Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/28/2004 o ~ . "~ I. II. III. IV. V. . VI. VII. . F~ )0"-- iR;~Tr'PJ... "./. N:G;'U!'~;'Lr ~lS'i 1=- "_0 _ " I, I,D1. ,,D,,. ! I -- .- _ __ -, --'~ ._~ _......,!!.J.__ i ! ~~"' --""" ---_.~ WAS H r N G TON, U. S. A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street January 28, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Meeting Time - 6 p.m. ROLL CALL REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2004 UPDATE PROCESS COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC STAFF REPORTS REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS ADJOUAAMENT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Linda Nutter (Chair), Fred Hewins (Vice Chair), Chuck Schramm, Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Len Rasmussen, One Vacancy PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins, Director; Scott Johns, Associate Planner; Sue Roberds, Assistant PllUIner, . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 January 28, 2004 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chuck Schramm, Fred Hewins, Fred Norton, Linda Nutter, Len Rasmussen Members Excused: Bob Philpott, one position vacant Staff Present: Brad Collins, Scott Johns Public Present: Peter Ripley APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the previous meeting were not available prior to the meeting, so the approval of minutes was continued to the next regular meeting. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. STAFF REPORTS Associate Planner Scott Johns presented materials to the Commissioners illustrating work that has been done to date regarding updates to the Comprehensive Plan. A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) has been created and several documents have been generated and reviewed by the CAC. The CAC and staff have developed a public participation program that is being called '2020 Vision for Port Angeles'. The program consists ofa series of public forums beginning on February 9, 2004, at the Vern Burton, to be followed by neighborhood meetings being held at various locations and times throughout the City. These efforts will be advertised on the radio, in the newspaper, and with fliers in utility bills. A banner will be placed above Front Street beginning on Monday February 9, 2004. A list of the CAC members, meetings schedule, and list of major planning issues were handed out to the Commissioners. The actions required by the State of Washington under the Growth Management Act were discussed. Community Development Director Brad Collins presented a draft revision of the Parking Ordinance as it had come from the City Council Community and Economic Development Committee (CED). A public hearing is scheduled for the February 17,2004, City Council meeting, and the issue wi1llikely be continued to March 2, 2004. He pointed out that not all proposed changes were included in the hand out and he did not make a copy of the entire ordinance. The parking ratios were the main focus, After the Planning Commission recommended modification to the standard parking requirements specifically to eliminate parking minimums, the CED Committee wanted to go in a . . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 2 different direction by allowing applicants to choose one of3 or 4 methods to calculate what their parking requirements would be. If an applicant simply meets the standard requirements, they can move ahead with no further public process. Alternate choices would require additional review with approval from either the Planning Conunission or the Department of Community Development. A Parking Variance would be still available. Several other methods for reducing parking would be available as well. The importance is an applicant can choose a method of arriving at a parking requirement that is best suited to their needs or which meets their concerns. Existing requirements still largely exist with some modification. At one point there was the argument that the numbers would be just guidelines but not a requirement anymore. The CED's amended proposal included 3 or 4 alternatives for how the number of required parking spaces is arrived at or how parking requirements can be reduced. Changes also being considered are extended distances for off-site parking by increasing the permitted distance to 1,200 feet. Twelve hundred (1,200) feet was proposed because a standard City block is 500 feet, and, by going to 1,200 feet, parking slightly over two and one-half blocks away could still satisfy the requirement for on-site parking. One of the issues with the CED is to make all parking more of a level playing field more similar to methods used in the Downtown where parking lots are jointly used within a walking distance of several blocks which encourages less impervious area for individual commercial uses. Parking methods within the Downtown PBIA were discussed in that some relief is provided for new uses in existing structures as long as the floor area isn't expanded. CO:rnm1ssioner Hewins asked if, during the life and changes in business uses within a structure, parking is ever reviewed again? Director Collins replied that, when a new use locates in an existi~g structure an occupancy permit would be required which would trigger a review of the parking requirements. Chair Nutter asked when a building permit would be needed? Director Collins replied