HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-2000MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 2~ ?00~0
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on May 2, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows:
STAFF: Lynn Rued, Jeff Dixon, Scan Martin, David Osaki, and Patti Zook
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dave Peace.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MEMBERS: Garna Jones, Dave Peace, Karen Ekrem, Bill Taylor, Peter DiTuri, Dan Rollins, Fred Hel~er
It was concu~ed by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the M~ch 7, 2000 and April 4, 2000 meetings be
approved as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case No. ZOA0006-00 - Amendments to the City of Auburn Zoning Code Chapter 18.76, Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District-Lakeland Hills South Special Plan, to address development standards fo,'
commercial development
Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. Lakeland is looking at the project's
commercial node. Developers are on board and are pos'rog some interesting concepts. The PUD ordinance
relating to commerCial development references the existing City C1 zoning and applies these standards.
There is an issue regarding setbacks from the street. The developers are looking at a village-type conc~t
and propose moving some buildings closer to the street than what the setbacks allow.
Staff is proposing a fairly minor change to the setback provision. The minimum 20 foot setback from Lake
Tapps Parkway will be changed to a variety of setbacks, but the average setback from the street will be 20
feet. Another proposed amendment is to allow multi-family units in the commercial area. The PUD allows
for 3,408 dwelling units of multi-family. The developers of the village con6ept want some multi-family
units in the commercial center. The amendment would provide for movement of 100 units to this
commercial area. The location of the multi-family units will not change the cap of multi-family units. He
described the maps that were in the Commission packet. One of the maps is a working copy from the
developer that shows the project's status and is for information. The developer is on a fast track to finish
the project, including streets, in five'years. Lake Tapps Parkway is scheduled to open in the fall or winter.
Lakeland will give a brief presentation in support of the revision.
Chuck Reppas, President of Lakeland Communities, gave a brief introduction and said the architect will
talk about the commercial project. He appreciates the assistance received from Assistant Planning Director
Rued. They-hope to have a minimum amount of amendment to the PUD ordinance, but may have to ~,ome
back as the project progresses.
Bill Fuller, Fuller Sears Architect, displayed a number of exhibits and reviewed them. He pointed out
location of Lake Tapps Parkway and drawing depicting location of grocery store and retail. The village
concept will have retail on the lower floors and residential above which will have studios and one
bedrooms. They want to keep activity in the village. Another drawing showed the elevation and
architectural style. These buildings will be closer to the street and have a combination of entrances,
signage, and pedestrian amenities. A drawing was shown that depicted where the 20 foot setback will be
so that it creates a variegated field for the buildings. Another drawing showed street trees and buffers that
allow pedestrian movement. He showed a cross section between parking and pedestrians and buildings.
He then showed as an example a project in Woodinville that shows relationship to sidewalk.
Commissioner Ekrem asked if they did research into how their development's architectural style might
have a connection to Auburn's downtown. Mr. Fuller said they tried to have parking along the street that
-1-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 2, ?00~00
slows traffic, but this was deemed dangerous because of traffic speed. They wanted the look and feel of a
village, but the C 1 zone would not allow. Commissioner Ekrem referred to the Woodinvlle drawing and
mentioned that the Downtown Task Force did some research that might be beneficial to Lakeland so that
there is some coordination between the projects. Mr. Fuller said they might be interested in such research.
Chairman Peace asked if there is concern about residential apartments above retail and closer to 20 foot.
He wondered if noise will be a problem for the residents. Mr. Fuller said the units will be studios and one
bedroom apartments for singles. Lakeland will have different housing choices. The idea is that someone
could live above retail and work below. Commissioner Taylor wondered about no minimum requirement
of 20 foot setback. Mr. Fuller said the idea is that if they were downtown they could build to the setback.
If they are allowed to do averaging, this takes into account the spirit of that type of project. It would still
allow for adequate bike and pedestrian access.
Commissioner Rollins commented that Building E a concern because it looks like the setback is six feet
which is awfully tight. He likes the proposed change, though. Building E is a concern because it is close
to the comer and could infringe on sight lines for drivers. The drawing did not have a scale. Mr. Fuller
stated that from the building to face of curb is nine feet. Commissioner Rollins likes the overall concept,
but thinks the setback should be massaged a bit.
