Shoreline Plan Approved

Ruston's plan for its tiny section of state shoreline (1,500 feet) has received approval from the Department of Ecology. It was years in the making, but it's finally done. An article in the Business Examiner (here) explains that the new regulations are now part of the state's shoreline rules, which means the state will defend them against any legal action. The full text of the 53-page plan is available here...

Commercial Development Moratorium Lifted

The Ruston council waived the second reading for the trio of ordinances that updated their development codes and removed the moratorium on commercial development at their meeting last night. Despite Councilmember Hardin's concerns about repeating the complaints about rushing the issue through without public input, the council unanimously approved the changes recommended by the planning commission after their public hearing in May.

The changes are primarily focused on rearranging the requirements into an easier-to-understand format. But the changes also included adding the design requirements from the Pearl Street zone to the rest of the commercial zone. When the design elements were first adopted along Pearl Street, higher heights were allowed to offset the additional costs of those requirements. Only the increased design requirements were added to the rest of the commercial zone without allowing the increased heights or the less restrictive parking of the Pearl zone.

Ruston Suspends All New Commercial Development

The Ruston Council passed an emergency ordinance at its March 19th meeting that immediately suspended any and all new development in the commercial zones within town. It appears this may also mean no business licenses will be allowed for any new businesses.

The council is holding a special hearing at their meeting tonight to extend what they define as an emergency moritorium on all new development for six more months. All vacant storefronts may have to remain vacant while the planning comission continues to study the issue of how to keep the residentail nature of Ruston entact while still allowing property owners to develop their property. The meeting starts at 7pm at the Mary Joyce Community Center, 5219 N. Shirley Street.

Link to tonight's agenda
Link to Ordinance 1406 - Extending the Emergency Moratorium on New Development

Meetings: Mix of Old and New

UPDATE, 4:30pm: Town planner Rob White clarified that the planning commission open house is for public input on where the changes should be made to the comprehensive plan. This is your chance to say want you want to see in our future.
__________________________________________

Two meetings this week offer a mix of forward planning and historical remnants:

• Comprehensive Plan: Wednesday, March 27th at 7pm at the Joyce Community Center, the Ruston Planning Commission will hold a hearing on changes to the Comprehensive Plan. This plan lays out the guidelines and scope for all the zoning codes and future development. If you can't make the meeting, written comments can be emailed to robw@rustonwa.org. The current 2003 plan can be viewed here... The discussion materials from the planning commission meeting on the issue are available here...
• New Yard Replacement Program: Thursday, March 28th, 6:30-8:30pm at Point Defiance Elementary School, Washington State Department of Ecology will host an open house to outline their new yard cleanup program. The project includes reviewing the EPA cleanup on Ruston yards and potential replacement of some of those yards. More details are available here... 

Sign Codes

The planning commission is continuing to propose changes to the Town's zoning codes that they feel improve the appearance of Ruston. You'll recall that they developed changes in landscaping requirements that would apply to residential homes as well as businesses (here). Now they are considering changing the zoning code requirements for signs on both commercial and residential properties. They held the first hearing last Wednesday and only the president of the business district Beth Torbet attended.

Ms. Torbet encouraged the commission to consider incentives rather than heavy-handed regulation that would negatively impact the town's current commercial businesses. Everyone wants a pleasant appearance, but with so many struggling just to keep their doors open this is not the time to impose expensive upgrades.

The commission will discuss the issue again at their meeting on January 26th at 7 pm. Details on the proposal can be found on the town's web page here.

This is your only chance to provide your input. Once the proposal reaches the town council for final approval, public comment is no longer allowed.You can submit your comments in writing if you can't attend the meeting in person.

