Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042105 Minutes . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, April 21, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair George Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, George Randels, Lyn Hersey, Alice King, Roger Lizut, Liesl Slabaugh, and Cindy Thayer. Jeff Kelety was excused. There was a quorum. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Thayer made a motion to accept the agenda as writt<n; Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes for approval. V. NEW BUSINESS Open Record Public Hearing - Adult Entertainment Facilities Ordinance Before the meeting began, Mr. Randall had distributed the text for the Proposed Adult Entertainment Ordinance (Exhibit B) and the SEPA Determination of Non Significance, and the letter mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed area. He also provided copies of letters received regarding the potential environmental impacts ofthe zoning change. At 7:05, Chair Randels opened the pubic hearing and read the rules governing the public hearing. A speaker roster was posted. He asked if any Planning Commissioner had any conflicting interests, financial or property, to disclose. There were none. A. Staff Presentation Port Townsend's Long Range Planning Director, Jeff Randall explained that last year, noting certain deficiencies in our Municipal Code, Staff had recommended interim regulations to prohibit the location of "adult entertainment facilities" in Port Townsend while the City developed permanent regulations. The Council adopted those regulations in May of 2004 and the moratorium has been extended. Now, a draft proposal for permanent regulations is befcre the Commission. Staff had noted that most all commercially zoned land is either downtown or along the Sims Way corridor. Staff looked to the area south of Sims Way and used as their criteria that the area not be near schools, churches, or developed residential areas, is zoned for some kind of commercial use and does not have frontage on Sims Way. Employing a large map, he described the mixed-commercial light industrial (Me) area that runs from Thomas Street to a line corresponding to Spring Street, and excluded an area within it that already has some residential use. Adjacent to this area, current uses include residences and some businesses. He asserted that the future buildout of this currently vacant area would be screened from Sims Way by either the 200' City-owned forested buffer or the intervening commercial development. Although today is the deadline for comments on the initial SEP A notice, which was sent out April 6, the public comment period remains open throughout the Council or Planning Commission's public meetings on this matter until final action is taken, which he anticipates will not be before June 20th. Mr. Randall apologized that the cover letter for the public notice mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed area contained an incorrect date of Planning Commission Minutes, April 21, 2005 I Page I . April 28 for the hearing. The enclosed notice reflected the correct deadline for comment of April 21. He recommended the Commission hold the hearing tonight and continue the hearing on April 28 and again on June 9, to accommodate overlapping Staff vacations. In the interim, the Commission might also decide to hold a less fonnal workshop. Mr. Randall said that the deadline for public comment related to the potential environmental impacts of the zoning change was today at 4:00 PM. After reviewing these comments, he would determine whether additional SEPA notice would be necessary. Again, comments regarding the code and whether this is appropriate from a public welfare standpoint or consistent with surrounding zoning could continue up until final adoption. Responding to concerns about environmental impacts related to specific adult businesses that might locate in the future, he noted that those businesses would have to go through their own SEPA environmental review. The City's SEPA review is only for the non-project action related to amendment of the code. Ms. Hersey asked Mr. Randall to explain more about the zoning and the marine issues involved. Mr. Randall clarified that the zoning is mixed-commercial light industrial - marine trades are one of the uses allowed in this zoning district. The Boat Haven is the primary marine trades zone, but the mixed commercial zone also allows the same types of uses. This ordinance would in no way be proposing to allow adult entertainment facilities in Boat Haven's marint>-felated zoning district or at Point Hudson. . Asked by Ms. Thayer about the rationale of designating such a large area, Mr. Randall said there were legal considerations, which Mr. Watts could explain. He noted there is a triangle parcel that is a City- owned wetland that would not be available and that development would also be constrained by the steep ravine areas. Options to approving this designated area are: a smaller area and no action. lf the City did not designate an area, some of the business types would fall into existing categories, such as "other retail" that would be allowed downtown and the commercial district, but not in the mixed- commercial light industrial zones. Some of the businesses would be considered unlisted because the City does not have a definition. Mr. Emery asked to clarify whether daycares would then be prohibited in the mixed-commercial area? Referring to Exhibit B - the Full Text Version of the Proposed Code Amendments, Mr. Randall clarified that child daycare centers would not be prohibited. If a daycare center existed in that area, it would have a 50D-foot buffer. City Attorney John Watts then provided legal, conceptual background on the proposal. An adult business is either a live entertainment or retail business that has a sexual orientation. None currently exist in the City. About 