that a building permit would be required for tenant improvements and would also trigger a review of parking requirements. Chair Nutter expressed concern that a change from a residential use in a commercial zone where no physical exterior change is made could occur without any review for parking and therefore create large impacts to a neighborhood. Parking and Business Improvement Areas (pBIA) are allowed throughout the City. Although this has always been the case, in the amended ordinance it is made more clear by eliminating the reference to the "Downtown" PBIA indicating that the City Council can approve such cooperative uses elsewhere. This is not really a change just clarification. Commissioner Hewins asked if Table "A" is a parking requirement or an option? Director Collins stated that it is an option that has certainty. Commissioner Schramm stated that he appreciated the appeal process being available but wondered why a neighbor would have the responsibility of defending his own parking area from over flow impacts from a neighboring business. . Commissioner Hewins asked ifit then becomes a civil matter when a property owner builds to the maximum but doesn't provide adequate parking such that the development negatively impacts neighboring uses? Director Collins said that would be correct. Director Collins went on to state that the PBIA assessment was recommended to be increased from $600 to $3000 per space which is based on approximately a one fifth share of a new surface . . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28.2004 Page 3 parking space cost with the assumption that in a PBIA those parking spaces would turn over several times and be used by several businesses during a given time frame, The Downtown Association is concerned that $600 will not be adequate in terms of providing additional space and so it was a very inexpensive way to get out of a parking requirement. The Council took that under advisement and proposed an "in lieu of' raise to $3000 per space. Commissioner Rasmussen pointed out that this is a way to guarantee that nobody is going to put their business in the Downtown. Commissioner Hewins stated that such is not necessarily true. His point was that $3000 a space is still cheaper than buying land Downtown, building a parking lot, or cutting down a building to provide a building with a parking lot. Commissioner Schramm stated his feeling is that the parking revision is being put to us as either you go along with this or the City Council will do away with parking completely. He felt that was not necessarily true. New members now on the Council may bring about a change in the policy regarding the Parking Ordinance. He didn't think the intent is to allow businesses to encroach on others making them defend something they shouldn't have to defend which is not fair nor is it in the public's interest. He did not accept this at all and, while some parts ofthe amended proposal are good, he felt the idea that you look at each individual business individually is not a good idea. He then expressed skepticism that giving anyone individual that much discretion in the decision making process is not a good idea as it allows too much flexibility and potentially the appearance of unfair treatment. Impartiality is important in dealing fairly with all. Director Collins questioned why he felt there may be favoritism? Commissioner Hewins stated that favoritism would be proposed in dollars. A person who has the money to do a study and have a firm come up with a study on their particular facility may get away with 8 spots for a business while another person who has the same kind of business but doesn't have the same resources or doesn't understand the process uses the standard table and may be required to provide 12 spaces. He felt it is really short sighted ofthe Council to allow this potential. The standard table is designed through analysis of standard, commonly used transportation and parking studies in the 70's which was never reviewed until it got to be a problem. Making major changes without first going back and further analyzing what the real issues are, is not a good idea. Van Goes Pizza is a good example. They fill up the street between 4:30 p,m. and 8:00 p.m. and are parking in the neighboring parking lot ofthe Grandview Store. The Grandview Grocery owner is always out there telling Van Goes' patrons not to park in his lot. The standard requirement for 10 parking spaces for Van Goes Pizza wasn't really that far off. Maybe they could have gotten away with 8 parking spaces, but they are defini tely using all of the parking (10 spaces) that was required of them. The Planning Commission did not require them to do something that it turned out they didn't need. Director Collins pointed out that the preferred approach isn't Table "A". The preferred approach is to calculate the number of employees and the number of customers at your peak hour of operation and provide all ofthose parking spaces. Ifthat ends up to be 20 for Van Goes Pizza, then that would be the number that they would have to provide. If they used Table "A", they may come up with a different answer which could possibly be less than 20. Commissioner Rasmussen stated that is contradictory to what he said before, that what was said before was that "if you meet the number of spaces in the table you're done." Director Collins replied that the preferred approach is that you actually calculate your number of employees and your customers all arriving by single occupant vehicles during your peak hour to come up with the required number of parking spaces. . . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Hewins pointed out that during the Parking Variance hearing, the Van Goes Pizza owner said that there would be no more than 3 parking spaces needed because they turn customers over quickly, don't have seating, and employees would walk or ride bicycles as they would be friends or family members. Yet they do have inside seating. Commissioner Rasmussen doubted that someone is going to come in and do the calculations being proposed of a study calculating the number of employees and customers and decide they need more parking spaces than what is prescribed in the table if they can get away with what is in the table. Director Collins noted that an alternative parking analysis has to be reviewed by staff and determined to be reasonable and is based on the information that is provided. If V an Goes Pizza said they would not provide inside seating, then presumably they are going to be held to that standard. Chair Nutter again stated that her feeling is that the City's enforcement is very lax. Director Collins disagreed and noted that enforcement is largely enforced by written complaint that is followed to some resolution. Chair Nutter stated that the public will not make a complaint if they are not aware of the conditions. She stated that she has heard many complaints from the public who are unwilling to put them in writing, Commissioner Schramm pointed out that once this becomes policy, if it is through a Parking Assessment Plan, then that puts the burden on staff to either accept it or not accept it and to enforce it. While staff may have a clear vision of what the situation is, the fact of the matter is that a year or two from now staff could be different and have a different interpretation of the numbers and there are no guidelines to follow and they won't have the history the current staffhas. It then becomes too discretionary and any time there is that kind of discretion you don't get equal treatment for all parties involved. One person who comes in with their assessment might not get treated the same way as the next person who comes in with their assessment - there's too much discretion. Director Collins replied that ifhe understands what was being said, there should only be one method which is a standard table and if you can't meet the table then you have to go through the parking variance process? Commissioner Schramm agreed that the table provides standards and guidelines and, if you can't meet the guidelines, you have to go through a process of review where a board of people make a decision based on specific analysis as to whether there are grounds for a variance. Director Collins pointed out that is the way the ordinance currently reads. He reiterated that there will be a public hearing on the proposed amendments on February 17, 2004, and encouraged Planning Commission representation. Commissioner Schramm stated that the Planning Commission knows from past history that the Director (Collins) thinks parking will resolve itself, and ifpeople can't park they will take a bus or will find another form of transportation. Director Collins responded that that is not the position the staff has. Other staff members have the exact 180 degrees opposite opinion of that. Commissioner Schramm explained that there is a lot of variation in our thought processes, even on Table HAl' Under medical services, medical and dental offices requires a minimum of 6 parking spaces per doctor while hospitals require 1 parking space per bed. What about all the doctors and support staff that work in the hospital? The person that is in bed may not have his car there, but he is going to have visitors, and he is going to have a whole lot of people taking care of him and there is absolutely no parking provision for them at all but a medical office has to have 6 . . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes JanuGlY 28, 2004 Page 5 parking spaces per doctor. Director Collins explained that those are the numbers reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission in its initial review of the Parking Ordinance in 2002 which was sent to the City Council but not as yet acted upon, A debate about the requirements for hospitals and doctors' offices took place and it was decided that while there are probably other options, at the present time a detailed analysis would not be done. Commissioner Schramm replied that what the Planning Commission was told from staff after they had that long discussion is that staff didn't feel that any strict requirements should be put on the hospital because they didn't want the hospital to move out of the City. The Planning Commission recommendation was that there should be mandated parking spaces for the employees and allowances for the people who had to be treated at the hospital. Commissioner Norton asked about the appeal process. How does a person next door know there is an appeal process, what do they do, and what process does it go through? Director Collins explained that the only time neighbors are notified is if a parking variance is proposed then there is a public process before the Planning Commission, or, if off-site parking is proposed, then neighbors within 300 