Public Hearing on Landscape Requirements

UPDATE: Just a reminder this planning commission meeting is scheduled for this Wednesday. Please attend and give your input!
_________________________________________

Ruston's planning commission has recommended new landscape requirements for private homes that add 10% or more to their square footage and to properties within the commercial zone. A second public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 17th at 7 pm. You can submit written comment prior to the hearing. The commission will hold a work session this Wednesday, November 10th (presumably at 7 pm) to discuss this issue along with the Shoreline Master Plan.
More details on the proposed landscape changes are available here... The town planner has prepared a Question and Answer sheet based on comments given at the first meeting (available here).

New Roof

I noticed this weekend that the roof had been removed from the house under construction at 5311 N. Shirley. The new tresses are being delivered today. It appears the town prevailed in their determination to require the steeper pitch on the roof in order to build over 25' tall. You can read more details in the town planner's report here....

Pearl Street Zoning: Opinion

UPDATE: Tuesday, Sept. 8, 12:45 pm:
I confirmed with the town planner that public comment is allowed on this issue. So if you have something to say, come by the council meeting tonight at 7 pm and let your elected leaders know what you think about this issue or anything else on your mind. 7 pm at Town Hall ~ 5117 N. Winnifred. See you there!
___________________________________________________________

There are usually at least two sides to any issue. That is certainly true for the debate over how to handle the zoning on the last two blocks of Pearl Street. To summarize, there is a conflict between Ruston's comprehensive plan (our long-range plan) and the current zoning map that controls the actual zoning. The comprehensive plan denotes these two blocks as part of the COM-P zone (Pearl Street commercial), but the zoning map shows them as residential.

The planning commission considered a proposal to bring the zoning code into alignment with the comprehensive plan under the assumption that was the intention when the plan was last updated. But the petition signers proposed a new idea - change the comprehensive plan to residential so this issue won't come up again. A public hearing was held on the initial proposal with testimony asking the planning commission to take a new direction. After closing public input, the commission voted to recommend changing the comprehensive plan. No hearing or formal input has been allowed on the new proposal.

When the commission began their deliberations, there were several misconceptions that I was concerned about. I wrote this letter to the town planner in hopes that the information could be shared with the commission before they made their decision. I share it with you now as just another piece that should be considered when making important policy decisions like this. The viewpoint of the petition signers was posted last month here....., now for some another viewpoint. I'm happy to post anyone's opinion, just email me at kpickett22@yahoo.com.

____________________________________
Hello Rob and Planning Commissioners:

I wanted to get some additional information to you after some of the questions and comments that came up at your last meeting. I hope this email and attachments can be provided to the commission prior to their meeting on Wednesday.

The current debate is about not only the zoning along Pearl, but about how Ruston will deal with, encourage and build (or not) it's business core - and about our long-range planning as a community. Regardless of the decision on this proposal, I hope the planning commission will take the lead on bringing the community together for a comprehensive look at our future and what this evolving town wants.

This area is a logical place to plan for growth. Steps can be taken to mitigate potential impacts. This decision should not be based in emotions or fear. I hope you will consider what is what is best for the town as a whole, not unfounded rumors that were clearly answered at the last meeting.

If the decision is to change the Comprehensive Plan rather than the zoning code, please use this opportunity to focus on updating the Plan. There is a lot of momentum right now. We could hold a series of neighborhood meetings to get ideas flowing, gather the priorities from residents, even educate folks about what the town's priorities are. It might be nice for each commissioner to hold a meeting in each section of town - have one person invite their neighbors in for a "coffee hour" and brainstorm about what makes Ruston tick, what we need, where we want to be in 10 years. Then hold a town-wide meeting to present a summary of what discussed.

Just an idea, but the idea of some kind of community "vision" process or strategic planning has been talked about for years now - please use this opportunity to turn that talk into something useful (not only the plans, but the chance to come together and dream rather than disagree when specific proposals come up).

Tacoma has based its Neighborhood Districts and Business District programs on the Main Street development principles (available at http://www.preservationnation.org/main-street/about-main-street/the-approach/). I hope you will consider these principles in your decisions. This approach focuses on encouraging development in core areas (downtowns) that offer a mix of retail, housing and axillary support businesses. This approach offers important information on making your business area walkable and attractive - something that I hope you will consider for our current businesses.