20 years ago, a number of U.S. and State Supreme Courts ruled that cities could not prohibit such businesses because these businesses are entitled to First Amendment protection under the U.S. Constitution. If the City attempts to block these businesses, it risks having its ordinance thrown out and faces damage claims and civil right actions. Also, if the City passes an ordinance that is too restrictive in its opportunity to locate, that ordinance is subject to being thrown out and the business may be able to locate in any commercial district in town. However, courts have said that restrictive zoning - limiting to a certain area - is acceptable but the question is how little an area could be designated and still meet the requirements of these cases. Generally, these businesses want high visibility and would presumably be less likely to want to locate in a zone that has been created that is not on the highway. If such a business chose to locate in Jefferson County and encounters restrictive zoning in Port Townsend, that business might be more likely to locate outside the City. The ordinance is not intended to encourage businesses to come here but an attempt to see if the City wants to engage in restrictive zoning. . Referring to infonnation from the Municipal Research and Service Center (MRSe) and a separate article from Steve Smith, a Seattle attorney expert in this area, he read that while these regulations might seem difficult to implement, local governments are well advised to have it in place before adult entertainment uses seek to locate in their communities, rather than scrambling to play catch-up once they are already established. It was this background material that was presented to the City Manager who then presented to the Council asking whether they chose to do nothing or look at the possibility of Planning Commission Minutes, April 21, 2005/ Page2 . restrictive zoning. Last spring, the Council said they believed it was good business to look at whether to have a restrictive zone and they referred the matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation. So the job before the Planning Commission is to determine whether or not there should be a restrictive zone and whether it should be where indicated or somewhere else, and this size or propose some other approach. As Mr. Randall had indicated, one of the options is that maybe there should be no regulation. But it is part of the due diligence on the part of the City decision makers, including the Commission and the Council, to consider whether or not there should be restrictive zoning. Last May, the Council also asked for a moratorium on applications for such businesses, which by State law, is limited to a period of six months before renewal. The Council renewed the moratorium in November for another six month period, which is set to expire early next month at which point the City Council would likely extend once again Ulltil such time as they have a recommendation from the Planning Commission and determine the appropriate action. He understood that Seattle has been extending their moratoriums for a period of roughly 14 years and have not yet been challenged. If they were to be challenged he questions whether a court would say they are engaged in an active planning process to try to deal with restrictive zoning. There are maybe one or two existing Seattle businesses that benefit from the monopoly and would be unlikely to challenge a regulation keeping others from coming in. . Mr. Watts said the question is whether the City is better off as it is with no ordinance and letting the market decide - and maybe the market would say this is really not a sufficient market for these kind of businesses - or is the City better off with a regulation that if such a business were to come to town it would be limited as to their location, visibility places or their impact on their location. The big question is how little a zone you could create and still pass the constitutional requirements; he cannot tell the Commission the exact size zone that is necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements. It could probably be shrunken later, but an attorney must be able to legally defend that the business has not been denied the opportunity to locate in the community. He reviewed the options as: this zone, a smaller zone, no action, or explore with the County some sort of mutual zone. Another opportunity is that if one business comes into a designated zone, the City might revisit the regulations and see whether or not the zone is working and whether the zone should be shrunk or whether there should be a dispersal requirement. Mr. Watts said Staff is not recommending any certain outcome, but he and Mr. Randall are assisting the Council in its assignment to this group to see whether there is a specific recommendation. It is not their intent to force any particular group to accept a zone and say this is going to be the red light district. Mr. Randels urged the Commission to limit questions, so that public comment could be heard. He first asked about the legality of moratoria, asking how it would stand up if challenged. Mr. Watts said the Growth Management Act of 1991 was very specific in its authorization in saying that interim regulations and moratoria are an approved zoning technique to preserve the status quo while the City engages in a planning effort. He also recognized this is a difficult, complicated issue. Ms. Hersey received permission for the Commission to ask a few more questions before moving to public comment. She asked what buildable area would be left if we were to overlay the sensitive areas map on the 20-acre property shown? Ms. Thayer suggested that the Commission ask for a topographical map and address this during deliberations. Mr. Randall said that while he is currently unable to say how much area would remain, the steepest slopes are near the south end. He agreed