Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/13/1992 . . . AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 May 13, 1992 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of April 22, 1992 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. CUP 92(02)01 - SWANSON - "C" Street Extension: Request to allow a duplex in the RS-9, Residential Single-Family District. (Continued from April 8, 1992.) 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. CUP 92(04)04 - BUDGET RENT-A- CAR - Northeast comer of Front and Oak Streets: Request to allow the development of a commercial parking lot in the CBD, Central Business District. (Continued from April 8, 1992.) 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL SUBMITTAL - ENNIS CREEK ESTATES PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT - Del Guzzi Drive to Lindberg Road: 4. CONDmONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - CUP 92(05)05 - LUNSFORD/PRESLEY - 222 East Eleventh Street: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing single- family residence to a duplex use, located in the RS-7, Residential Single- Family District. All corresponderu::e penaining to a hearing item received by" the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled Maring will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Planning Commission: Ray Gruver, Chair; Cindy Souders, Viee-Chair; Jim Hulett; Roger Catts; Larry Leonard; Bob PhilpOll; Bill Anabel. Planning Staff: Brad Collins, Planning Direclor; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist; John Jimerson, Associale Planner; David Sawyer, Senior Planner. . . . Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 V. OTHER BUSINESS 1. APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - SUN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: Consideration of an appeal of a Determination of Significance (OS). VI. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VII. STAFF REPORTS Vill. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Vill. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS IX. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be allowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Planning Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chainnan. . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington May 13, 1992 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Souders called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ray Gruver, Bob Philpott, Bill Anabel, Larry Leonard, Roger Catts, Bob Winters and Cindy Souders Members Absent: None Staff Present: Sue Roberds, John Jimerson, Terry Reid, Gary Kenworthy APPROV AL OF MINUTES . Commissioner Gruver moved to approve the minutes of the April 22, 1992, meeting of the Commission as submitted. Commissioner Leonard seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. CUP 92(02)01 - SWANSON - "C" Street Extension: Request to allow a duplex in the RS-9, Residential Single-Family District. (Continued from April 8, 1992.) John Jimerson reviewed the Department Report and answered questions from the Commission concerning the Department's recommendation that improvements be required as a condition of approval of the duplex. Commissioner Gruver requested further information as to why a drainage plan with on-site detention is recommended for approval of the duplex. Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, answered that the proposed site is located in an area that is notorious for drainage. There is no storm sewer in the area and the increase in impervious area will exacerbate the existing situation. . Chairwoman Souders reviewed the public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. . . . Planning Commission Page 2 Bill Swanson, 4020 Newell Road, Apt. #5, stated that he has already designed the site with a drainage plan to address the amount of surface water in the area. The property slopes approximately 14 feet from front to rear with all drainage in the area travelling across the property. His plan will alleviate the existing drainage problems and additional runoff caused by the impervious surface associated with the duplex. A retention/detention area is not a problem in that it has been planned in the design of the duplex, which is designed to help further reduce the runoff in the area. In preparation for the meeting, seventeen of the twenty three neighbors were polled, with ten expressing no objections to the duplex use. Mr. Swanson lives in the area and his intention is to develop a quality duplex that is well kept and a definite upgrade to the existing condition of the property and the area. Responding to Commissioner Gruver, Mr. Swanson stated that all of tiC" Street Extension is in pretty bad shape including the area adjacent to the proposed site. Commissioner Leonard asked if the applicant had any objection to the recommended condition of approval that improvements be made to the street, including curb and sidewalk. John Spiess, 212-A East Eighth Street, answered that the roadway is in very bad shape in the area and is misaligned. He stated that the applicant would not object to signing a non-protest agreement for future improvements, but does not want to pay for the improvements now only to fmd they may need to be moved due to misalignment of the roadway or to accommodate new improvements at a future time. He felt the City should undertake a full study of the area prior to any improvements being required of property developers. Guy Lund, 114 West Fifth Street, has