6: 58 PM B. Open Record Public Hearing: Formula Store Ordinance At 7:04 p.m., Chair Randels opened the pubic hearing and reviewed the rules of procedure. Staff Presentation Jeff Randall reviewed the list of materials provided to the Commission before the last Planning Commission Meeting held on September 22"a. To add to the record, Mr. Randall distributed a staff memo, which indicates Wat the SEPA review has been conducted and summarised the public comments to date. The staff memo also listed two suggested edits to the draft ordinance that was distributed at the last meeting. These amendments would be discussed after Mt. Watt's initial comments. F_xlribit list: * Indicates materials distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting. The remaining items were distributed at the meeting: 11. *Memo (9/14/05) from Planning Commission Subcommittee -Formula Store Legislation 12. *Draft Ordinance amending PTMC, adding Chapter 17.05, Defming and Regulating Formula Retail Establishments to Title 17, Zoning 13. *David Bricklin Legal Memo (9/12/05) on Formula Retail Ordinance with a cover 14. *Memo from Public Works Director Ken Clow to Jeff Randall (9/16/05) on Howard Street & Sims Way Intersection 15. Public Comment: E-1 *Planning Commission Communication from David L. Goldman (9/19/05) E-2 *Communication from Ian Hinkle on Formula Business Ordinances in other Communities E-3 *Movie Gallery Retail Development Web page information E-4 E-mail Communication from Jim Civilla E-5 Written Comments from Jane Champion (9/28/05) on Proposed Formula Retail and Restaurant Ordinance 16. *Ordinance No. 2896, which Amended Chapter 17.05 Defining and Regulating Formula Retail Establishments [o Title 17, Zoning 17. Table of Other Cities and Comments on Chain/Formula Stores 18. Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria 17.84.050 19. Risk Management Matrix -- from Planning Commission Subcommittee City Attorney John Watts provided background on the interim ordinance adopted in April 2005 by City Council that primarily regulates location and location controls for formula retail establishments. The ordinance is in effect until mid-October. Council has the option of either extending the interim ordinance, replacing it with a regulaz ordinance or letting the interim ordinance expue without replacement. A Council hearing is scheduled for October 1Q, 2005 in which the Council could take action before the interim ordinance expires. In explaining the drafr Ordinance that came out of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 6 subcommittee, he noted that the major difference between this and the interim ordinance is that the new ordinance would ban formula stores in the historic district and regulate their location in the C-II zone. The new ordinance would also not apply in non-commercial azeas of the City such as Fort Worden. The significant issue is whether this legislation is or is not legal under the law; there is a lack of appellate court cases upholding or striking down such regulations. Mr. Watts reviewed the outside legal opinion provided by Attorney David Bricklin, who had represented Bainbridge Island in a challenge brought to Bainbridge Island's formula store ordinance. He explained that Bainbridge Island allows formula stores in a limited geographic azea and regulates fast food restaurants only and prohibits their location downtown. Mr. Bricklin felt that the legal issue most likely to be a problem is equal protection under the law. Another point was that the Ordinance could not be based on economic protectionism. The ordinance is intended to protect the City's tourist economy with the rationale being Wat tourists would be less likely to come if it looked like "any town," in the US. The primary basis of the ordinance is to preserve the small town character and tourism and would draw a distinction between formula and non-formula store on that basis. Mr. Watts then reviewed constitutional linritations on development regulations from other jurisdictions and court decisions on similaz matters. He stated that the big question is whether there is a legitimate distinction between a chain store and anon-chain store. Teff Randall reviewed the draft ordinance, sections of which would reside in Chapter 17.50 within Title 17 of the Zoning Code. He expressed confidence that its purpose and intent is consistent with the principles in the Comprehensive Plan. He provided examples of how formula businesses could "de-formulize" so they could locate without restrictions. The process of "de-forumulizing" would result in the business changing its inward and outward appearance to vary from the "standardized" appearance of other establishments elsewhere and would respect the unique character of Port Townsend by making design modifications. He then reviewed his discussions with current local businesses (Henery Hardware, Swains, Westbay Auto Parts) and provided examples of how these new regulations would or would not impact them and/or require them to "deformulize." Henery Hazdware and Swains had fewer than 10 establishments so the ordinance would not apply to them. Westbay Auto currently has less than 10 but may expand in the future [o include 10 establishments around the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula. In such circumstances, Westbay Auto would need to "deformulize" the local store to further expand. Mr. Randall reviewed the table of different zoning districts to explain that the ordinance would apply in the commercial, mixed use, Point Hudson, and mixed commerciaUmanufacturing zoning districts. Formula stores would be allowed only in the C-II zoning districts and elsewhere only if they de-formalized. The ordinance would not apply in Ft. Worden State Pazk, Boat Haven, and light-industrial zones. Mr. Randal] then reviewed his Staff Memo of 9/29/05: / Exhibit H - Conditional Use Criteria in 17.84.050, both disWbuted tonight with Staff