that Staff could provide a map so the Commission could see the areas that are difficult to build on (e.g., slopes over 40%). . Ms. Slabaugh asked if the Council would also be pursuing how licensing would constrain the way a business is operated, such as regulating hours of operation, suggesting that these different parts of the code should be considered in tandem. Mr. Watts indicated that regardless of what comes out of the Planning Commission, he would still recommend that the Council have standards of conduct for Planning Commission Minutes, April2l, 2005! Page3 . business licensing. Mr. Randels said he believes it would be important for the Commission to include this recommendation in its report to the Council. B. Public Testimonv Joan Sanford, 42 Vista Blvd., Port Townsend: She lives on the bluffs above the Larry Scott Trail. This area would be the most impacted by this zone. Reading from the letter she had submitted to Mr. Randall, she said she had just purchased her house in the last few months. Asserting that the City Council had not disclosed that they were going to propose this rezoning amendment, she wanted to know the exact date this was proposed in the event she decides to file a lawsuit against the City or her realtor. As a recent widow, she has a lot invested in her property in the area and is greatly dismayed that they would propose this in this area where she lives. If her neighborhood becomes a sort of suburb of a red light district the property values would plummet. Sims Way is the gateway to the Port Townsend; the fIrst thing visitors would see when they come into town on the right hand side would be a red light district. If the City must accommodate these businesses, she suggested locating them in some industrial area that is off the main road. Patricia Steele, 42 Vista Blvd, Port Townsend, asked if the proposed area were to fill up with other businesses would the City have to open up another area for adult businesses? Janice Speck, 228 37th Street, Port Townsend. As property owners near the ravine, which is zoned marine, she and her husband were very interested in developing the property for her husband's boat- building business. When the City's permitting office required that they put in a connecting road, they realized there would be too many expensive obstacles. They put this project on hold and the property up for sale. This is one of the few marine trades areas left in Port Townsend outside the Boat Haven. They are rather anxious to keep this zoning just the way it is - marine. She urged the Commission to please leave a way that somebody like them could open a marine-related business where it is appropriate. . Ray Speck, 228 37th Street, Port Townsend. As a property owner in the area, he thanked Jeff Randall for notifying him of the proposed amendment. He described himself as a traditional wooden boat builder for over 30 years. Although he has been working at the boat school for 13 or 14 years, the idea was to stop teaching and get back into boat building and hopefully incubate some family wage-earning jobs. One of the reasons they bought their four lots was because it was one of the last marine-related, light industrial commercial areas in town where he could build his own shop. One of the ideas to help pay for the whole operation was to put in larger storage units for RVs and later on, they could be converted into shops, but at that time they were told no, this does not fit into the zoning. He recently found some partners - a potential small diesel engine shop and an automobile restorer - to help pay for the 200-feet of road and aprons and for sewage issues. He was dismayed when he saw this proposal to put in an adult entertainment district, which only offers service-oriented jobs. He would be urging City Council to please leave the last bit of light industrial commercial areas intact because the economy is bound to turn around at some point and new ideas and new development are going to come forward and we are going to need places to work in this town that pay decent wages. . Penny Varteresian, 331 VanBuren Street, Port Townsend. She closed on property in the area last September and to her, zoning this property is condemning it and the surrounding areas, lowering their property values, and inviting businesses in that we do not want. She realizes that with the topography, more area needs to be set aside, but 20 acres for this use is huge. She has been here long enough to remember the Gateway project - the beautification of the main road into Port Townsend. She does not believe that any intervening buildings could provide adequate screening. She would like to know what kind of road access is being proposed and would also like to see other locations on the table. The proposal says that adult motels are allowed, but at this time, there is no zoning for motels in that area. Maybe somewhere down the road somebody would like to put in an adult drive-in theatre; we are opening doors that would be really hard to close. She asked whether there are stores in the commercial area that sell X-rated videos - and whether any also have 20 acres of our prime property dedicated to adult facilities. If the County and City were able to work together to get some sort of property designated, would it protect other communities in Jefferson County or would each of our communities Planning Commission Minutes, April 21, 2005 1 Page 4 . have to deal with pornographers coming in? She asked whether the letter she wrote today but did not get to the office by 4:00, could be allowed under that SEP A deadline. Mr. Randall said that it was too late for the SEPA comments unless it is extended, but comments could still be submitted. Mr. Watts reminded that the public would be able to make comments tonight and throughout the hearing if it is continued, as well as to the City Council and urged her to submit the letter to Mr. Randall tonight and