I am very concerned about the discussion at the last meeting that seemed to indicate that the future Point Ruston retail area should be our focus, and alluded to there being no chance for commercial success anywhere else in town. I've attached an email from Metro Parks and the zoo - this major attraction brings at least a million visitors into Ruston each year. We are not a dead-end road with no development potential, we sit next door to a major destination. There is so much more we can and should be doing to harness some of that potential to help Ruston survive.

The question was raised about what commercial business had to offer over residential homes. There is a need to balance our neighborhood needs for quiet with the very real need to sustain the services to provide that quiet neighborhood. In Ruston, we pay a property tax rate of 9.7138 per thousand of assessed value for residential property. Commercial property is often assessed higher, but would pay at least the same amount of tax as a house.

One of the advantages of having even a small business is the additional tax it would generate. I've attached Ruston's B&O tax rate, that any business with quarterly gross receipts over $5,000 pays. For retail, a tax of .00153 is charged on all gross receipts, regardless of profit. In addition, out of the 9.3% sales tax, 2.8% comes back to Ruston's general fund.

Having a vibrant retail/commercial core adds to the quality of life for the neighborhood too. Being able to walk to shop, eat and find entertainment is good for a community. Having people get out of their cars on the way to the zoo or ferry to pay taxes here is a good thing.

I've also included a survey of the two blocks you are considering (both sides of the street). You'll note that none of the Tacoma side has any homes directly on Pearl, although some are close. Almost half of the Ruston side is already vacant or multi-family use, and I believe several of the houses in this area are rentals as was mentioned by one of the property owners at the last meeting.

If you cannot see your way to supporting this proposal at this time, I hope you will use the interest it has generated not only as a catalyst for a long overdue community-wide planning effort, but to enhance our current businesses who give so much to help Ruston survive. We need a balance - we cannot have just a quiet neighborhood without an economic engine to support it.

Thanks for listening. Please contact me with any questions at (253) 228-8529.

Sincerely,

Karen

Planning Commission Recommends Residential On Pearl

The planning commission met on August 26th to discuss what they would recommend to the council on the proposal to change the zoning along Pearl Street to commercial from 52nd to 54th as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing had been held and a petition presented with the majority of property owners opposed to the idea. Colett Judd was on vacation and not present.

The town planner began by reporting that Tacoma's planning commission had decided not pursue zoning for a mixed use center on their side of Pearl. Cherrie Anderson made a motion to recommend to the council that they change the comprehensive plan for this area to residential because so many of the residents wanted it that way. The motion was seconded by Richard Pederson.

Kevin Moser agreed that he did not want to change the zoning to commercial, but he did not see the need to change the comprehensive plan. If conditions changed in the future making commercial development favorable, the zoning could be changed at that time. Pederson did not want folks in the area to worry about this coming up again. If things changed, they could just change the comprehensive plan back to commercial.

Moser asked the planner what would be involved if the town wanted to change the comprehensive plan back to commercial in the future. The planner explained that the zoning is residential, but the comprehensive plan shows the area as commercial. The proposal was to change the zoning map, but the commission is now wanting to change the land use designation - which is a much more involved process that would take at least 4 months. The state is requiring that Ruston update its plan by 2011 anyway and the town council may want to look at this change as part of that overall detailed review of the whole plan.

The planner pointed out it would be much more difficult to change from residential to commercial if the town wanted change this back in the future. As it stands now, no one can do commercial development in this area without requesting a variance. If the zoning map were changed in the future, the burden for the extensive environmental review would fall on the developer for each individual proposal. They would have to show any impact on sewers, roads, police, etc. If the town follows this recommendation by the planning commission and then wants to change it back in the future, the burden for the environmental review would fall on the town. The town would have to pay for the study of impacts on sewers, etc.

The motion to change the comprehensive plan to residential for this area passed 3-2 with Moser and Ficiala voting no. Their recommendation will be forwarded to the town council for consideration.

