Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10241996 Min Ag . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Second Amendment) Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Special Workshop Meeting October 24, 1996 I. ROLL CALL II. APPR.OVAL OF MINUTES: October 10, 1996 and October 17, 1996 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. First Amendment to the Rosewind Property Use and Development Agreement 1. Staff Report, (Dave Robison) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Land Use Law Workshop held 10/14/96, Questions and Answers (Tim McMahan and Dave Robison) Planning Commission Procedural Rules Discussion, (Dave Robison and Tim McMahan) Revision to the Parking Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Revision to Fences, Walls, Hedges & Arbors Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions F. Revision to Home Occupation Code 1. S·taff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. C. . D. E. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Scheduling Process for Review and Recommendation on Draft Chapter 20.04 PTMC (Process for Amending the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations) VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 31, 1996 Planning Commission Workshop on Phase I Development Regulations (if needed) . Nov~JIlber 14, 1996 VI. ADJOURN -"-"-~--',"'- ".~~ _...._._.~'-~ · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Amended) Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Special Workshop Meeting October 24, 1996 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 10, 1996 and October 17, 1996 m. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. First Amendment to the Rosewind Property Use and Development Agreement 1. Staff Report, (Dave Robison) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Revision to the Parking Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions · C. Revision to Fences, Walls, Hedges & Arbors Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions D. Revision to Home Occupation Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS A. Scheduling Process for Review and Recommendation on Draft Chapter 20.04 PTMC (process for Amending the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations) VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings Octpber 31, 1996 Planning Commission Workshop on Phase I Development Regulations (if needed) · November 14,1996 VI. ADJOURN ---'''''"-~......._"'',. -. - " · · · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting October 24, 1996 I. ROLL CALL The meetipg was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Linda Clifton, Mark Welch, Cindy Thayer and John Boles. Karen Erickson was excused. Staff members present were Dave Robison, and Eric Toews. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of October 10, 1996 and October 17, 1996, as written and corrected was made by Thayer and seconded by Clifton. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail Thayer discussed the City Document List received from Robison. Robison said they should have a set of all documents at home and they would provide a set on the table at their meetings. He said for each of them to request copies they need. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. First Amendment to the Rosewind Property Use and Development Agreement 1. Staff Report (Dave Robison) Robison said the draft findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission dated October 24 comprise the first amendment to the Rosewind POOA of May 1994. He said the requested amendment is to reduce the required east setback on lot # 1 of the Rosewood POO to 5' from 10' to allow for the construction of a slightly larger single family home. He stated the Rosewind Home Owner's Association is in agreement with the change in the POO. He said Staff does not determine it is a substantial alteration of the original plan and recommended that the Planning Commission find there is no public hearing needed and no significant impact caused. 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Boles stated the amendment is 5', and noted the west side set back is shown as 4'. He asked if the l' would come out of the right-of-way. Robison said they would check on that. · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 2 MOTION SECOND Discussion: VOTE Clifton Not to proceed to hearing, and approve the amendment. Enarson Robison said no comments have been received. Unanimous -- 6 in favor 0 opposed. B. Land Use Law Workshop held 10/14/96, Questions and Answers (Tim McMahan and Dave Robison) Robison stated if there were any particular items that came up that the Planning Commission wanted more information on, they should let Staff know and they would prepare additional information. Mark Welch indicated the video tapes ofthe Land Use Law Workshop are now ready for vIewmg. C. Planning Commission Procedural Rules Discussion (Dave Robison and Tim McMahan) Robison said at a recent workshop on public judicial hearings, one of the speakers indicated that the Planning Commission should be taking oaths at public hearings. He said City Attorney McMahan had written a memo to the Mayor on that matter about a month