let Mr. Randall detennine whether he wants to extend the SEPA comment period. Mr. Randels assured that any letter submitted to the Planning Commission, whether for the SEP A process or any other process, would be read and considered. Ms. Varteresian said she specifically wanted her comments to be included under SEP A. She is bothered by the acreage that needs to be dedicated and the idea that if the adult entertainment businesses feel it is not enough space they could locate in other parts of the community. Roger Pick, 835 Calhoun. He commented that he is also concerned that twenty-two acres seems excessive. He was curious about the area currently zoned in relation to the number of businesses that required that classification. He believes this would be a good way of establishing a more appropriate area, not 20 acres. He thinks it would be easy to defend a smaller area. That the unsuitable areas were included in the total area gives a false impression of the process that was used. Even though those areas are not suitable for the proposed use or for almost any use, they are beautiful areas. He urged not to discount them by including them in an area that he presumes is an exclusive zone. Mr. Randels clarified that this would be an added use to the existing uses. . Mr. Pick, noting that it has taken the City years - decades, possibly - to consider how to or whether to build onto City Hall, to spend just a few months on this issue does not seem very generous. He believed the City would have a relatively easy time defending an extension of the moratorium fnr a very long time - months, if not years. He believes the City should be more proactive in choosing a better time limit and more proactive in choosing a size that fits with the use. Currently, there are no adult entertainment businesses in town yet we are considering this huge area; while at the same time we have only a small area zoned for light industrial in the City, which seemed backwards. He and his wife own neighboring property, which he intended to use to develop an invention he worked on through the University of Washington. One of the permitted uses in this area is arts instruction and studio space, encouraging artisans and crafts people. He infonnally approached the City six years ago with a proposal for art and dance studio and gallery space but was told that his use would be discouraged because the area was a small amount of space reserved for light industrial use. A strict interpretation of pennitted uses says galleries and dance houses are not permitted. He was taken aback by how easily it would be to zone adult businesses in an area he believes would fit his uses far better and suggested the City consider either rezoning or allowing him a pennit for his uses. Also, any potential businesses could be impacted by the inability for a daycare to be sited in the vicinity. Joan Sanford, 42 Vista Blvd., Port Townsend, asked if we were to not put in the zoning at the moment, could we go ahead with the standards of conduct, so that if such a business were to come to town it might be regulated by the standards of conduct, to which Mr. Watts responded in the affinnative. C. Staff's Response to Public Testimony Regarding the date the notice was submitted, Mr. Randall said the notice went out on April 6 and possibly received by neighboring property owners by April 8. Mr. Watts noted that the matter first came before the Council on May 3, 2004 through the "in box process," but the first public notice of this proposal in the designated area was April 6, 2005. . Mr. Randall explained that the Gateway plan deals with the Gateway corridor from the City limits basically down to the ferry tenninal and approximately one block in depth on either side of the street- a forested buffer that ends at the Hilltop Tavern. Staff did try to consider the Gateway Plan when proposing the new boundaries. It does not regulate uses, but is a transportation design plan - sidewalks, streets, and intersection design and pedestrian-friendly features. Uses are addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Planning Commission Minutes, April 21 , 2005 1 Page 5 . When asked whether another commercial zone farther away might be more appropriate for this use, Mr. Randall said that an additional option to rezone a piece of land in a more appropriate area would involve a Compo Plan amendment and zoning change, which could be proposed in March I, 2006. With the exception of public zones (school, fairgrounds, cemetery), and some mixed residential commercial zones, the other areas are zoned residential or park. The only commercial and industrial zoning is along the Sims Way-Water Street corridor. The Glen Cove area is outside the City, though perhaps through an arrangement with the County, that area might also be an option. As to whether the City would have to create some other adult entertainment overlay if this area were to fill up with non-adult entertainment uses, light industrial mixed-commercial uses, Mr. Randall did not have an answer. Mr. Watts said in the unlikely event this area were to fill up with adult entertainment, the City would not have to create another area. However, the City has to periodically review the zoning to ensure it provides meaningful opportunity for a business to locate and still meets constitutional requirements. If the area were to become a community college, for example, and no longer presented a realistic opportunity, then the City would have to review the zone, as it would were it to become a shopping center that had a policy not to lease to these kinds of businesses. Mr. Randall said that as the City approaches buildout of the various zones, especially light industrial mixed commercial zones that are economic development drivers, the City would probably be looking to annex more land and establish a broader urban growth area. Addressing the question of what sort of access would be