Chairman Peace asked how the setback is measured. Assistant Planning Director Rued remarked that for
setbacks, it is usually measured from the back edge of the sidewalk. The sidewalk width is 7 ½ feet and for
the 20 foot average setback you cannot have that many buildings against the setback. The would guarantee
a 7 ½ foot pedestrian walkway and in places it will be more than 7 ½ feet. Assistant Planning Director
Rued stressed that regardless of the setbacks, sight distances will be attained no matter what. Chairman_
Peace understands Commissioner Rollins' i:oncem. Commissioner Rollins then mentioned some City
streets that do not have what he considers to be adequate sight distance. Traffic should not be restricted
from right tums. He spoke again about vehicle speeds.
Commissioner DiTuri commented that vegetation close to the intersection is a line of sight issue also.
Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that the City has adopt~/d standards for various classes of streets
that determine sight distances. The sight distances will be double checked by the Traffic Engineer who
reviews. Commissioner DiTuri inquired about maintenance vehicles needed to maintain the buildings and
the vehicles possibly using sidewalks in off hours for maintenance. Mr. Fuller said the maintenance
vehicles will park on the inside area of a building and walk through. All deliveries will be done from the
inside.
Commissioner Ekrem made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Helser, to recommend approval of the
amendments as presented. The motion passed 7-0.
Case No. ZOA0002-00 - Amendments to the City of Auburn Zoning Code Section 18.04.018 and
18.48.120 to allow accessory dwelling units (continued from March meeting)
Assistant Planning Director Rued resented staff report and reminded Commission that this proposal has
been talked about at different meeting. The public hearing was scheduled for March, but it was not
discussed to that evening due to the late hour. Also, Commissioner Jones requested this topic be continued
to the May meeting because she had numerous questions, and the fact that two of the Commissioners were
unavailable for the April meeting. The City is mandated by the State to have an accessory dwelling unit
ordinance. The City needs provisions to allow for accessory dwelling units in single family homes. The
ordinance would allow someone who has a large enough single family home to constmcffdevelop an
accessory dwelling unit as part of the home. The City's approach is conservative relative to the standards
proposed. The unit must look like a single family home and have adequate parking for the existing home
and for the unit.
-2-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 2, 2000
Commissioner Taylor wondered how the City would monitor and control the units. Assistant Planning
Director Rued explained that if there is a violation, then the civil violation process is in effect. The owner
would be required to sign an affidavit which gives the City legal recourse.
Commissioner DiTuri expressed concern about possible concentration of accessory dwelling units in
denser areas of the City. He researched the Web to see if other areas tried accessory dwelling unit, but he
could not find any. He wanted to note that staff should look at every six months or one year to verify that
the City is not dealing with overcrowding of accessory dwelling units because of traffic issues. He wants
to make sure when the accessory dwelling unit ordinance is implemented, it is equitable and of benefit to
those in the community. Assistant Planning Director Rued is sure there are accessory dwelling units now
in town and the ordinance will allow the City to know which ones are permitted. It will allow the City to
keep a better eye on the accessory dwelling unit. He thinks Commissioner DiTuri's suggestion is good.
Chairman Peace admitted that he knows of one accessory dwelling unit in Lakeland which has been there
many years. He does not expect to see a rush of people wanting to establish an accessory dwelling unit.
Assistant Planning Director Rued acknowledged that staff has received rare inquiries to see if accessory
dwelling units are allowed. Most people want their own single family home, but the accessory dwelling
unit ordinance would allow for the care of parents, for example.
Commissioner Rollins mentioned concerns about the size limit and used his home as an example. He
posed what he thought might be a more reasonable size restriction. He concurs with the direction o~the
accessory dwelling unit ordinance, but does not want to throw away potential useable space. Assistant
Planning Director Rued remarked that the staff proposal is conservative. Commissioner Jones believes the
size of the accessory dwelling unit should be limited so that the number of people and cars are limited. A
larger area could mean more people and cars. Assistant Planning Director Rued said that a one bedroom'
apartment is about 800 square feet which is a good size.
Commissioner Ekrem made motion, seconded by Commissioner Rollins, to recommend approval of the
amendments as presented. The motion passed 7-0.