Planning Commission Meeting: August 12, 2009

The staff report is available on Ruston Reports (click here). The staff analysis, findings and conclusions reads:

"When considering change to the official zoing map, (Exhibit B), the Planning Commission must first begin by looking to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, the document which represent the Town's official vision for with it is to become. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that change to the zoning code and zoning map are to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to determine if the proposed changes to the zoning code or zoning map are indeed consistent prior to forwarding an ordinance on to the Town Council with a recommendation for approval.

As shown on the attached Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map, (Exhibit C), it can be seen that the subject properties have a designation of "PCOM" and are not included within the areas of the town designated as RES (Single Family Residential).

Staff finds that the proposal to update the Town's official zoning map by rezoning the properties located on the east side of Pearl Street between 52nd and 54th Street from RES to COM-P is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the official Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation map."

______________________________

The hearing began at 7 pm. Commissioner Byran Ficiala was absent. After the formalities and agenda review for the public hearing, public testimony began.

Jennifer Martin from Highland Ave. expressed concern about the proposal. She had heard the height limits would be changed to allow 45 feet tall buildings (proposal allows 35 feet).

Jennifer Jensen from Highland Ave. urged a no vote on this proposal. In the 3 and half years she has lived here the area has gotten nosier. This proposal would only increase that noise. She was also concerned about privacy and wanted to be sure the proposal fits with what is planned for the Tacoma side of Pearl. She urged the commission to respect the residential nature of the current neighborhood.

Christine Fletcher from 52nd Street was worried that commercial development would increase traffic and parking in the neighborhood. She was concerned for the safety of the children.

Ginger Kryger of Highland Ave. reminded the commissioners that this proposal was made three years ago and neighbors rejected it. She reviewed the petition she and friends had collected. Since there is a discrepancy between the zoning code and the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan should be changed to residential rather than making the zoning code commercial.

I spoke in favor of the proposal noting the need to increase our tax base. This is a natural area to expand retail shops all the way down to the park, but nothing was likely to happen for some time. I mentioned the large-scale development across the street from my house on Shirley that I had supported. Even though there was a personal cost, it was needed for the overall good of the town.

Beth Torbet of Winnifred spoke in favor of the proposal. It makes sense to bring commercial all the way down Pearl Street. Retail at the entrance of the park will encourage people to get out of their cars and walk – something needed to support the businesses further up the street. She encouraged broader planning and brainstorming to outline what types of businesses we want and where. Once those goals are outlined, we can set codes and incentives to encourage those goals.

Mike Mussig who owns property in this area of Pearl wants the area zoned commercial. Most of the area is commercial anyway, even this two block area has an apartment complex and large condo building in it. He thinks it would be fair to him as a property owner to give him the same ability to develop his property like these existing multi-family/commercial developments on Pearl.

The town planner then gave some comments. He noted that an environmental review would be required for any individual development proposal that would address parking, traffic or other concerns. Impacts could be mitigated as part of the development, such as traffic revisions to slow traffic. Even if commercial zoning were approved, there would be another chance to address specific concerns each time a property is developed. There are already parking requirements for the commercial zone.

He noted that the comprehensive plan is intended to be a 20-year look into the future, where the town is headed in the future. It serves as a planner’s bible. The current inconsistency is difficult to work with.

In his opinion, the commission has several options:

• Approve the proposal to make the zoning code match the comprehensive plan (as commercial for this area)
• Approve the proposal with modifications
• Deny the change and let the inconsistency remain in place.
• Move to change the comp plan to residential for this area.

The commission then allowed more questions from the public. Ginger had some questions about how easily the variance for Coles Tavern redevelopment was approved – it may be too easy for commercial development in this area to go to 45 feet. The planner noted some unique reasons why that variance made sense that would not apply to other lots.

Jon Anderson wanted to confirm the allowable heights under this proposal (35 feet) rather than the 25 feet currently allowed in a residential zone. The planner clarified that unlike other jurisdictions, Ruston code requires all mechanical appliances or other roof structures to fit into that 35 feet, so the usable space is less with 35 feet.