proposed into this area, Mr. Randall said regardless of the kind of development, it would be driven by who purchases the land and where they propose to have access, but the current access corridors are Howard Street and secondary access possibly off Mill Road. For the middle area between the ravines, what is developing is Cliff Street and Third Street, but there is no plan for street development. . Mr. Randall said motels are not currently allowed, but the proposal is to allow adult motels. Answering the question whether other places in town allow other adult-oriented retail, he indicated that if an adult retail store were to come in now, the "Other retail uses" categories would be allowed in the C-II and CIl-H zones. If there were an adult entertainment facility overlay, new businesses would not be allowed in those other zones because they would no longer fall into the miscellaneous "other" category. To meet the conditions of "adult-oriented" contained in the Code, more than 50% of your merchandise would be adult-oriented retail. Mr. Randall noted that the SEPA notice for public comment was mailed April 6. Although the SEPA notice that was attached had the correct SEPA dates, the cover letter had an incorrect date of April 28th for a public hearing on the matter. He clarified this is not a SEP A hearing. He would like a chance to review any public comment and encouraged Ms. Varteresian to submit her letter so he could decide whether to extend the date. Right now, the comment period is closed, but he could consider whether to reopen it. One concern he does have is how much of this area is impacted by critical areas. Mr. Randall indicated that the areas currently available for light industrial marine-related uses include the Port Townsend Business Park, the mixed commercial zone under discussion, Boat Haven, and Point Hudson. As he mentioned, if the City starts approaching buildout or they fmd the selected areas are not very developable, the City might need to look at additional zoning or extending the urban growth area, or potential annexations. To the question of whether the zoning could be changed for the mixed commercial zone to allow art galleries, etc., Mr. Randall said uses in the zones could be modified. The 500-foot buffer is for the protection of the daycare, so if an adult entertainment facility is located there, a daycare could still choose to locate there. . Mr. Watts said that the list of uses in the proposed ordinance is broad. However, a video store or bookstore, for example, with less than 50% of their stock being x-rated material does not qualify as a regulated business. The fmal action by the City could be to regulate some adult businesses and not others, so there is no requirement that aU adult businesses go into this zone. The point is to have a zone Planning Commission Minutes, April 21, 2005 1 Page 6 . that provides reasonable opportunity for a business to locate. If that reasonable opportunity to locate could be met somewhere else in a smaller zone or a smaller zone here, then the test is met. As to whether a zone in Glen Cove would work to satisfy a multi-jurisdictional zone, he said the answer is maybe; but if that is the direction that the Planning Commission would like to recommend, then Staff with the City Manager's authorization would explore it. He reiterated that the more restrictive or far away the zone is, the easier it would be to challenge. If there was a zone that was too restrictive and that business located anywhere or there was no zone and the business located in a commercial area, then that business becomes a vested operation in a subsequent zone that would not affect that business. You can amortize non-confonning uses, but the amortization has to be a sufficient period of time within which to allow the business an opportunity to recover the business' investment. It is clear that wherever the zone, there would be no requirement for any owner to lease or sell their property to a sexually-oriented business. The right to operate is different from the protected category under the Constitution, where you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color or religion. He said he had received a number of emails that he would make available to the Commission as a part of the public record as part of the public hearing. When asked how Sequim and Port Angeles are handling this kind of a question, Mr. Watts said he does not know. Others mentioned that there is an adult bookstore on the main street of Port Angeles. D. Ouestions bv the Plannin~ Commission Mr. Randels then led a discussion of whether to continue the hearing to another date, possibly June 9 or later, beginning with an informal workshop. During discussion, there was a suggestion that this meeting should have instead been a workshop. Some Commissioners had not felt prepared to begin deliberation at this meeting. There was no objection by the Commission to continue the hearing at the June 9 meeting. Mr. Randels explained to the public that public testimony for this meeting is complete, but would again be welcome at the continuation of the hearing on June 9. . There was general agreement that deliberations are not necessarily required, but there was Commission interest in having an opportunity to ask questions of Staff. Ms. Capron said she is thrilled that the City is being proactive. She would like to know what other communities of our size are doing and does not necessarily want this City to be the fIrst. Mr. Randall agreed to do more investigation. Regarding adult motels, Mr. Randels asked how they fall under the First Amendment and whether they could be banned. Mr. Watts said he does not believe there is a lot of litigation around that issue but rather live entertainment and bookstores. If you recommend a ban on adult motels, then there could be language that if the ban is not constitutional, that use also goes into the zone. Mr. Randels also