Case No. ZOA0007-00 - Amendments to the City of Auburn Zoning Code Section 18.48.020(A)(1)
relating to fences and arterial streets
Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. The proposal has been reviewed over a
number of years and it is hoped that this resolves the situation. He used an overhead showing a drawing
and described how the proposal would work. He then explained how current Zoning Ordinance works
relative to fences and arterial streets. The front yard setback is always oriented to the street. He mentioned
some issues that come up regarding the two items. No six foot fences are allowed in front the yard setback.
Lakeland now has two or three variances for fences and landscaping. Staff is proposing to allow six foot
high fence be within a five foot setback. There will be provisions for landscaping along the arterial. There
will be criteria that all or most of the lot to be landscaped. The fence and the landscaping will be required
to be maintained by a homeowners association to guarantee maintenance. Assistant Planning Director
Rued commented that there may be some cases with existing lots that were platted years ago. The variance
process is always available in those situations. The proposed amendments would addresses new
subdivisions.
Commissioner DiTuri asked where the sidewalks are located. Assistant Planning Director Rued used the
overhead and pointed out the location.
Commissioner Rollins made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend approval of the
amendments as presented. The motion passed 7-0.
-3-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 2, 200{}
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
· Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO)
Assistant Planning Director Rued reminded Commissioners that information on this has been presented at the
last couple meetings. Commissioner Jones then requested a workshop to discuss this.
Planner II Dixon advised that open houses for the public will be scheduled in the near future when there is a
project for the public to comment on. He spoke about future regulations that will have an affect on Auburn.
He reviewed six areas to be regulated which will allow a greater certainty for the review process. At the April
meeting the first issue paper was discussed. Federal and State mandates are spelled out in the issue paper.
Tonight's review will be the second issue paper which builds on the content in the first issue paper. This paper
deals primarily with substantive and procedural elements. He then reviewed the 11 major sections in some
detail. He spoke of the need to be precise in use of terms to be consistent with Federal and State laws. Current
inventory maps will be refined. The maps in use provide a general indicator of the sensitive areas, but are not
meant to be precise. It is too cost prohibitive to determine exactly where each designation is located. This then
shifts responsibility to the developer to determine the extent of sensitive areas. Maps will be used as planning
tools. Regarding mapping for annexed areas, the City has information from King and Pierce Counties for data
purposes. He reviewed item D on page 7 of the second issue paper. It needs to be determined at what point
regulations come into place.
Commissioner DiTuri asked if staff is looking at situations that might conflict with zoning or when zoning
might be inconsistent or detrimental to sensitive areas. He wondered what takes priority - zoning or SAO.
Planner II Dixon remarked that in evaluating how development affects sensitive areas, staff works with exis~ng
zoning in place, which is not contradictory. Under the current process, staff relies heavily on SEPA to address
impacts, but now there has to be a more formal process which will reduce the City's reliance on SEPA.
Commissioner DiTuri referred to a site zoned light industrial and dealing with wetlands in proximity that could
affect this area, and asked how the zoning would impact affect the property's potential. Planner II Dixon
offered that regulations will not limit someone from realizing a return on their property. He then mentioned a
relief mechanism ("reasonable use") that would enable someone to realize return on property or economic
benefit. The City is trying to look at how to manage development in relation to sensitive area constraints.
Planner II Dixon referred to Section E, Exemptions on page 9, and briefly reviewed exempted activities. The
City will have to determine exactly what will be exempted and could broadly define exemptions in order to
provide greater flexibility to manage resources. He mentioned exemptions such as utilities. He referred to
exempt sensitive areas on page 10 and referred to grandfather uses on page 9 and gave examples. Planner II
Dixon referred to Section F, Resource Classification and Rating on page 10 and need to recognize degree of
importance. He spoke about the classification system on pages 11-13. He then referred to Section G,
Protection Mechanisms, on page 13, and described buffer requirements. He spoke of the need to determine
what is appropriate ~'or the City.
Planner II Dixon then referred to page 15, Item 2, relating to flexibility and the need to provide some flexibility
and how to address flexibility techniques. The PUD ordinance allows some density transfer; however, density
requirements are not in place for commercial or industrial area. No provision is in place now for off-site
density transfer. Commissioner Jones wondered about defining flexibility. Planner II Dixon spoke of the need
to strike a balance and be specific so that all understand the regulations which should incorporate some measure
of flexibility. He then gave an example of a buffer adjacent to a stream. He spoke about striking a balance
between buffer requirements and what development is allowed to do and that the City might allow buffer width
averaging.