earlier, and back in August wrote a memo to the Planning Commission, himself and the Mayor regarding the rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Robison said he copied the existing Rules and Procedures of the Planning Commission that were adopted by the Planning Commission in 1983, and it does appear they need to be amended and brought up to date. He said they are suggesting spending some time at the end of tonight's meeting or during the meeting reserved for next Thursday, on Planning Commission procedural rules and responsibilities indepth, and Riggins Rules copied from the Planning Commissioners Journal. McMahan said the matter of oaths was strongly encouraged by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WICA). He said it is a danger issue, a simple thing to do. Theré was discussion as to when and how to give oaths. Boles, suggested putting it in "'Yes"/ "'No" boxes on the sign-in sheet and indicate "'Please Note for the Record." Enarson requested setting this aside for a further meeting. Robison noted a memo from Mary Winters regarding the Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process, and that they would like to bring it before the Planning Commission for their input before having a public hearing on it. He noted this will be a significant role for the Planning Commissioners on an annual basis and that they will be key players. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 3 D. Revision to the Parking Code 1. Staff Report (Eric Toews) Toews asked to dispense with the staff reports tonight on all ofthe revisions. He noted the three exhibits from the last hearing are copied and in Commission Packets along with a letter from Joseph Finney and a letter dated May 24 from Sheri Robison for Main Street. He also stated two letters received after the close of Public Testimony last Thursday had been placed in the file in advance of City Council's Hearing of Phase I, for their deliberative process. 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Thayer said the draft minutes basically give the pertinent testimony, and that they did not get a lot of negative comment on the Parking Code. Welch said for an interim ordinance, it is a pretty good one. It goes a long way in making some real changes and encouraging some development. He said the parking ordinance seems to work pretty well on the following criteria: is the purpose legitimate? does the ordinance fulfill that purpose? and is it enforceable? Thayer said she did not agree with the request of the Historic Preservation Commission that parking requirements be waived for historic buildings only. Welch agreed it is an equity issue and said he thinks it is also a vitality issue that is better served by allowing people to develop some of the empty lots. Boles also agreed and said it needs to be more carefully thought out as it becomes permanent. He spoke about competition for office use or substantive business going in, in terms of who gets the parking spaces. Clifton said the supply is pretty much saturated already, unless you include the Park & Ride. Boles said he had difficulty with the Park & Ride as an answer; if they are going to focus on that, force its use and get more cooperation from businesses or developments that are going to occur downtown to free up some spaces for turnaround. Thayer said she still thinks this is a good option, and they can revisit it yearly. She said the element of risk here outweighs what they have now. Sherwood said as businesses choose to develop, they are going to need to consider how customers will get to their business, that alternative parking spaces for employees might push some creative problem solving. She said she thinks this will increase vitality downtown. She spoke about Leavenworth and said she would like to see that kind of vitality in our town. She said it may create more Park & Rides and one of the pushing goals may be for economic vitality. Boles asked regarding Section 5, Expansion, what happens when the next expansion comes along and forces the requirement for parking above 10 spaces. Robison said there is nothing under cumulative effects - expansion, upon expansion, upon expansion. Boles asked if the next person in above 10 has to provide two spaces. It was noted it is on a first come, first served basis and Thayer pointed out it is over a period of 10 years. · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 4 Robison said since early 1990 he has had only one Historic Building renovation that had a parking requirement, a Conditional Use Permit for Rose Theater. He said that in effect historic buildings already have a waiver, just the way the existing code was written. He said one impetus for changing this is it did not allow for buildings that were vacant. A lot of people have been saying that is inequitable because historic buildings, in effect, do not have a parking requirement. He said one of the things the Commission may want to consider when they start looking at the new Use Table where the CllI Zone is, that those uses that do have that threshold should be conditioned, and the condition would be whether or not it has to have some parking requirement in the future, whether it's a new building or an historic