expressed concern that it has not yet been tested at what point a lengthy moratorium becomes the equivalent of a prohibition. He worries that if we extend a moratorium, we risk becoming - and losing - the test case. Several other members felt that as long as the City was working on an ordinance, it would not be at risk. . Ms. Hersey asked whether the parcels in the mixed commercial area are 50' x 100' in size and how many property owners there are in this area. Ms. Thayer noted that Exhibit A shows that it is a combination of sizes. Mr. Randall noted that the middle portion is platted, but the areas to the east and west are not; the number of owners is somewhere around 12. Ms. Hersey is disturbed that the City would be putting commercial businesses into a light industrial area. She understands the desire to keep adult businesses out of the commercial area along Sims Way, but she is concerned that this proposal would be trading opportunities for light industriallmanufacturing. Planning Commission Minutes, April 21, 20051 Page 7 . . . When Ms. Thayer mentioned that the business park is the same designation, Mr. Randall said the business park zoning is slightly different. He recognized Ms. Hersey's concern and said this is a concern the Commission would need to weigh as it looks into the options. Ms. Hersey asked why the undeveloped commercial area north of Sims Way is not being considered. Mr. Randall indicated this is a possibility. Ms. Hersey said if the current area is being proposed because it is less developable, that reason should be more clearly stated. Ms. Thayer said Staff had already indicated that the reason this use was proposed in the area was because of the lack of visibility. Ms. Hersey said there are still many areas of commercial that the City could rezone. Ms. King asked to hear more about the dispersal requirement. Mr. Randall said perhaps if we permit adult businesses in a broader range of commercial zones, we might then establish the distance adult entertainment business would be located from one another to 1,000 feet. Mr. Watts agreed the latter is a valid option, so long as when the first business opens you review whether there are meaningful opportunities for another business to come in. This does not mean you would have to allow 10 or 20, but at least possibly one or two. Mr. Lizut said there has been a lot of conversation about the size of the designated area. He asked if Staff could do an analysis, backing out of the 23 acres the critical area (due to the wetlands and slope) and then arrive at a density ratio (square foot of business per acre). This could then be used to calculate "fully developed." Ifwe could place five or six such businesses on two or three acres, this density ratio might be used to reduce the area further. In addition to demonstrating that you have provided an opportunity to establish a business, you would have established a lower percentage of the 23 acres where you could clu!ter such businesses, in a high density. Ms. King clarified that this would be an adult zone within the mixed commercial zone. Mr. Randall said if you consider the density in the industrial' and Kearney Street areas you might be looking at four or five businesses per block. Mr. Lizut clarified there was Commission support for his suggestion. There was no disagreement by the Commission to recommend this analysis to Staff. Asked by Ms. Hersey if comments from property owners had been received, Mr. Randall said that copies had been included in the Commission's packet. He agreed to continue to acknowledge the receipt of all comments, while working with Mr. Watts on a more detailed response. Mr. Randels said the public needs to understand that the City was not establishing an exclusive zone but adding uses to those already permitted. Ms. Capron suggested using a boilerplate response that particularly references Supreme Court decisions and the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Slabaugh said it has also been perceived that this represents an invitation by the City to such businesses. Ms. Hersey suggested it be clear how far off of Sims Way this zone would be. Ms. Thayer made a motion to continue the Public Hearing on the Adult Entertainment Facilities Ordinance to June 9. Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Planning Commission Minutes, April 21, 2005 1 Page 8 . . . VI. UPCOMING MEETINGS 4/28105 - Public Hearing on Critical Areas Ordinance, Open Record Public Hearing on Amendments to Code Provisions for Manufactured Homes; Defmitions of Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes. Mr. Randels asked Mr. Randall to ensure public notice is given for the 6:00 meeting start on April 28. No scheduled meetings for May. 619105 - Continued Hearing on Adult Entertainment Facilities Ordinance; Public Workshop - 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and Public Workshop- Fonnula Store Regulations. 6130/05 - Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendments VII. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Randall reported on recent Council actions. The Fonnula Store Ordinance passed Council by a supennajority, so it will go into affect immediately upon signature. There was a minor action on a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code related to the Manufactured Homes item, in which the Council took emergency action to permit amending the Compo Plan policies at the same time you amend the Zoning Code. On the statutory street vacation interim ordinance, there was a majority vote, but not a super majority. He believes this item would return to Council Monday night. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Hersey moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Emery seco ed t, e motion. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9: 12 p.m. k~ O~~)~~ anders, Meeting Recorder Planning Commission Minutes, April 21 , 2005 1 Page 9