Planner II Dixon then referred to mitigation banking on page 16 and explained. He stressed that SAMP
encourages mitigation banking.
-4-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 2 20,~.~_00
Chairman Peace recalled something from several years ago relating to the SeaTac Airport and wetland banking.
Planner II Dixon commented that this was something similar; the banking is a requirement. There is the
possibility of being able to make credits available for someone else to use. Planner II Dixon referred the-
Mitigation Standards and Programs, Section H on page 17 and mentioned sequencing under Federal laws. The
City would develop regulations so applicants first seek to'avoid these impacts. However, if the impacts are
unavoidable, these would say how to mitigate the impacts.
Planner II Dixon then pointed out the replacement/enhancement ratios on page 18. He pointed out the permit
process and application requirement on page 19. It is important though not to add another layer onto the
development review process. He reviewed page 19 relating to reasonable use provision and variances. These
relief mechanisms were described.
Planner II Dixon then spoke about principle components to be used and specific regulations to be adopted by
the City to include these elements for each of the different categories. The process is to keep Planning
Commission involved in the development of regulations. He wanted to brief the Commission and get feedback
to determine where the SAO is headed. The City will eventually have open houses with the public, and then the
Planning Commission will have a public hearing and make recommendation to the City Council. He stressed
the amount of important information contained in the second issue paper.
Comprehensive Zoning Changes
Assistant Planning Director Rued introduced Sean Martin, who was given the task of reviewing and processing
the overall area-wide zoning changes to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The Commission will need to
think about when to schedule the proposed changes for public hearing. He stressed that there is a lot ofwo~'k
for Planning Commission to review and act on over the summer. The SAO is coming as well as the Downtown
Plan and the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments in the fall.
Planner I Martin reiterated that he was given the task of doing a comparison of Comprehensive Plan Map and
the exiting zoning map and to propose changes to the zoning map where appropriate. Staff identified 10 areas
City-wide that are appropriate for rezoning. He hopes to address Commission concerns tonight before moving
forward to the public hearing process.
Chairman Peace wanted to confirm what is being done. The zoning is being revised to be in conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan Map. Using an overlay, Planner I Martin explained that the Comprehensive Plan is the
City's tool. The 10 amendments are to change the comprehensive zoning map. Chairman Peace expressed a bit
if confusion. Planner I Martin explained that the zoning map is to be changed to match the Comprehensive
Plan. Staff is initiating 10 rezone actions which are separate from the Comprehensive Plan. The word
"comprehensive" in this context relates to City wide zoning, not the actual Comprehensive Plan process. The
official name oft, he zoning map is the City of Auburn Comprehensive Zoning Map. ~
Planner I Martin began by explaining the first change, Exhibit BI. He then reviewed Exhibit B2. Exhibit B3
was then described. The Comprehensive Plan was changed in 1998 and the City owns this site which will be
used for a stormwater detention facility.
Commissioner Rollins wondered if the City purchased property gets a zoning change because he believes the
recent purchases were all residential. Planner I Martin acknowledged that the property was recently purchased
and already zoned residential. Commissioner Jones inquired about landscaping for the facility. Planner I
Martin provided information about requirements in the Zoning Ordinance relating to required landscaping and
the Public Works design construction standards that require screening. The SEPA process can impose
landscaping conditions.
Commissioner Jones believes this has been discussed before that if the City has a public utility development in
residential areas they need to provide landscaping. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that the Planning
-5-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 2, ?00~00
Department is the "police" for this and provided an example. City Council approved the rezone of the storm
pond property. He then described the landscaping for this project which will have a solid screen so that the
pond cannot be seen. The Comprehensive Plan gives direction and the project can be conditioned.
Planner I Martin continued by describing Exhibit B4. Exhibit B5 was explained. The sliver area was zoned
Uncl upon annexation pending final layout of Lakeland. He pointed out the area rezoned in 1988. Assistant
Planning Director Rued commented that the Uncl designation defaults to R1 zoning.