building. He said they will be looking at that as Development Regs are done, that this is interim for approximately the next 6 months. Boles asked why there isn't qualifying language for this interim solution to include some kind of threshold of determination. He cited new construction (non-Historic), and CIII (including uptown); otherwise, in general he agrees. Thayer pointed out an error in Section 4.C, 5th 1Ìne down. Delete "or" to read "granted a waiver of." Enarson noted concern expressed in public testimony for a sign to promote utilization of the Park & Ride and suggested the sign be included in an ordinance or that Council direct action for it. Robison suggested that in addition to an ordinance, the Planning Commission include in their recommendation, appropriate signage along SR20. Welch mentioned other things he would like added to that cover letter: 1) optimize existing downtown parking and parking alternatives, use of diagonal parking, removing lines, adding parking spaces at Adams Street; and, 2) in lieu of sOme considerations provide bike racks. Toews said quite a lot of larger developments are subject to the code. He suggested in a cover letter to Council they indicate in future iterations, they do a better job of encouraging Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and possibly allow waivers for construction that exceeds the 10-space threshold if there were a way to ensure some creative strategies are pursued by the developer, i.e., dedicating parking spaces in perpetuity at the Park & Ride to serve new development. Boles said that unless you codify those as offsets, it doesn't come out. Boles noted that 17.30.140, paragraphs 5 and 6 are not indented correctly. He pointed out a more substantive change on Page 8, Section 10, paragraph B, fee-in-lieu of parking spaces; that is not a realistic amount. He said either it is a meaningless paragraph and should be deleted, or the fee should be changed. Robison spoke of rate authority, and Boles proposed bringing that to their attention. Toews highlighted the broad concerns to include in the cover letter to Council: 1) Parking requirements for Historic Buildings only. 2) 17.30.240, paragraph B. Look at either changing the purpose, updating the cost, or delete the paragraph. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 5 3) A statement of the TDMs without being specific Enarson said she is opposed to TDMs for dedicated parking spaces at the Park & Ride. Sherwood suggested other TDMs would be O.K. MOTION Thayer Recommend to Council, approval of the interim Parking Code as amended, including a cover letter to indicate the three points. SECOND VOTE: Enarson Passed 5 in favor - Boles opposed E. Revision to Fences, Walls, Hedges & Arbors Code Commission Discussion and Conclusions Hedl;:es Welch said basically he doesn't have a great deal of problem with fences and walls, just hedges. He said he took a walk around town; there are a lot of road hedges out there. One advantage is they don't change very fast. He said he would like to see them throw hedges out of this ordinance right now. He spoke about the city being overgrown, and said he thinks most people like it that way. He said there are some legitimate concerns where health and safety are at risk, and if that's the case, if they need to codify something in that, he is comfortable with that. He thinks there needs to be a human touch for somebody to go out and do some mediation. Among other places, he cited a safety setback at Memorial Field, Washington and Monroe Street, and said you still had to pull into the crosswalk to make a judgement about the traffic. He mentioned Blaine and Madison, Blaine and Adams that protrude into the line of sight area and they really don't cause a problem, and said somebody needs to take a look and apply some common sense. He said they might want to look at views and vistas and in a few instances where people construct spite hedges, some sort oflook at a hedge where it's calculated to deprive a neighbor of some right or privileges. He said he thinks they need to dump the first line, the hedge part anyway. Clifton said that was also her conclusion. Boles said he agrees. He cited Page 3, 17.08.211, Hedges, "to enclose, screen, or separate areas." Who decides that was the reason it was planted, not as a spite hedge or something? If that's left, it has some difficult wording. If hedges are in or are left out they need to be dealt with some way; he is concerned about legitimate plants that are removed by mistake or during construction and are replaced; he doesn't think they should come under plantings and under regulation, i.e., a cleared alleyway of 60 foot high trees -~ it would be reasonable to replant · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 6 those. On Page 5, 17.36.030.B.2. 