Jennifer clarified that the current commercial zoning on Pearl does not require off street parking for some development, but new residential development requires 2 off street parking spaces. The planner explained that a previous council had probably wanted to provide some incentive for new development and encourage residential on top of street level retail. He noted a recent comment by a council member that parking was not a problem right now, but if there ever was growth enough to create a problem the town could address it.

Beth asked again that folks find things they do want, find ways to make this area more productive for the town.

Tom Kryger of Highland Ave. said he was on the planning commission when the commercial designation was made in the comprehensive plan many years ago. He recalled there was no public input at the time, folks were more complacent. There was no specific development proposed for the Point Ruston area at that time. He would expect a different response if the same proposal were made today. He suggested changing the comprehensive plan to residential so the issue won’t keep coming up again and neighbors won’t have to stay awake at night worried about kids getting run over in the alley.

The record was then closed and the planning commission began their deliberations. Cherrie Anderson felt that Ruston has seen so many changes that we should preserve as much of our neighborhoods as we can. With Pearl being a dead end street, there would never be support for strong retail on that end of Pearl. No one is out walking that area now. She would hate to see our neighborhood disrupted by high rises. She did not feel this change was needed right now, especially with so many people speaking against it.

Collett Judd agreed with Cherrie. She did not see a need to make this change right now.

Dick Pederson guessed that one third of the town is already zoned commercial and he did not feel any more was needed. The residential zone is important to the neighborhood feel. He recommends changing the comprehensive plan to residential so the issue does not come up again.

Charles Ranes did not feel the issue was clear-cut. He has seen successful small-scale commercial development that seems to work well next to residential neighborhoods like 30th and Carr. He envies those that can walk to a nice restaurant or retail store.

Chair Kevin Moser also felt torn. He sees the relevance of increasing the tax base, especially with the current budget shortfall.

Collette wanted to know what the sales tax rate was and how much difference it would make compared to a residential home. Cherrie stated again now is not the time to make this change. Kevin understood the concern over loss of privacy. Dick felt that in comparison to other business clusters, the area on Pearl would never be able to compete since it is on a dead end area. The choice development will be at Point Ruston and that is at a standstill right now. He did not see any reason to push this change through right now.

The planner told the commission that he has a meeting with Tacoma next week to talk about their side of Pearl Street and asked if the commission was willing to wait until he had that meeting before making their decision. The commissioners agreed to address this issue again at their next meeting on August 26th. The meeting adjourned at about 8 pm.

Pearl Street Zoning

I'll get a full report out soon on the planning commission's public hearing last night regarding the zoning designation on Pearl Street from 52nd to the entrance of the park. But the following letter was presented to the town planner with 62 signatures representing almost 100% of the properties on Highland (the street directly east of Pearl):
Rob White, Town Planner
North Creek Consulting

Dear Mr. White,

This letter is regarding the upcoming public hearing of the rezone for the east side of Pearl Street between 52nd and 54th Streets from RES to COM-P.

This issue came up once before about 2 ½ years ago. The Council rejected this part of the rezone with good reason. At that time, the residents of this area made it quite clear that they were not in favor of this change for the following reasons:

1. Increased alley traffic and noise. The proposed area is not isolated in any way—it shares an alley with mostly older single-family homes. Since the proposed change protects the view of the front side (Pearl Street) of the buildings, parking, garbage, deliveries, noisy heating and cooling units--to name a few, would all be open to the alley and therefore the residents’ homes.
2. Decreased privacy. The intended change appears to be focused on a mixed commercial/residential use for this area. If there are residential units above the commercial units, the view would be directly down or into the backyards and windows of the existing residential units on Highland Street . Design considerations for any new building areas appear to concentrate on the Pearl Street frontage. Can the privacy of the established residences be protected?
3. Increased traffic on Highland Street . Not only would there be more general traffic on this street, but most assuredly there would be a dramatic increase in parking on Highland Street . Though there would be on-site parking for customers and perhaps most residents of any proposed complex, workers would park on Highland Street—the easiest access.
4. There has already been a recent change to zoning on Pearl Street from N. 51st to N. 52nd. At the present time, there appears to be sufficient COM-P properties available in Ruston as well as the west side of Pearl Street in Tacoma . Many of those properties are unused, underused or underdeveloped. There seems to be little need to extend the COM-P zone all the way to Pt. Defiance Park . Rather than enhance the entry into the park, this change would make a family trip to the zoo or Owen Beach on a sunny summer day even more cumbersome. Once a zone has been changed, it is difficult to change it back.