Planner I Martin continued and explained the Exhibit B6 change which will make it consistent with
Comprehensive Plan designation of single family. Commissioner Rollins inquired if there was any discussion
with the interested parties. Planner I Martin .replied there have been informal discussions only; no formal
application was received. Planner I Martin then described the Exhibit B7 change which is to facilitate the
upcoming Airport expansion. The designation is being changed to benefit the Airport. Commissioner Rollins
provided some information on future Airport future development. There was a brief discussion relating to the
potential businesses that might locate at the Airport.
Planner I Martin then explained Exhibit B8 change. Parcels of land were annexed adjacent to Thomas
Academy. Two separate annexations occurred in 1995. The proposal would impose an institutional
designation on property held by Thomas Academy. Staffmet with the Academy today and they expressed
concern because they want zoning to remain R1 for a portion of their property which will require a
Comprehensive Plan change. The proposal seeks to provide heavy commercial zoning on parcels adjacent to
Auburn Way North. Staff proposes light industrial zoning on the remaining area west of the Academy. The
Comprehensive Plan designation is light industrial for this area. The majority of the property has access to B
Street NW or 51st Street. An environmental review will be done when the individual property seeks to be
developed. The infrastructure was mentioned and that some parcels are undeveloped. All is consistent wit~'
underlying Comprehensive Plan designation.
Chairman Peace inquired that Th6mas Academy appears not to want the institutional zoning designation.
Planner I Martin spoke about an underlying issue and that the property located north of47~ they want to sell in
the future. This site will not be conducive to commercial development and is more appropriate for larger
development. Thomas Academy intends to initiate a Comprehensive Plan map change instead for this northern
site. The Comprehensive Plan designation supports institutional. Commissioner DiTuri expressed concern
about increased truck traffic on the narrow road and the institutional nature of the school. The truck traffic
would have an impact on this stretch of road.
Planner I Martin pointed out the parcels are not conducive to large scale development which would require a
larger portion of land. He pointed out which parcels do not have access to corridor. When the property/project
comes through SEPA process and for other City permits, the City will seek mitigation to insure other properties
are not impacted.
Exhibit 9 was reviewed. There is a developing commercial are along Auburn Way South and the zoning
change (CN to C1) ~'ecognizes the need to allow greater variety which and intensity of uses in the area. The_
second part of the change relates to the RI zoned property. Traffic on Auburn Way South makes these parcels
suitable for higher density residential development. The third part of the change proposes to make the
alignment of the commercial district coincide to existing parcel lines.
Commissioner Rollins inquired about future widening of Auburn Way South. Assistant Planning Director Rued
advised that Auburn Way South will be no wider than two lanes with a center turn lane. There is the question
of the amount of money involved in order to provide the improvements. Commissioner Rollins then spoke
about the FAA moving its entry gate to Hemlock. The Tribe Amphitheater could pose problems for employees
trying to get to FAA. He is concerned about traffic on Auburn Way South and the potential of Amphitheater
traffic. Commissioner DiTuri mentioned that he attended an open house host by the WashDOT for Hwy. 164.
They are currently studying/analyzing traffic along this road. Citizens have expressed concern that the State is
not recognizing the interests and concerns of residents along Hwy. 164.
-6-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 2, 2000
Commissioner Jones inquired if a property owner has proposed something for the R4 use. Planner I Martin
replied that the proposal is staff-initiated only. The high density designation supports the R4 zoning. Assistant
Planning Director Rued advised that if the Planning Commission feels commercial zoning is better, they could
hold zoning in abeyance and address the Comprehensive Plan issue. Commissioner Rollins wondered if the
zoning is changed from RI to C1, for example, what affect will this have on the property owner. Assistant
Planning Director Rued advised that the property is taxed as single family if it is used as single family. There is
the question of how the County Assessor's Office determines.
Exhibit B 10, explained Planner I Martin, could be controversial. The Comprehensive Plan designation supports
R4 zoning. He spoke of the need for effective transition between land use activities and the need to preserve
the character of this neighborhood. A letter was received from a property owner who was against the rezone
from industrial to residential back in 1997. He was told by Bob Sokol that the City did not have intention of
changing at that time. The owners want the property to remain heavy industrial zoning.