developed several duplexes in the area without having to put in improvements. An island of improvements is not effective in itself without other properties being improved. There being no further comment, Chairwoman Souders closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leonard asked if staff would be uncomfortable with an L.I.D. non-protest agreement for the proposed use. John Jimerson answered that non-protest LJ.D.s have been accepted in the past, but the problem is at what point does the L.I.D. become initiated. The Comprehensive Plan contains a policy that states improvements should be made at the time of development. In response to Commissioner Winters, Gary Kenworthy answered there has been a great deal of trouble in the area with complaints concerning surface water and the need for roadway improvements. The Public Works Department will continue to ask for improvements due to the problems in the area. There has been absolutely no support for an L.I.D. in the area up to this time. It is possible to design future roadway improvements to connect with any improvements that might be completed prior to an L.I.D. Stating that it is not logical to improve this property without improving the remainder of the street, Commissioner Leonard moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 92(02)01 with the following conditions: . . . Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 Conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a non-protest agreement for improving liCit Street frontage to full City standards prior to obtaining a building permit for the duplex. 2. As long as the property is zoned single family residential, no additional dwelling units may be constructed on any portion of the property in the future. 3. A drainage plan including on-site detention shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Findines: 1. The request is for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a duplex in the RS-9 zone district. 2. The site area is roughly 24,600 square feet, which exceeds the minimum 14,000 square feet required for duplexes in the RS-9 zone district. 3. The substandard lot width for duplexes in the RS-9 zone district was granted a variance by the Board of Adjustment on May 11, 1992. 4. The site plan includes at least four parking spaces. Four spaces are the minimum required by the parking ordinance. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Urban Residential. ,6. There is a ClaUam Transit bus route on Lauridsen Boulevard, north of the "C" Street extension. 7. There is 4.8 acres of RS-9 zoned property in the vicinity. However, the area is not predominantly developed with single family residential uses. Multi- family and industrial zoning surround the RS-9 district on three sides. west of llC" Street is a predominantly single family neighborhood. Conclusions: A. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding development which includes duplexes and apartments to the north, industrial zoned pasture to the east and single family property to the south and west. B. As conditioned, the Conditional Use Permit is in the public use and interest and is not detrimental to the public welfare. . . . Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 C. As conditioned, the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the GiJals and I Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. I Commissioner Gruver seconded the motion, noting that although he is a strong supporter of full improvements being required in development situations, if those improvements are put in at the time of this improvement, the City will lose that one vote of non-protest in this area where every vote will be needed to make improvements in this area a reality. I On call for the question, the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. CUP 92(04)04 - BUDGET RENT-A-CAR - Northeast comer of Front and Oak Streets: Request to allow the development of a commercial parking lot in the CBD, Central Business District. (Continued from April 8, 1992.) ! John Jimerson noted that this hearing is continued from April 8, 1992, to allow the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) comment period to run its course. Since the Apri18th hearing, the SEP A Responsible Official has issued a Modified Determination of Non-Significance which eliminated the mitigation measure that required the parking lot to be paved in a manner consistent with City standards. As the DNS has been modified ~ince the previous meeting, the Planning Department is modifying the recommended conditions of approval to include a condition that the lot be paved to standards consistent with the Port Angeles Municipal Code, Section 14.40.160. Responding to an inquiry from Commissioner Winters, John Jimerson answered that the condition of installation of wheel stops for this use was never complied with. Apparently there was no enforcement of the condition. Chairwoman Sounders opened the continued public hearing. Jim Heckman, 709 South Ennis, said that it is not feasible to pave the lot for the minimal usage he intends. The lot is used for overflow ferry parking during the months of July and August only; however, others such as users of the Food Bank use the lot year round free of charge. He asked the City to have faith that the lot would be maintained and kept in good condition. Employees will ensure orderly parking of vehicles in ~e lot and will assist in maintaining the lot in a professional manner. The lot is not used without an attendant and has been graded, graveled and cleaned up considerably from its previous state by the applicant. The lot is leased month to month by the applicant. There being no further comment, Chairwoman Souders closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Leonard, Mr. Kenworthy answered that wheel stops are less I important when a parking lot attendant is on duty. ' . . . Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 Commissioner Leonard noted that the property is not owned by the applicant, and has been for sale. If the applicant paved the lot and the property is sold, the paving would have to be pulled up and disposed of for perhaps construction of a building on the site. Mr. Jimerson responded that an alternative BST surface might be considered which could achieve the desired results for a lengthy period of time at a reduced cost. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Leonard moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 92(04)04, with the following conditions: Condition: 1. The use shall be approved for a one year period; 2. A parking attendant shall be on-duty during those times when vehicles are being parked; and citing the following fmdings and conclusions: FmdinKs: 1. The Central Business District zone allows independent parking lots as a conditional use. 2. The use of the property as a parking lot is not consumptive of limited land in the Central Business District and can be converted to a higher use at a later date. 3. There are other independent parking lots in the vicinity, as well as the COHO Ferry, which generates the need for long-tenn off-street parking in the Downtown area. 4. Other parking lots located in the area are paved and improved. 5. The site was approved for use as a Budget Rent-A-Car parking lot originally in August 1990. That approval expired in August 1991. Conclusions: A. The Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, is compatible with the land uses in the vicinity and the Central Business District zone. B. The Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, is compatible with the Port Angeles Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan and other applicable land use regulations. . . . Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 C. The Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, is in the public use and interest and will not adversely impact the public welfare. Speaking to his motion, Commissioner Gruver stated the permit is only for one year rather than a longer period of time. This is a temporary use and it shouldn't be construed as a permanent situation. Commissioner Anabel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REOUEST FOR A PPRO V AL OF FINAL SUBMITTAL - ENNIS CREEK EST A TES PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT - Del Guzzi Drive to Lindberg Road: Chairwoman Souders opened the public hearing. John Iimerson noted the communications received from the applicant, William Wilbert of Del Hur, Inc., and the applicant's attorneys, the law firm of Davis, Wright, Tremaine, asking for continuance of consideration of the final submittal for the Ennis Creek Estates Planned Residential Development. He noted the information submitted to the Commission from staff included background material and a Department report. The material was faxed to the applicant in the late afternoon, May 8, 1992. Commissioner Leonard noted the Zoning Ordinance indicates planned residential fmal plat applications must be submitted within one year from preliminary approval. The Ordinance does not indicate the time frame involved after the plat is submitted before it is must be acted upon. Mr. Jimerson stated he believes the wording is intended to give applicants one year in which to submit information sufficient to act upon for final approval. Although the applicant submitted a fmal application prior to the one year deadline, the material submitted does not address the conditions of preliminary approval; therefore, the City cannot act on the application request. The applicant was aware of the conditions of approval and the time frames involved. There has been little, if any, contact with staff by the applicant during the past year. Considerable discussion ensued in speculating why the applicant did not submit an application adequate for final consideration. John Jimerson responded to Commissioner Leonard that the current Department report was faxed to the applicant in the late afternoon of May 8, 1992, per the applicant's request by phone earlier in the week. The applicant's letter of May 13, 1992, requests a continuance and indicates he is aware of staffs concerns. Robbie Mantooth, 2238 East Lindberg Road, stated that during the past year little if anything has been done to assure the citizens of Port Angeles that the proposed development will be developed in a manner attuned to the environment. The applicant could have attempted to impress the skeptics with their responsibility to the project and prove that development of the project would be accomplished with as little impact to the environment as possible, but nothing toward that end has been done. No construction has taken place during the past year with the exception of the L.I. D.; however, runoff caused by the increased impervious surface and utility . . . Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 construction has loosened the soil and caused a great deal of increased erosion into the stream. Downed trees have smashed the only barrier that was in place to protect the stream from runoff. No holding ponds have been developed as promised over the past year. The developer has not protected the stream from runoff caused by construction of the road, which was developed solely by use of the development. The damage the developer has allowed to happen at this early stage proves irresponsibility and must not continue and the developer must be required to protect the creek and private properties being affected. Commissioner Catts asked if there had been monitoring of soil conditions during the past year. Gary Kenworthy said there has been no specific monitoring in the area nor had complaints been received concerning the erosion. In response to questions from the Commission, John Jimerson answered that the applicant would have been allowed to improve the roadway to this point, but other than that, no other improvements would have been permitted. Craig Miller, P.O. Box 550, was present at the request at the applicant's attorney, Alan Middleton. He indicated a letter from Davis, Wright, Tremaine, dated May 13, 1992, had been faxed to the Planning Department, and asked if the Commissioner had received copies of the letter. The Commissioners responded they had. Larry Leonard moved to continue the hearing until the first meeting in July. Bob Philpott seconded the motion. Discussion ensued on whether the applicant was acting in a responsible manner that would protect the property, stream corridor and surrounding properties during the past year. Commissioner Leonard noted that the bylaws instruct that an item be tabled if the applicant or an authorized representative is not present at the hearing. Commissioner Leonard withdrew his motion. The second concurred. Chairwoman Souders closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gruver indicated that the history of the project thus far has been one of inadequate submittals by the applicant and changes of plans. Commissioner Winters stated his agreement with the concerns expressed, but noted that the Planned Residential Development Chapter indicates the final submittal shall be submitted within one year from the date of approval. The degree of completeness isn't spelled out clearly. . Commissioner Catts stated that if the applicant is granted an extension, an analysis of the erosion problems noted by Mrs. Mantooth must be done and the applicant must indicate how he will mitigate and correct further problems. A City employee should make a site investigation and determine what damage has occurred and what could be done to correct the situation and minimize future damage. John Jimerson noted that a storm drainage and erosion control and sedimentation plan is required prior to approval of the final PRD, which could address the erosion problems that have occurred. The analysis Mr. Catts is suggesting could be included in such a plan. In response to Commissioner Gruver, Mr. Jimerson answered that that plan had not been submitted as required. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 . In response to Chairwoman Souders, Mr. Jimerson answered that the application is incomplete because the applicant hasn't adequately addressed the conditions that were set a year ago in the preliminary approval process. Erosion control has not been addressed and the soils analysis work is not indicated in the submittal. Commissioner Philpott answered that it is not uncommon for a project this large to require a long time to develop. Two months, as requested, is not an unreasonable request. Commissioner Leonard noted the applicant was not present and questioned whether any action could be taken. Additionally, due to the current law suit, the applicant may be wary of committing a great deal of funds to the project at this time. . He also indicated the letter from the applicant's attorney questioning the time frame involved considering the legal action on the issue. Commissioner Gruver felt strongly that the applicant had plenty of opportunity to present the information required for final plat submittal and had demonstrated a lack of responsibility and desire to comply with the City's requirements. The Commission has no choice but to recommend denial of the plat submittal. The material presented for final consideration does not adequately address what is required. Actions over the past year have not indicated the applicant has intentions to comply with either the requirements that were required previously for preliminary approval or those which might not be required but which are necessary for environmental damage control in the future. . Following continued discussion, Commissioner Gruver moved to recommend denial of the final submittal of Ennis Creek Estates Planned Residential Development. Commissioner Anabel seconded the motion. Commissioner Winters stated he is pessimistic about the ability of the applicant to produce the material required in two months, but he thought it would be reasonable to continue the item. On call for the question, the motion passed 4-3, with Roger Catts, Bill Anabel, Ray Gruver and Cindy Souders voting "aye"; Larry Leonard, Bob Winters and Bob Philpott voting "no". CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REOUEST CUP 92(05)05 LUNSFORD/PRESLEY - 222 East Eleventh Street: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing single-family residence to a duplex use, located in the RS-7, Residential Single-Family District. John Jimerson reviewed the Department report and recommended a condition No.2 be added that would include wording requiring a building inspection prior to occupancy of the duplex unit. Chairwoman Souders opened the public hearing. . Judy Hosto, 1215 East Eleventh Street, was present representing the applicant. She had nothing further to add to the Department report, and stated her agreement to the conditions noted for approval. Julie Bondy, 221 East Eleventh Street, a neighbor directly across the street from the proposed duplex was present in opposition to the request. Ms. Bondy indicated that there is already one . . . Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 . duplex use in the area as well as an older established tri-plex. No more multi-family uses should be allowed in this one block area without a rezone to multi-family. The three (two existing and current proposed) multi-family uses exceed what is reasonable in a solid single-family neighborhood. The multi-family uses in the neighborhood far exceed the sizes of the remaining single-family uses, and are not compatible with the appearane of the very old, established neighborhood. She stated that the sales price of the house is exceptionally high for the neighborhood and that the only way the price could be justified would seem to be if it were converted to a duplex. In response to Commissioner Catts, Ms. Bondy stated that the third multi-family use would degrade the class of land use in the neighborhood by allowing a high concentration of multi- family uses in the single-family neighborhood. Commissioner Leonard moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 92(05)05 with the following conditions: Conditions: 1. The duplex must be inspected and approved for occupancy by the Building Division of the Public Works Department prior to occupancy of the structure. 2. Separate utility meters wiD be installed prior to occupancy of the residence as a duplex, with inspection by the City Light Department. Findines: A. The request is for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a duplex in the RS-7 zone district. B. The lot area exceeds the minimum required 10,500 square feet by 3,500 square feet. C. There is an existing house on the site, which is proposed to be remodeled to a duplex, having a unit located on each of the two floors of the house. D. The existing house meets all the development standards of the RS-7 zoning district for a duplex, including the minimum 20 foot sideyard setbacks. The existing detached garage does not meet the minimum 10 foot setback from the alley. E. The site has adequate room to provide at least four off-street parking spaces. F. Lincoln Street, an arterial, is located one half block west of the site. G. There has been one other duplex approved in the vicinity. In 1973 a duplex was constructed ODe block west on Eleventh Street. . . . Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 H. The streets in the vicinity are fully developed to urban standards, including sidewalks. Conclusions: 1. The proposed duplex is compatible with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. 2. The Conditional Use Permit is in the public use and interest and is not detrimental to the public welfare. 3. The Conditional Use Pennit is in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Parking Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Anabel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Jimerson explained the appeal procedure to those present. V. OTHER BUSINFSS APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - SUN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: Consideration of an appeal of a Determination of Significance (DS). Chairwoman Souders explained the procedure to those present. Ms. Roberds, acting in her capacity as Notary Public, swore in John Jimerson. Mr. Jimerson noted that he was representing Brad Collins, the City of Port Angeles Sepa Responsible Official, and explained the process which resulted in the issuance of a Determination of Significance for the proposed billboard sign. Craig Miller, P.O. Box 550, Port Angeles, was sworn in by Ms. Roberds. He stated he didn't disagree with the facts presented, but disputed the rationalization behind the conclusions. 'He felt that other uses with greater impacts could occur on the property, but would not be required to prepare an environmental statement. On-site signs are categorically exempt but off-site signs, such as this sign, are not. It appears the City, by issuing a DS, is making a statement that it doesn't like billboards. If that is the case, the City should declare a moratorium on billboards and conduct a study to evaluate the need for ordinance restrictions. The City should not require an environmental impact statement for each billboard. An environmental impact statement is to provide facts that aren't already apparent. No new information can be obtained from an environmental impact statement that would make a difference in this situation. The SEPA Responsible Official indicated by issuing the DS that there is a probable significant adverse impact based upon aesthetic and traffic concerns. Aesthetic impacts are identified by the photograph submitted by the applicant. Cumulative impacts were not scoped in the determination of significance process and therefore cannot be discussed as an issue. Denial of a single billboard is arbitrary. This action may have come as a result of the atmosphere created by the County's recent actions on billboards. Mr. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 . Miller closed by indicating that it may not be constitutional to regulate off-premise signs when on-premise signs are not regulated in the same manner. In rebuttal, Mr. Jimerson referred to the May 13, 1992, Planning Department Memorandum to the Planning Commission states that the procedural determination by the City's SEPA Responsible Official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceedings. The burden of proof is on the appellant to show that the SEP A Responsible Official has made an error in procedure or facts that needs to be corrected. In matters of judgment, the Planning Commission should place more weight on the SEPA Responsible Official's determination. The appellant agreed with the facts of the case as presented but is disagreeing with the judgment of the action. The proceedings are not the appropriate place to discuss the constitutionality of the SEPA regulations. Substantial court cases have occurred over the regulation of off-premise versus on- premise signs. It is the City Attorney's opinion that there is no reason the City cannot regulate off-premise signs and regulate them differently than on-premise signage. . A good deal of information can be obtained from an environmental impact statement. Analysis can consider the impact of motorists being distracted by off-premise advertising, on-premise sign view blockage; traffic hazards; and impacts on views from nearby residences and the level of saturation of signs within the ACD corridor. The range of impacts to be analyzed in an EIS whether direct, indirect or cumulative may be wider than the impacts for which mitigation measures are required of the applicant. Thus the cumulative impacts along the ACD corridor can be evaluated in an EIS. SEPA rules allow an EIS to be used for future actions and decisions. A quality EIS prepared at this point could be adopted in making future determinations. Commissioner Leonard asked Mr. Jimerson if the SEPA Responsible Official feels that off- premise signs are not a good idea. Mr. Jimerson stated that the SEP A Responsible Official believes that the First/Front Street corridors are reaching a saturation point and off-premise signs may be contributing to an overabundance of signs which results in probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Mr. Miller stated he feels the SEPA Responsible Official doesn't like billboards and is making that statement with this action. The applicant does not dispute that the City can regulate off- premise signs from a land use point of view. This is an environmental decision, not a land use decision. a.;i:..- ~:t ~ /7auy ~0 199~ : ~ommissioner Leonard indicated it seemed the SEP A Responsible Official is making a policy decision with the SEPA regulations. Regulations should be done by ordinance not by SEPA. . Commissioner Leonard stated that this is the most blatant misuse of the Responsible Official's power to promote his personal views that I have seen in the four years I have been on the Planning Commission and it should not happen again. Commissioner Winters moved to uphold the appeal and issue a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) with the following mitigation measures: . . . Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The sign be placed in such a maDDer as to not block the visibility of any on- premise signs as observed by eastbound traffic. 2. The sign shall not exceed 27~ in height. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Catts, and passed unanimously. VI. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VU. STAFF REPORTS VUI. REPORTS OF COl\fMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Philpott stated he would like to have his meeting packets delivered earlier to allow more time for review. Commissioner Leonard reported on a concern over the manner in which a recent boundary line adjustment was handled by City staff. Mr. Jimerson responded that the staff is working with the applicant to rectify the situation and is processing the required short plat in a very timely manner in order to not further inconvenience the applicant. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11: 10 P.M. Cindy Souders, Chairwoman PREPARED BY: Sue Roberds . COUNCll..'S ACTION CONCERNING PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1992: 1. CONDmONAL USE PERMIT. CUP 92(02)01 - SWANSON - "C" Street Extension: Request to allow a duplex in the RS-9, Residential Single-Family District. No action by the City Council is required unless appealed. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. CUP 92(04)04 - BUDGET RENT-A-CAR- Northeast comer of Front and Oak Streets: Request to allow the development of a commercial parking lot in the CBD, Central Business District. No action by the City Council is required unless appealed. 3. APPROVAL OF FINAL SUBl\fi'ITAL - ENNIS CREEK ESTATFS PLANNED RRC\IDENTIAL DEYELOPMENT - Del Guzzi Drive to Lindbel'l: Road: . Council could move to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the final pIal submittal, and could cite the findings and conclusions as listed in the May 15, 1992, Memorandum from the Planning Department, or Council could move to concur with the applicant's request for continuance of the final plat consideration to be considered by the PUmning Commission at a future hearing (July ?). 4. CONDillONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - CUP 92(05)05 - LUNSFORD/PRFSLEY - 222 F;l~t Eleventh Street: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing single-family residence to a duplex use, located in the RS-7, Residential Single-Family District. None .