3. and 4, if hedges are left in, he would delete paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. He said it is more difficult to remove for safety. Toews -- exempt fences and hedges. He said that removes it from heights, but is more difficult to remove it from the safety issues, clear vision. Toews asked Boles ifhe was exempting both fences and hedges? Boles said Paragraph B allows fences. Clifton said she still wants an 8-foot height on fences. Boles said he would delete that whole thing, but if you only want to delete fences and walls, he suggested Paragraph 2 be amended, no fence, wall or other constructed structure or constructed sight obscuring installation located outside of a clear vision area shall exceed 8 feet in height. Toews said if you have an exemption for vegetative matter for preservation of air and passage of light, you have the same impacts as a fence which would exceed those heights. He asked if there is a solid rationale for one and not the other? Thayer pointed out they are two totally different things and noted the problem with enforcement. Enarson said there should be some arbitration method, and site specific judgments will need to be made, that there needs to be provision to regulate. Welch said it does need to be fashioned in a manner that is equitable and open for arbitration of complaints. Thayer spoke about restrictive covenants, that you may not have a right to that view, unless those properties are restricted, that trees and greenery grow, no matter what you do to it. Boles agreed. Clifton indicated a need for arbitration for growth. Welch disagreed with Thayer and Boles and indicated people should have some right. He suggested they remove hedges for the interim until they can formulate something. Robison noted this revision was done as in interim quick fix. He said it has become a real problem for administration, that it is complaint driven, and he noted the impact of the Code Enforcement program. He indicated dispute between two neighbors becomes problematic for the City and hopes for clearer standards, for something equitable. He referred to the Clyde Hill Ordinance. He said he is a little nervous with dispute resolution and their lack of staff. Thayer, asked if you have hedges in an ordinance, how would you enforce it? Welch said they need to take more time on this, whether or not it is possible. Clifton asked how do you address this? Boles answered, clear vision area issues and safety issues, and defer other issues. Welch suggested bringing in an arborist and getting legal help. Clear Vision Area Enarson, agrees with Public Works regarding the second definition of edge of road as opposed to right of way. She noted the picture depicting clear vision and said the text addresses only intersections, not driveways. She suggested eliminating the present picture and replacing the picture with no driveway. Toews suggested that in what they send to Council they include an amended graphic; · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 7 otherwise, the concept is exceedingly difficult. Enarson said regarding the clear vision area that Public Works is doing some design standards, and she said she thought 30 feet was excessive; in the code it says 20 feet and she feels 20 feet is adequate. She spoke about clear vision and that our code permits anybody to park on the street by an intersection in their motor home. She said they need to address parking in a clear vision area. Welch indicated it may be an enforcement issue and said another thing to consider is collectors and arterials are different and should be included. Toews said he recently discussed with Public Works linking the dimensions of the clear vision to the class of road intersection they were dealing with, i.e. local access road dealing with a much smaller clear vision area than an intersection with an arterial and a collector. Boles asked if there is any way to put in some kind of judgment regarding sight obstruction uphill or downhill. Toews said they have been maintaining intersections on an ad hoc basis. Boles asked if making clear vision definitions would eliminate that practice. Toews replied that the City would still use judgment in enforcement of the regulation, and that complaints would more than likely be City generated. Boles asked if it will be on a complaint basis. Robison said the ~nforcement program is really a complaint business or public safety matter. He said another way to enforce the City's ordinances, and where this ordinance really kicks in, is when Charlie Simpson goes out to inspect and someone is planting something like cottonwoods in a right-of-way, Simpson does not allow it so they don't have a problem in the future. It is being pro-active, and responding to complaints or public safety hazards as they come up. Enarson said the public has the right to come in and read the ordinance and know what they can plant or build in their clear vision area in the event they are near an open intersection. She said there is public misinformation, and said she feels it is a failing as it is drawn. She said that "No fences" in that area should be, "No solid fences or hedges"in that area. Keep the intent as clear vision, and allow a fence that is open. Toews said the list of caveats is long and spoke of traffic safety devices that are totally or partially sight obscuring. Enarson said that language needs to be worked on to m~ke the intent clearer. Welch said that at least in the interim, in the absence of defined, well worked out standards they need some process. They need some level of abuse, etc. where people can say, "This doesn't make sense"; say that in the ordinance and