Commissioner Rollins commented that it might make sense to leave the property as it is now. Commissioner
Ekrem wanted to know why the owner objects to multi-family use as opposed to industrial. Assistant Planning
Director Rued replied that the property is for sale and advertised as a small industrial site. Staffhave received
inquires about building a warehouse on the site, and the inquirees were told about the existing zoning and
alerted that the Comprehensive Plan says the site is appropriate for multi family. The City can legally change
the zoning to R4. If someone applies for a building permit for industrial use it would be vested. It would,
however, become a nonconforming building. Concerns were raised by the property owner and prospective
buyers. The Commission will need to take a good hard look at the area before they proceed forward with the
public hearing. Regarding the public hearing, property owners in question will be notified and adjoining
property owners will be notified also. This will be difficult to make decision regarding this area. The prope-rty
is affected by its limited ability to do any expansion because the lot is small. If the structure burns down in
excess of 50 percent, it cannot be rebuilt as warehouse, but has to be built as R4.
Commissioner Ekrem inquired what the R4 zoning designation allows. Assistant Planning Director Rued
replied that the R4 zoning allows for some professional uses, but no mix of industrial and multi family.
Commissioner Ekrem commented that it would be helpful if"landmarks" for Orientation purposes were on the
maps.
Commissioner Jones referred to the second paragraph under Exhibit 10B and asked what it means. Planner I
Martin replied that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as a key residential area to serve as a transition to
industrial areas. The structures themselves are homes or support residential uses. Commissioner Ekrem asked
why the area is zoned M2. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that the M2 designation was established a
long time ago. Nice homes were located south of Main and west of C Street.
Assistant Planning Director Rued stressed that the Commission needs to review and think about Exhibit gl0
proposal. They need to decide if the zoning should remain as M2 or be changed to R4. He suggested that the
Commission visit tl~is area.
Chairman Peace wanted to confirm that the City had a request to change the Comprehensive Plan and the
request was withdrawn. Assistant Planning Director Rued mentioned that someone had applied for a building
permit for warehouse use and found out that the zoning was planned to be changed to multi family. He was
told of available options and withdrew his request; however, the issue still remains.
Commissioner Ekrem asked if people are given disclosure when they ask. Assistant Planning Director Rued
replies yes; definitely on this property. Chairman Peace advised that all Commissioners visit the area. The
proposal seems to be straightforward. Commissioner Ekrem commented that all should look at what the
downtown task force proposes for the area. Planner I Martin motioned that this residential area is to remain as
residential in the task force report.
-7-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 2~ 200_0
Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that he needs an idea of when the Planning Commission wants to
schedule the public hearing for this. Chairman Peace believes the Commission should look at the area and
review the proposal and come up with an agreement on what to go forward with. Assistant Planning Director
Rued stated there needs to be an agreement on when to schedule the public hearing for the Commission
recommendation. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that sthffwill bring this back to the Commission
next month. The Commission to say which Exhibits to bring to public hearing. He then explained how the
process will work and that the Commission could take one or two of the proposals out.
Commissioner Ekrem wanted to confirm what is being done. That in June, the Commission will come back
with input about all or part of the proposals and when to schedule the public hearing. She thinks the
Commission may feel that July is the right time frame. Assistant Planning Director Rued stressed that in June
the Commission should decide which Exhibits are for public hearing on the zone change. He cautioned again
that large projects are on the horizon for the Commission to review and make recommendations on. There will
be one public hearing with 10 action items.
Commissioner Ekrem then requested information on what is coming to the Commission for review in the future
since the summertime is a busy time. She wanted to get an idea of the time frame involved. Assistant Planning
Director Rued will provide a schedule of what is upcoming for the Commission to act on and review.
Proposed Zoning to Regulate Liquor Establishments
Assistant Planning Director Rued advised Commissioners that the public hearing on this will be conducted in
June.
Chairman Peace asked if the tavern owners were upset with the proposal. Assistant Planning Director Rued-
responded that one tavern owner was at the Council meeting on Monday. Staff recommended that the liquor
licenses be denied until outstanding gambling taxes are paid.
Commissioner Rollins referred to page 7 and believes the 51 percent requirement for a restaurant should be
increased. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that some of the information is background only
information, not proposed zoning change. The only part of the Zoning Code being changed is about the last
four pages of the packet given to the Commission. The changes include definitions of brew pubs, taverns, and
restaurants and in which zones allowed. The other material is only for background purposes.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
PC\MIN05-2000
-8-