recommendations on whether formula store businesses should be permitted in the commercial zoning districts. With the existing protections and standards, he would recommend not further restricting in the C-II zone. / Re: 17.50.050, B#3 these are non-conforming uses and recommendations, which hopefully would be further clarified as stated in Staff memo. / Exhibit G, reviewing comments from otherjurisdictions. Mr. Randall also provided a summary of phone conversations with planners from the cities of Winthrop, Friday Harbor, Bainbridge Island, and LaConnor. City planners from these communities felt that their towns' tourist economies would be negatively impacted if additional formula stores located in their cities. At the end of the Staff presentation, Mr. Randels opened the public testimony portion of the meeting. Public Comment: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 7 Shirley Rudolph (2137 Washington) submitted written comments and spoke of her concerns about the negative economic impact of prohibiting formula stores in the C-II zone. Her letter spoke of a loss of income from leased space and listed several questions about smdies on which a detemunation of negative economic or quality of life impacts had been made. (Exhibit E-6) Steve Shively (1629 Quincy) had several comments and questions about Ft. Worden's exemption. He does not believe [he town needs further protection in terms of regulations as faz as facade and design. No matter how much you defornrulize design features, there would still be a brand association. He encouraged the committee to seriously consider the legal risks before advancing the ordinance. Bazbaza Marseille (1031 Cherry) commented that while there are worries about the economic losses due to people shopping out of town, she is curious how much of the sales revenue of formula stores would actually stay in the community and what it would mean economically. David Goldman (2514 Thomas) reiterated several points made in the Bricklin memo. He noted that existing design guidelines would not adequately address the issue of location of the Formula Store establishments in the City. Referring to Mr. Clow's memo about potential traffic impacts, he suggested eliminating grocery stores as one of the exemptions. The only businesses that would be impacted by a ban on street comer location and co-location with nonformula businesses are formula restaurants. Staff recorded proposed revisions to the Draft Ordinance by Mr. Goldman: On Page 1, in the fourth whereas, retain "town or village." On Page 2, under the third whereas incorporate by reference the traffic study and/or the traffic memo. The last was to eliminate grocery stores as one of the exemptions. Staff s Resnonse to Public Comment Refemng to questions about studies to show impacts of formula businesses, Mr. Randall reiterated that this ordinance was not based on economic impacts, but on maintaining the community's chazacter and fmding a business size and a scale that is consistent with the community. The questions about the SO lineal footage and the 3,000 square foot maximize size standazd came from the interim ordinance and was thought to again be chosen because of the same question of appropriate size and scale. He confirmed that this ordinance would not apply at Ft. Worden and solicited Planning Commission input on whether more clarification is needed. He also asked for input regazding additional limitations on restaurants as mentioned by Mr. Goldman. Regazding the listing of grocery stores in the exemptions, he felt grocery stores even if chains meet the basic needs of the community and therefore should be excluded from the ordinance, but be welcomes the Planning Commission discussing this further if desired. Reacting to Mr. Goldman's reference to a proposed Wal-Mart development, Ms. Thayer expressed resentment that the Planning Commission has to heaz scare tactics in order to encourage the voting on the ordinance. Mr. Randall added that he was not awaze of any pending applications, but would discourage aiming any ordinance at a particular business. Mr. Emery asked if Staff reached anyone from the City of Leavenworth, to which Mr. Randall and Mr. Watts said they had not. They added that Leavenworth achieves [heir theme through strict design s[andazds. Commission Deliberation and Action Mr. Lizut reviewed the logic and methodology behind his Risk Management Matrix (Exhibit I). He explained the probability and associated risk of the three alternatives discussed by the subcommittee under four strategies: avoidance, transfer, mitigation, and acceptance. In summary, Alternative 1 provides equal protection and received the committee's support. Alternative 2 passes the risk to the City and deters or diminishes local businesses from expanding or developing. He noted there was no subcommittee support for Alternative 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 8 Mc Randels spoke about his concerns on the equal protection issue and believes it is important for the Commission to consider. He recommended the Commission try to craft an ordinance that meets most of the goals. Ms. Thayer stated that she feels strongly about the legal issues and would be in favor of prohibiting formula stores in the downtown historic district. However, afrer much consideration, she believes the City should work with formula stores in the other commercial areas regarding design standazds and size. Ms. Capron addressed the list of features on Page 3 of the Draft Ordinance and noted that with the exception of item A, "standardized array of merchandise or standardized menu," there do not appeaz to be huge hurdles. Ms. King said she was in favor of the ordinance, but both Ms. King and Ms. Slabaugh said it did not appear to have a lot of "teeth." Ms. Thayer agreed that Ft. Worden should be exempt and should possibly be listed specifically. Given Commission support, Mr. Randall agreed to add language