feet are going to be told because there is a chance somebody might not want to park 1200 feet away and they might choose to park on the neighbor's property which is within 300 feet. Those are the two instances the City Council want neighbors to be notified. Otherwise, parking is reviewed administratively following review of the Parking Ordinance. Neighboring property owners would have to know their rights under the law and appeal an egregious decision or the interpretation. An appeal may be submitted within 14 days of a decision. Commissioner Hewins noted that if a project takes a year to build, by the time it's finished and a negative impact is noted an appeal period would be over. Director Collins replied that if it turns out that we've approved a parking plan for 3 spaces and 10 spaces are actually needed then their parking approval (variance) would no longer be valid. Chair Nutter asked if the City would then shut down a business, and again, expressed skepticism that the City would want to take that action, Commissioner Schramm agreed that after a building permit and certificate of occupancy are issued the City isn't going to then indicate that a mistake has been made, no matter who caused the wrong calculation, and there isn't enough land to provide adequate parking so that a use must cease or move. That isn't going to happen. Director Collins added that the City would have to revoke approval of the business owner's parking plan. Chair Nutter said that this discussion will go to the City Council in their review of the Planning Conunission's minutes. It is important that the Council understand the Conunission's concerns. The CED Committee worked very hard on looking at this issue but when you are only looking at parking you are usurping part ofthe Planning Commission's overall objectives, and we see how it all fits together. Parking impacts how we do our planning, in this case for transportation. The CED group is only seeing parking and maybe not the ramifications of all ofthe other things that happen within a Comprehensive Plan. This does affect that and iffue City Council wants to have a committee do what the Planning Conunission does, why bother having a Planning Conunission? Let them appoint or create committees to do each little part of the Comprehensive Plan? Why do we need to be here? Director CoBins replied that the role of the Planning Commission is to advise the City Council. The CED Committee has taken the Planning Commission's recommendations under . . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 6 advisement, applied their own review, and have come up with some additional changes that they think: are what they would like to see happen. This was after several of the City Council members simply wanted to eliminate the Parking Ordinance. The Commission has expressed strong concern about enforcement. Why not simply ask the City Council to incorporate a more realistic enforcement requirement and tell them you're concerns. Commissioner Schramm posed the question that a business is building a new office with a personalized plan approved where the business owner states that there will be a maximum of 10 employees on site at any given time with three or four customers, so realistically they only need a maximum of 13 parking spaces. The building footprint takes up the entire parcel ofland (excluding setbacks) and 13 parking spaces. In fact, they really have 48 employees and support staff with weekly staff meetings and maybe increase the number of employees on duty at any given time due to business demands. It turns out 13 is no longer a realistic number. So two years after this building is built and been in business, neighbors start calling saying "their" people are parking in front of my house and in my driveway and we can't get in or out and they're slowing traffic on the street. Is the City going to say the parking plan isn't good anymore and we're going to shut them down? Director Collins answered that what would happen is that the City would have to determine that the submitted plan doesn't work anymore and the responsibility would be either reduce the number of employees or increase available parking spaces. The business owner would be given notice that they have responsibility to fix the parking problem. There isn't much in the ordinance that describes the enforcement process. Chair Nutter again expressed skepticism that the City would take action. Director Collins responded that the way the system works right now is that a business owner may apply for a Parking Variance through the Planning Commission where circumstances are analyzed and a reduction in parking may be allowed under specific circumstances. The suggested case would be similar but the issue would not go to the Planning Commission, instead, a plan proposed by a business owner would need to be supported and approved by staff. It's not likely that we're going to be the parking police and check daily on businesses and their parking issues. What's more likely to happen is that somebody's going to complain and investigation will require us to verify the situation or inform a business owner that they have exceeded their parking plan and they will need to either revise the plan and provide more parking orreduce the number of employees until the submitted plan is followed. Commissioner Schramm stated that is exactly his point. What happens is that some