Although the need for increased residential density (mixed with commercial) in our small town is debatable considering the 17.5 acres of mixed use property in the MPD, the proposed rezone on Pearl Street does not address that supposed need in a sensitive manner consistent with section 3.4 of the Comprehensive Plan (“Protect and enhance the character and vitality of established residential neighborhoods.”). Many concerns are not addressed in the COM-P zoning in the current Comprehensive Plan. It was surprising that a rezone notice was not sent to all residents of Ruston , but merely the ones within a certain area. Is that normal? Since a rezone of this type reflects a major aspect of tiny Ruston , the whole town needs to be given a chance to speak on this.

We, as a neighborhood, were quite surprised with the arrival of the public hearing notice. We felt that we had spoken loudly enough previously and that our public officials had listened. We feel it is time to change the Comprehensive Plan--not the zoning--to better reflect the realities of development of this small part of Ruston .

Thank you for taking the time to hear and assess our concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Name Address Comments

Public Hearing Tonight

Just a reminder that the planning commission is holding a public hearing tonight to receive comment about a proposal to change the zoning classification along the east side of Pearl Street. The area from N. 52nd to the entrance of Point Defiance Park is currently zoned as residential. This proposal would make this two block area a commercial zone.

The last time this was proposed, it drew sharp criticism from neighbors. I understand several adjacent property owners are concerned about the proposal this time. Everyone is encouraged to come to Town Hall at 7 pm and hear the details of the proposal. Then let the commission know your views. See you there!

Proposal To Add Commercial Zoning

The Ruston planning commission will hold a hearing next Wednesday August 12th to consider changing the zoning classification along the east side of Pearl Street from N. 52nd to 54th. Currently the area is zoned residential. The east side of Pearl from the town boundary at N. 49th to 52nd is zoned commercial, listed as COM-P in the zoning code map. This proposal would extend the commercial zone all the way down Pearl Street to the entrance of Point Defiance Park.

I've already heard from some neighbors in the area who are opposed to the change. Please be sure to attend the hearing and let your views be known, both pro and con. ~ Karen

Planning Commission Recommends Pearl Street Height Increase

The staff report is available on Ruston Reports.

After a very short public hearing tonight, the Ruston Planning Commission recommended two changes to Ruston's zoning code for the commercial zone on the east side of Pearl Street: 1) allow 2 stories and up to 35' for structures from Ruston's southern border to N. 50th and 2) allow 3 stories and 45' from N. 50th to 52nd. The rest of Pearl from N. 52nd to 54th is zoned residential.

The meeting began at 7 pm with Chair Kevin Moser reading the usual script for a public hearing. After the flag salute, the planning commission members and anyone in the audience wishing to testify raised their right hand and swore their testimony would be truthful. Commission members were given the opportunity to state any conflict of interest and the audience was given a chance to challenge any of them.

There were only two members of the public in attendance; both of us spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. After the public hearing was closed, the planning commission began their deliberations. Commissioner Dick Pederson was concerned that the discussion in the staff report did not draw a clear enough line between the two heights allowed in this area. But he agreed that the change to the wording in the code text was clear enough.

Commissioner Cherrie Anderson moved to recommend that the council approve the zoning code changes as written. After Bryan Ficiala seconded, the motion was approved by all 5 commissioners. The meeting adjourned about 7:20 pm. The issue will be considered by the Ruston town council sometime in July.