rnaldng it more explicit. Staff also agreed to modify for consistency the punctuation a[ the end of pazagraph and recorded a few minor suggestions for improving punctuation and sentence structure. The Commission also agreed to the following revision. On Page 1, revise the fourth paragraph to read, "Port Townsend is both a destination resort and a residential town...." Ms. King suggested that on Page 2, in the third whereas, we should reference the traffic study and say formula retail businesses "rely on high traffic volumes" rather than "are high volume traffic generators." The Commission discussed and instead agreed to add a sentence referencing the specific traffic report. Mr. Randels moved to change "1t7" to "14" in the definition of Formula Retail on page 3 of the draft Ordinance, so that it reads "...meaning a type of retail sales or rental activity and retail sales or rental establishments, including restaurant, which, along with 14 retail establishments maintains two or more of thefollawingfeatures: "The motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous vote. 7/0/0 On line 27, Mr. Randels suggested removing item "f -trademark or service mark" in the list of formula store features because of his desire to minimize equal protection concerns. There was some agreement that this would lessen the risk, but Ms. Capron asked to clarify whether the intent is to reduce the number of formula stores. If so, she suggested increasing from two to three the number of features an establishment maintains. Mr. Watts provided some examples of "defotmulized" establishments as in the case of Subway. He noted that Bainbridge Island does not have a similar checklist, which he believes is more problematic. There was also additional discussion of the purpose and intent of the ordinance, which was thought to protect the character while preserving economic vitality. Mr. Watts agreed to think more about the "whereas" clauses, the intent of which is to preserve PT as a place that people are going to want to visit as a unique destination, Ms. Slabaugh objected to the many references to "tourism" and "visitors." Mr. Watts explained that it is important to leave as many in for legal defense in the future if needed. Mr. Randels moved to merge features "e" and "f, " so the number of features would be two out of five instead of two out ofsix. The motion was seconded, butjailed with a vote of3/4/0. Mr. Lirut moved to change to "one or more" rather than "two or more" of the number of features. The motion was seconded, but failed with a vote aft/S/0. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Randels asked for clarification of whether the number of establishments means owners or franchise businesses. Mr. Watts clarified that the ordinance refers to businesses, not owners or ownership criteria. There was a brief discussion of whether to call out Fort Worden specifically on page 4 under Exemptions. Ms. Capron moved to direct StaJj'to work to clarify that this ordinance only pertains to certain districts. The motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous vote. 7/0/0. Ms. Capron pointed out there aze other cities that do not exempt grocery stores or banks. On Page 5, Ms. King suggested, for purposes of consistency, that location regulations apply to all formula establishments. Mr. Lizut moved to direct Staff to apply restrictions equally to restaurants and retail establishments. The motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous vote. 5/2/0 Refemng to the sentence that "no drive-through facilities aze allowed," Mr. Emery talked about the perception of individuals with disabilities as "homebound." He is concerned that banning drive-through facilities would be discriminatory. There was some discussion about ADA accessibility. He provided an example of a 24-hour pharmacy. Ms. Thayer moved to strike the sentence "No drive-through facilities are allowed" on line 14, page 5. The motion was seconded, but failed with a vote of 3/3/1 and the abstention of Ms. Slabaugh. Mr. Randall explained that design standazds would ask not to conflict with pedestrian routes and that the zoning code would prohibit drive-throughs in the historic commercial district. As recommended by Staff, Ms. Thayer moved that on Page 5, line 40 (regarding existing nonconforming formula restaurants) that the sentence be amended as follows to provide additional guidance on existing (grandfatheredj nonconforming formula retail or formula restaurant uses: "Existing formula retail or formula restaurants that are nonconforming as to use are subject to PTMC Chapter 17.88 Nonconformitrg Uses. "The motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous vote. 7/0/0 Mr. Randels moved to change "C" to "P" in Table 17.20.020 as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous vote. 7/0/0 Mr. Randels moved to approve the Draft Ordinance amending PTMC, adding Chapter 17.05, defining and regulating Formula Retail Establishments to Title 17, Zoning as amended. The motion was seconded and carried with a roll call vote of S/2/0. The two "nays" were from Ms. Thayer and Mr. Emety. Mc Randels closed public hearing on this item. Staff agreed to return to the Commission with the edited version of the ordinance and findings VI. UPCOMING MEETINGS 10/06/05: Shoreline Master Program -Review Draft Findings and Conclusions to start at 6:00 PM Formula Stote Ordinanco -Adoption of Findings and Conclusions Statutory Street Vacation Ordinance- Public Hearing VIL COMMUNICATIONS -There were none. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer moved to adjourn the meeting; the motion was seconded. All were in favor. The meeting concluded at 9:32 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 10 ~6~~~ George Randels, Chair ~` lti•--Grtis~ Ga' Bernhard, Meeting Recorder (SMP) Job anders, Meeting Recorder (Formula Store) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 29, 2005 Page 11