citizen has to now be put into a position where they have to write out a complaint and sign their name to it in order to point out the problem that shouldn't have been created. Why should they be put in that position? Director Collins replied that the reason they should be put in that position is because the standard tab Ie doesn't work. One size doesn't fit all, Not every Veterinary Office operates the same way and therefore needs exactly the same number of parking spaces, based on the number of doctors, or the number of square footage of their places or any ofthat. You have kennels so you have people coming and going to put dogs in a kennel and the other vet doesn't have kennels, and so he doesn't need as many parking spaces as you do. Commissioner Schramm stated that the difference is that at present every Vet Clinic in town had to follow the same rules for parking when they opened. Every one. There was no favoritism. . . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 7 Director Collins said he didn't believe there is favoritism here. What we're saying is that somebody has to come up with a realistic plan for how many parking spaces are required for the businesses. When they do that then they have committed to a plan. Commissioner Rasmussen commented that one thing he would like to get on the record is the example that Chuck brought up. This is a situation where the City Council is out of step with businesses. The reason that a business is going to move out of a building to a new location is because parking around the existing building is not adequate. Business people realize that they need to have adequate parking and that they need to have some guidelines as to what adequate parking is. It appears the City's going the other direction. Commissioner Hewins stated that he would recommend that the Council change a couple of things: One, that not just land use changes or building permits be required to trigger review of the parking issues but any use changes and that this be tied to a Certificate of Occupancy. He wanted to make sure there is some tie to a change of use because a building may house several offices with no visible changes because it is already set up as an office building. It may be that each person uses an individual office but they may decide to move out in the future to a larger facility or maybe a smaller facility and another business may go in that starts to put in cubicles and has four employees per office dramatically increasing the number of people working there. Director Collins noted that this wouldn't increase the parking requirement. Commissioner Hewins agreed, and added that another thing is that a minimum amount of parking should be required based on the size of the building in a district. There are restrictions on what types of businesses are allowed in specific zones and, based on a standard parking table, it may be that all of the permitted businesses require a minimum of one parking space per 400 square feet of floor area. When staff makes a decision based on a personalized plan, because it's not going to be reviewed in an open public hearing with open access and public notification that a variance may be going to be made by the City, the public should have the right to be notified so that a timely appeal can be made and the variance must be restricted to some specific formula that is based on building size because the building size determines what the potential occupancies can be. You can't put 45 people in a 100 square foot building and have them not impact an area. So a minimum number of parking spaces should be required. Director Collins pointed out that the CED Committee reviewed that situation and concluded that there are too many old buildings in town where the uses have changed over time and it's too difficult to change the parking requirement every time you change the use 0 f the building. They were also of the mind set that they don't want to allow changes of use in the Downtown and then penalize the Uptown businesses so that they can't take advantage ofthe same parking rules that happen in the Downtown. Commissioner Hewins said there is nothing that says you can't have a parking association at the corner of 8th and Lincoln Street like the in the Downtown especially if the City is willing to buy a parcel and put in a parking lot and charge $3000 dollars per space for parking. All the business people in that area will buy into it. These comments need to go to the City Council - they need to hear these issues. Director Collins assured the Planning Commission that they will go to the City Council and the reason staffbrought it up here is because the Planning Commission did not necessarily agree with all of the proposed changes. Because this is a legislative matter, the Commission's comments are . . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 8 only recommendations. The City Council will make the final decision and staff will enforce that legislative record whatever it is. Commissioner Hewins stated that the maj ori ty of the City Council has changed and they may have a substantially different take on parking than before. Chair Nutter agreed that this should go back to City Council. Commissioner Schramm felt the driving force behind all of this is still present and wondered if the support behind the driving force is still there. There are people who may have different opinions on the Council now. Many of the changes may be real estate driven and that could have changed some. Weare saying this is what we feel and we are getting our points out and we want this to go to the Council so they understand we think. this is a bad idea. Director Collins stated, based on the issues expressed on the lack of enforcement, he would encourage the Commission to raise their issues as they see fit. Chair Nutter added that she didn't think it was just the crux of the issue, it's one of the big issues in this whole thing. She wouldn't approve this and characterized it as a bad change. Director Collins asked ifthe way the Planning Commission recommended it to begin with is what you would actually like to see? Commissioner Hewins then added that he would like to make a comment regarding the earlier recommendations to the City Council. He recalled it was more or less a situation where the Commission was asked to make a recommendation that would dramatically reduce the level of heavy handedness by the City in the Parking Ordinance or the City would be left without a parking ordinance. It wasn't a matter of what we really would recommend. We didn't agree to all of that, we had some changes. There was a lot of discussion but at the time there was pressure to forward a recommendation or the Council would proceed and we would have no parking regulations. That's the feeling I had at the time and when I saw an article in the paper recently regarding the issue, I wondered why this didn't ever come back to us as another public meeting situation where we could discuss it and have some input from the public to make a new recommendation to the City Council based on this new proposal? I read there was a public hearing scheduled regarding major changes in the Parking Ordinance at the City Council only - not through the Planning Commission. So he was glad to see this on the agenda as a discussion item where these issues could be aired. What has been decided is that the Commission has concerns about enforcement, the new proposed changes which bring up a fairness issue, changes from one business to another business, and the appeal process. How will the public be notified when a method other than that used by everyone else for the past years is being contemplated? The ability to approve an alternative parking situation administratively on a case by case basis, where previously this would have been done through a public forum where people are notified, is a concern. Director Collins responded that originally the issue of parking came up because the Planning Commission struggled with parking issues for a long time and so there was a decision made to look at the Parking Ordinance and try to fix it. City staff and the City Manager in particular wanted to make the Parking Ordinance more business friendly, that it wasn't something that became the main reason that a new business couldn't be located in town. Inevitably, businesses would fall short one or two parking spaces and somehow that inflexibility seemed to be creating great havoc in getting economic development in town. So, based on those two points of view, staff started to work with the Planning Commission to redraft the Parking Ordinance. He thought the Planning Commission recommended those ideas and didn't get the impression they felt coerced and/or uncomfortable, but thought there were compromises made. . . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 9 Commissioner Hewins stated that one of the changes was that we go back and review the standard parking table to be a more current analysis of parking requirements and needs. There were a lot of uses in the table that were not being addressed. There was no previous discussion proposed at the Planning Commission level regarding alternatives or major modifications to the manner in which parking would be approved as is now being considered. Director Collins agreed and added that there wasn't a "let's go back and review the parking analysis concept". The issue was to deal with the numbers and wrestle with what was coming out of the economic development issues brought forward from the administration. The Planning Commission recommendation went to the City Council and the City Council at that time became frustrated struggling with the idea of guidelines versus requirements. At one point in the early review of the Planning Commission's recommendations, there was a City Council motion to simply repeal the Parking Ordinance. Staff indicated to the City Council that repealing the Ordinance without having something to replace it with would be short sighted, and we needed to go back and provide something else if this was what is desired. Several members of the City Council actually thought they had repealed the Parking Ordinance. The matter was then sent back to staff to come up with some alternatives. Staff did try to come up with alternatives and that may be where we went more to the guidelines versus requirements. Guidelines were redrafted rather than requirements and taken to the Council's Economic Development Commi ttee. That's where an alternate proposal came from. Several reworks ofthe Planning Commission's recommendation resulted in a new version. This process has taken place over the course of the past year and one-half. Commissioner Hewins recalled that after the City Council considered repeal of the ordi nance, the fo llowing month came a request for the Planning Commission to reconsider its earlier recommendation to be returned to the City Council and it was then that we felt we were working under the guise that if we didn't make these recommendations or didn't come up with something the Council would repeal the ordinance. The Commission then made another recommendation that was more along these lines of (I felt) coercion. Director Collins replied that staff will go back and look at what the original recommendation ofthe Planning Commission was regarding required parking numbers and put that into the form of a table as well. Then we'll have two tables for them to look at. He reiterated that a public hearing is scheduled for Council's February 17,2004, meeting. Commissioner Hewins stated that he would prefer staff to find use analysis done by professional organizations with regards to the real uses of parking and to formulate a table with realistic, commonly used business uses as compared to some of the uses on that existing table. Director Collins replied that Associate Planner Johns did that type of analysis and it really didn't help much. Then we did another analysis where Assistant Planner Roberds looked at what other cities parking requirements are and put them on a matrix. The numbers were all over the board and somewhere in the middle was determined as being reasonable. You can't go to the ITT manual any more and find out what the parking engineers think is the right number. Commissioner Schramm stated what we do have are classic examples of where we have parking problems now and have historically had parking problems. He deals with parking problems on a daily basis in his business. There are several highly visible places in the City where cars are parked on city sidewalks every day because certain businesses do not have enough parking, In other locations rental cars and business vehicles are parked in such a manner that intersections are . . . ..,;. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28, 2004 Page J 0 hazardous and vehicles completely block or 0 bscure intersections with no enforcement. It's obvious to every city employee and every police officer who see these situations but there is no enforcement. These situations are safety issues and nothing is done about it. What we do have is a long history of parking problems in Port Angeles and the current amended proposal does not deal with it. This does not make our community a safer place. It does not make businesses a better place for clients or customers. This does not resolve anything, it only makes parking worse. We're supposed to be making things better. We're supposed to be making things safer. This doesn't do any of those things. Director Collins replied that the only thing that is clear is that there is no agreement on how to solve this problem, or what the problem is. You've made your recommendation and the minutes will reflect that you are not happy with the amended proposal. The City Council will take that under advisement and likely make a decision. Commissioner Rasmussen stated that staff has made a good point and that this is a hard problem, Commissioner Hewins has summarized the main areas of concern very well and we're not going to get any further tonight. Chair Nutter stated that the Planning Commission believes the current proposal is not a step forward and that this is a big problem that does not help the current situation. She asked that quite a bit of detai 1 of the discussion be put in the minutes. Director Collins answered that the minutes will reflect the discussion. Relying on the minutes to deliver your message to the City Council may not be the most effective way. A spokesperson from the Planning Commission may better represent the Planning Commission at the City Council meeting. Chair Nutter was designated to represent the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Director Collins reiterated that staff has tried to work with both factions on this. The staffis very divided on the parking issue but is trying to work with everybody to come up with something that is workable that will work for businesses and neighborhoods. There being no more staff reports, Director Collins noted that interviews for the vacant Planning Commission seat would be held at 4: 15 p.m. on February 3,2004, prior to the regular City Council meeting. There are four candidates for the position. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Rasmussen handed out a summary of the observations that he made during his lengthy trip (over 9,000 miles). Commissioner Norton handed out a set of drawings ofthe Port Angeles downtown waterfront promenade that was recently made available at a Port Angeles Forward meeting he attended. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ~. ~ Bra Collins, Secretary ~~ Li. a Nutter, Ch r PREPARED BY: S. Johns FORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U, S. A. . PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET PLEASESIGN IN Meeting Agenda of: ~tJA12j cJ8)~ To help us provide an accurate record of those in attendance, please sign in. Your signature acknowledges your presence. lfyou plan to testify, by your signature below, you certify that the testimony given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington. Signature below DOES NOT REQUIRE you to testify. l')J.N\1E: ADDRESS: Agenda Item No. ()~ ~\~{ \l~ ~ r~ -\A- r ()L,- . - .