Height Increase On Pearl Street?

The Ruston Planning Commission will consider raising the height limit for buildings on Pearl Street to 40 feet at its meeting next Wednesday. The current limit is 35 feet.

The last time this issue was considered, the planning commission recommended a 45 foot height allowance to match what is available on the Tacoma side of Pearl. But the council at the time reduced it to 35 feet, while keeping the allowance for three stories. They also included planning commission recommendations to avoid the "big box" syndrome with variations in building facades, etc.

Developers have consistently said 35 feet does not allow for a high-quality three story building. That same issue was presented when the variance was approved for the The Ruston Building LLC.

Please attend the meeting next Wednesday, May 27th at 7 pm at Town Hall (5117 N. Winnifred) and let your thoughts on the issue be heard. Background material and staff recommendations are available from town planner Rob White on his web site here...

No Commercial Vehicles on Residential Properties

UPDATE: Tuesday, April 7th: The town planner clarified last night that this zoning code change would only apply to private properties (such as a yard or driveway). Any regulation of public streets are governed directly by the town council via ordinance or other codes.
_________________________________________
The planning commission will be holding a hearing this Wednesday to to hear from you about a new regulation they want to adopt. They want to prohibit parking of commercial vehicles on any residential properties in Ruston. The announcement and proposed change to the zoning code is below. If you have questions or want to comment, stop by Town Hall (5117 N. Winnifred) at 7 pm on Wednesday, April 8, 2009.

Planning Commission: March 25, 2009

The planning commission will be meeting on Wednesday to review parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas. Here is the agenda and background information:

Planning Commission Approves The Ruston Building Variances

UPDATE: Saturday, January 31st, 10:15 am: A few more details on the hearing... Commissioner Cherrie Anderson was absent. Colett Judd and Dick Pederson voted against the variance requests. Bryan Ficiala, Charles Ranes and Kevin Moser voted in favor.

Pederson and Juddy cited concerns about setting a precedent by allowing a taller building. They preferred having the council change the zoning code rather than granting a variance. The planner suggested dealing with the overall building height/zoning code issue separately.

The public testimony was largely supportive of the variances. Only one person from Tacoma (the owner of some commercial property at 51st and Pearl) expressed opposition. In the end the vote was 3-2 in favor. The town council will now make the final decision on the issue.
________________________________________________

The variance requests for The Ruston Building (former Coles Tavern) passed with a 3 to 2 vote by the planning commission last night. Their recommendation now goes to the town council for another vote. I don't have any further details yet, but will post them when I can. ~ Karen

Public Hearing Tonight

Despite the tough economic times, Ruston has another development proposal knocking at our door. This time it is right in the middle of our commercial core. Tonight the planning commission will hold a hearing on two variance requests for The Ruston Building LLC (details below). Please attend and let your thoughts be known. 7 pm at Town Hall ~ 5117 N. Winnifred.

Stack Hill Hearing

7 pm, Wednesday, the new planning commission will hear public testimony about Point Ruston's request to remove the view corridor that Ruston's former planner had insisted on in Lot 12. This picture is from Lot 33 (see the full site plan here). When the town council considered the issue, the testimony was pretty evenly split with a few more who favored having a taxable house on the lot rather than the limited view.

In the end, the council voted this amendment down with a 3-2 vote (read recap of the meeting here). Council Member Hunt later indicated she had changed her mind, which has created a whole flurry of activity and upset (this upset was mentioned by Council Member Albertson as one of the reasons for Mayor Everding's resignation). More information on the views involved is available here.

So, the issue will be heard again using the normal process now that we have a planning commission in place. Please attend and give your opinion. Everyone's input is vital in a small town like Ruston, so send a letter or show up to testify. Input from those of you in Tacoma would be great, too!

Letters must be received by 4:30 tomorrow or can be presented at the meeting (send your thoughts with a neighbor if you can't attend). See you all there!