see it is reflected in the interim. Toews suggested wording, "The clear vision area means the area between a height of 3 feet and 10 feet above the center line grades of intersecting streets, th~ area bounded by the edge of the constructed street surface of an open public right -of-way roughly paralleling the property lines of corner lots and a line joining points along said constructed road surface 20 feet from their point of intersection." Enarson commented, "If they can just define the clear vision area better about what is partially or totally sight obscuring and make sure it doesn't mean a tree trunk, or a telephone pole, or a street sign." She said she is talking about both defining the Clear Vision Area and what is allowed in it. She cited language on Page 5.B.l, what is permitted, and said, "Then they talk about trees." Robison and Toews suggested changing wording of . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 8 17.36.030.B.1 to read '"No fence, wall, hedge, or other partially or totally sight obscuring installation located outside of a clear vision area which poses a traffic safety hazard. . . ." Welch suggested they include in the cover letter, they want to revisit this in a very intensive manner. Toews said they would bring this back Thursday to review the cover letter and the ordinance changes. He said maybe they could enlist a volunteer to present the Planning Commission's report in testimony to Council on November 4. Enarson noted that when they talk about the Parking Ordinance they should talk about in residential areas and all street intersections; they need to look at the clear vision area. Toews said he would like to look at the code regarding the traffic provisions right now. Toews reviewed status: 1) All vegetative matter exempted 2) Definition of clear vision area modified 3) Standards of clear vision in .030.B.1 and provisions modified 4) Amend findings to make link for policy direction Arbitration was posed and Welch asked if there is a way for someone to have to pay for mediation regarding simple disputes. Robison said he had requested information from the recent workshop on mediation rules and procedures; Toews said he thinks Mark is talking about a simple referral. Enarson said binding arbitration is a legal option. Boles asked if they are doing anything with Page 5, 040 and 050, Fire Chief's concerns? Toews noted a typographical error in 040; they should have dropped reference to barbed wire and electric fences in the title of the section. Enarson said those should be deferred to the Fire Chief's expertise. Boles said it has two conditions: parallels the wall and interferes with access for fire and public safety purposes. Thayer agreed this should be in there; Toews said it should include the reference to hedges. MOTION Thayer Table approval ofFences, Walls, Hedges & Arbors Code until next week. SECOND VOTE Enarson Unanimous - 6 in favor. F. Revision to Home Occupation Code Commission Discussion and Conclusions Thayer commented she was taken aback with what they heard at public testimony last week, that this was too liberal by allowing three cars, three employees, the hours, etc.; it made her question if they need a Home Occupation Ordinance. Clifton said she thought they did. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 9 Issues covered included: Nuisance Factor Welch indicated, looking at it creating a nuisance or not -- if you can't see that occupation, if you can't hear that occupation, then it shouldn't be anybody else's business. His problem with the ordinance is unenforceable things like square footage, etc. If it's creating a disturbance in the neighborhood (number of visits; deliveries and traffic outside business hours), it shouldn't be there; ifnot, it's nobody's problem. He said he didn't have a problem with saying you can have three employees, but you can have only one extra car there. Enarson said she thought they did a good job on Page 7J, that it says it all. She talked about the highly subjective language of the ordinance, and that she believes that it has been deliberately left that way so they can apply some nuisance criteria and go to the neighborhood and see what is happening. She said the enforcement issue is a real struggle. Welch suggested they cut the source of nuisance with vehicle use. Thayer recommended they limit the use of vehicles to one and allow three workers. Enarson said reasonable parking-- the goal is to keep the residential character. Welch said he agrees with off-street parking, and where there is no off-street parking have one employee per vehicle. Enarson suggested using the word worker rather than employee to preclude getting around it by calling them contractors. She said if you could provide two on-site parking spaces and still allow three employees, it would be a reasonable compromise based on the public testimony. Clifton said she likes the provision for off street parking. Boles said if you say to cut down the number of vehicles, but only do it ifthey can't provide parking spaces, it is not logical and he doesn't go along with it. Toews said if you do regulate employee parking, it does nothing about client parking. If you include a provision of modified Page 7J, "Only one worker vehicle may be parked on-street, which shall not cause traffic hazards or parking problems on adjacent rights-of-way," something along that line. You are not allowing them de facto provision of off-street parking places and up to three employees if you do nothing to regulate the number of clients parking on-street which might cause the same level of impact. Enarson said she thinks their hammer is pretty adequate if they add the provision for on-site they have just discussed -- if you want two extra workers. Threshold Boles spoke about Page 7H and Tim Lambert's testimony about more than three nonresident workers. He said he does think there is a point where the hours of delivery or the number of people you have working reaches a threshold that does not call it a home occupation. He said if you have gotten to that scope, then even if it's not a direct nuisance, e.g., parking and noise, then there is a point where it is an imposition on the neighborhood. Welch said he thinks . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 10 that is determined by the nuisance factor; businesses vary at times. Thayer asked about Page 71, time change from 8:00 to 6:00 -- no business after 9:00 p.m. and asked the rationale? EQarson asked about Page 6 rationale of 5 customer visits per day (is 6 too much and 5 ok?); it seems so arbitrary -- 5 visits on a bicycle are less impact than 5 visits of a horse van unloading horses in the street. She said she agrees with Welch; base it on the nuisance factor. Welch said regarding nuisance, he thinks that possibly the rationale is to discourage retail, which he essentially agrees with. Robison said this is to set limits so when they have complaints they have something to base it on. Toews and Robison said they can raise 040B from 5 to 10. Sherwood and Enarson said 10 is more realisti~, unless parking becomes a problem. Welch said they need to cut some slack to people; threshold is a nuisance matter. Thayer said she would feel a lot more comfortable if they cut down the parking, and, as Welch said, say you can have three employees, but you can have only one extra car there. Robison suggested saying provide all off-street parking for employees. Welch agreed. Limitations Enarson, Page 5 D, Limitation, said it still says, "Only one home occupation permit may be in effect at anyone time . . ." She said there had been language that she thought Dave had offered that made it clear that doesn't mean you can only have one business, but that you only need one permit with the same limits as one home occupation. She said that it is not clear enough. Page 6, 17.23.050.C, she requested that Staff review regarding kennels being conditional. She also said stables are not mentioned in PTMC 17.16 and that doesn't make any sense to her. Robison said that is the use table, and all they are doing is to refer to the use table, that uses were broader, but kennels are in there. Enarson said you are saying you can't have a home occupation of a farm. Robison said if it's not in there, it is permitted. Enarson said they are calling it ineligible. Toews noted if it is not a commercial scale, it is permitted outright. Boles asked if "except as provided" means "except as limited" in 060.F? Robison suggested they could change "provided" to "limited." Thayer said it would be nice for the public to be able to understand, that when there is a subdivision that has restrictive specific covenants against home occupation or home businesses, it is not up to the City to deal with that: it is a court issue. Robison indicated they will work that out. McMahan said they will put it in the purpose section of Chapter 17 general. Lana:uage Enarson, 17.23.070, Required Conditions, said she has concerns with subjective language, accusations of favoritism. Robison said they can write prescriptive ordinances, but · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 11 most people don't like them; this is performance oriented. This draft gives more guidance-- gives something to measure against. Welch said if they make it more prescriptive it would vary from place to place in town. Robison said he would rather have this approved by the Planning Commission than having to write an interpretation on a site specific case. Toews said it is somewhat analogous to SEP A where they have the standard of "probable," "significant," "adverse. " MOTION Recommend to the City Council approval of the Home Occupations Code dated 10/4 as amended. Enarson SECOND VOTE Clifton UNANIMOUS -- 6 in favor. V. NEW BUSINESS Next week. Review memo and changes. McMahan and Robison will talk about workshops and procedures, and amending the Comp Plan. Read -- Scheduling Process for Review and Recommendation on Draft Chapter 20.04 PTMC (Process for Amending the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations) VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetirtgs October 31. 1996 Planning Commission Workshop on Phase I Development Regulations November 14. 1996 VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Thayer and seconded by Enarson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:30 PM. ~ ~ dJík~ Lois Sherwood, Chair ~ ÛifrJ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker