Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03142002 Packet · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7 :00 pm March 14, 2002 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes V. Unfinished Business Annual Assessment - Continuation of Workshop I) Staff Overview 2) Planning Commission Clarifying Questions 3) Public Comment 4) Planning Commission Discussion VI. New Business Proposed Revision to the Rules and Procedures (Nancy Dorgan) VII. Upcoming Meetings: Then next regular meeting is scheduled for March 28. Agenda items include: Comprehensive Plan 2002 Update- Continuation of Workshop . Discussion on Recommended Amendments Stemming from the Annual Assessment VIII. Communications Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Interim Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. n. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Bernie Arthur, Jim Irvin, Lyn Hersey, Nancy Dorgan. Alice King and Michael Hyland. Frank Benskin and Richard Berg were excused. Also present were BCD staff member Jeff Randall and City Council liaison Michelle Sandoval. m. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Randall explained that changes were made to the agenda previously suggested because the consultant was not yet prepared to present those items. Staff is in final phases of preparing a contract with a consultant to cover GMA related items for the Comp Plan review. It appears the consultant will be Eric Toews. Ms. Hersey made a motion to accept the agenda, and Mr. Irvin seconded the motion. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Randall noted that at staff's request the Planning Commission minutes would no longer be as detailed as previously submitted. Mr. Arthur made the motion to approve the minutes ofFebrwuy 28, 2002 as corrected, and Mr. Hyland seconded. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Annual Assessment - Continuation of Workshop Mr. Randall made the Staff presentation, giving an overview of the contents of a memorandum to be fOIWarded to the Director of BCD with recommendations regarding the Planning Commission Annual Comprehensive Plan Assessment. Mr. Randall pointed out the Community Development Committee recommendation is to not rewrite but to implement the Comprehensive Plan as it is now. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for Planning Commission questions on the following findings: 1. Ii &mmb ind develoDment ill envision¢ in ~ comDrehensive Iilim occurrin¡- ~ 2r slower 1lYm anticipated. 2r j§ it failiu m materialize? Discussionind suuestions included: Ms. Dorgan: Delete from Comp Plan (page IV -6) - "Past trends in building activity and growth are not likely to continue after implementation of the GMA, because more people are likely to live in UGAs including Port Townsend, and fewer in roralareas." (Since according to the Census data, this has not been the case.) Mr. Randall suggested not making changes to projections. GMA has announced a new deadline for September 2004. Mr. Arthur questioned statistics regarding building permits and family wage jobs. He asked if there might be extenuating circumstances for growth drifting into the county, and how their decisions impact those circumstances. . Mr. Irvin suggested they might make a statement to recognize these issues to look at a later date. Mr. Randall asked Mr. Arthur if there are ideas that fall into implementation or if they need comp plan amendments. Mr. Arthur expressed concern regarding property that might not be appropriately zoned c·n, that they may need additional c·n zoning or broadening other zones, e.g. R·m. He wondered if there were reasons behind some of the numbers. Ms. Sandoval noted this is the first step, that a second step might to be to implement or change ordinances to meet their goals. Planning Commission MinuteslPage 1 March 14, 2002 · Mr. Irvin suggested a new finding. Ms. King agreed Mr. Randall suggested they might cover whys and wherefores - implementation to try to reverse the trend. 2. I:Jg the caoacity m Drovide adeauate services diminished or increased? Discussion ind SU2estiOns ~: Ms. Dorgan asked if this includes parks. Mr. Randall suggested they could add something regarding parks and non-motorized transportation. 3. Ii sufficient lind desimated mHI ~ 1Q meet projected demand and needs? Discussion and suilJe5tÌons ~: Possible changes to the R-III zoning. There is no minimum density in R-m. It was suggested there might be creative changes like creating a new zone. Ms. Dorgan suggested, "Land consumption over the first quarter of our 20 year plan has been less than 25% and in all cases less than 12% in all zones except c-m Historic District." Consensus was not to change density provisions ofR-m District. 4. AG ~ assumDÛOns Y.RQB which ~ RIim j§ based invalid? · Discussion ind su2"2"estions ~: Ms. Hersey spoke of the City's growth rate and noted the statement, "But the current downward trend coupled with plans for a second Urban Growth Area in the County, may prompt the City to revisit the plan in the near future." She felt this raised a red flag and suggested they look at it sometime. She also expressed concern regarding affordable housing. Mr. Randall suggestedtbey might add an appendix to create benchmarks. Ms. Dorgan raised the issues ofUGA and expanded LAMIRD in the Glen Cove area. 5. Aß ~ chan2"es in COIJ,UDunitv ~ attitudes tIW necessitate amendments 1Q the ~ ind Durooses of the compreþcnsive man ind ~ ~ YJhg embodied Mtbin ~ comDrehensive Iilim community direction statement? Discussion ind suuestions ~: Mr. Irvin asked how you would know there are changes in attitudes. Mr. Randall suggested a possibility of sometime doing some kind of scienûfic survey. Ms. Dorgan pointed out inaccuracies in the comp plan, citing the creation ofLAMIRDs. Mr. Randall concurred and suggested they could again present statI's proposed changes. 6. Ii ~ sufficient chan2"e 2r lack: 2f ~ in circumstances to dictate the need f2r an amendment? Discussion IUd SU!l2"estions ~: Ms. Dorgan suggested staff resubmit for annual cycle 2002 the FUGA amendment from 200 I amending to change the final UGA. Mr. Arthur questioned an urban justice building in a C-II zone. He asked if they want to acknowledge that and allocate space where the City wants to see it happen, or provide alternate space for commercial zoning. Chair Thayer asked if they want to consider this finding or move it to Finding #3, e.g. increasing the depth of commercial along the Sims Way corridor. It was suggested they read and revisit the issue. Ms. Dorgan questioned: Policy 9.7 (Glen Cove) Ms. Dorgan suggested amendment to delete --Consensus was to reconsider the FUGA draft from last year's comp plan review. Policy 2.5(DNR lands). - Mr. Randall clarified and said he did not think that policy needed to be changed. Goal 3. - Mr. Randall did not think a change was necessæy. Policy 11.1. - Mr. Randall noted they would be looking at it with the consultant. · Ms. Hersey spoke of economiç development strategies and said they need to be looking at strategies if the mill should close. Disclosures for recusing oneself were discussed. Planning Commission MinuteslPage 2 March 14, 2002 · · · 7 .Do inconsistencies exist between ~ com~rehensive Iilim and the GMA 2r the countvwide plannin2" JKiliçy for Jefferson Qmnty? Discussion will be withheld for the new consultant. VI. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Dorgan presented proposed changes to the Port Townsend Planning Commission Rules of Procedure to include a public comment period on each agenda. Mr. Randall suggested including public comments between items 5 and 6. Mr. Arthur also read a statement of changes he proposed. Mr. Randall suggested he could take Mr. Arthur's suggested changes up with City Attorney Watts. MOTION ML Dorpa Amend the Port Townsend Planning Commission Rules and Procedures to iDelude a public comment period as item (t. SECOND Ms. Heney AMENDMENT Ms. Heney and Ms. Dorgao. Amend the Port Townsend Planning Commission Rules and Procedures to include a public comment period as item 5. VOTE Unanimous - passed 7 in favor Mr. Irvin asked regarding changes to the Comp Plan Economic Development chapter. No changes are anticipated; discussion may be continued at the next meeting. vn. UPCOMING MEETINGS March 28, 2002 - Discussion of Recommended Amendments IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Irvin and seconded by Ms. King. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9: 15 p.m. é ./'/ ./ ~7. . 9'~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission MinuteslPage 3 March 14, 2002 · City of Port Townsend Department of Building and Community Development Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-5081 FAX (360) 385-7675 · · Date: To: From: Subject: ;. Stafr Report March 7, 2002, for March 14 Workshop Port Townsend Planning Commission Jeff Randall, BCD Director Judy Surber, Senior Planner 2002 Annual Assessment Workshop Staffhas drafted a response to each of the seven criteria in the annual assessment. At the workshop, we will give a brief overview of the information provided. After public comment, we suggest that the Commission discuss the criteria: · Is the information provided adequate? · If not, what additional infomiation would you like? · Based upon the information provided, you will need to formulate findings and any suggested amendments. We have one more meeting reserved on March 28' to wrap up the discussion. Staffwill then prepare a "final" draft of the Annual Assessment for your approval on. April 11. Attachments: A B. C. Draft" Annual Assessment" Table ofR-ill Land Use Patterns Table of Permits Issued · · · City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Waterman & Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 30lA Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-5084 Fax: (360) 385-7675 DRAFT To: Jeff Randall, Director of Building & Community Development From: Cindy Thayer, Port Townsend Planning Commission Interim-Chair Date: April 15, 2002 Re: Planning Commission Annual Comprehensive Plan Assessment Introduction The Planning Commission is charged with monitoring and assessing the comprehensive plan on an annual basis. Chapter 20.04 PTMC sets forth the process for the Annual Assessment and the seven criteria to be considered. These seven broad indicators of growth management include the address the following: · Growth and development trends · Infrastructure capacity · Land availability · Changes in assumptions, circumstances, or community wide attitudes · Consistency with GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies Analysis of the seven criteria provides a foundation for suggested amendments to the Plan. While the Annual Assessment provides some basic analysis, it does not measure our progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Successful implementation is the key to turning abstract goals and policies into tangible products (e.g., adopting design standards, investing in public improvements, recruiting a four year college, providing incentives for businesses).· Annual Assessment Following are the seven criteria set forth in the municipal code followed by a short narrative and our findings. . 1. Is growth and development as envisioned in the comprehensive plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated. or is it failing to materialize? EXHIBIT 1 I A Since 1990, Port Townsend's population growth has occurred slower than anticipated by the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan estimated the city would grow at an annual rate of two-percent per year. Although the city's average annual growth rate in the 1990's . increased over the previous decade, it averaged only 1.6%. Jefferson County's growth . rate is provided for comparison. The County growth rate is fairly consistent with the statewide average of2%. Decade 1990 to 2000 1980 to 1990 1970 to 1980 Average Annual Growth Rates Port Townsend: Jefferson County 1.6% . 2.24% 1.33%. 2.18% 1.36% 3.32% Unlike a growth rate that exceeds anticipated growth, a slower growth rate does not compel the City to take immediate action. It may be premature, at this point, to revise the Plan. Weare only five years into a 20- year plan. Furthermore, the city cannot simply chooseto base the plan on a modified growth projection. The Office of Financial Management issues population forecasts and Jefferson County, in coordination with the city, determines how that growth is allocated. Growth and densities will be reviewed by the County no later than ~008 (i.e., ten years after their plan adoption as required by the GMARCW 36.70A130(3». Probably sooner, given their plans to·designate a new urban growth area, Tri-Area. The City's population as a percentage of Jefferson County's total population has . continued to decline. Port Townsend made up nearly half of Jefferson County's population in 1973 (49.1 %), and approximately one-third in 1996 (31.6%). The Comprehensive Plan anticipated that Port Townsend would begin to capture a higher percentage of the County's total population growth, "Past trends in building activity and growth are not likely to continue after impleinentation ofthe GMA, because more people are likely to live in UGAs (including Port Townsend), and fewer in rural areas" (page IV- 6). According to the Census data, this has not been the case: Decade 1990 to 2000 1980-1990 1970 to 1980 Census Counts Port Townsend: . Jefferson County 8,334 26,2** 7,001 20,406 6,067 15,965 Percent in City 32% 34% 38% Finding: 2. Has the capacity to provide adequate services diminished or increased? The City's capacity to provide adequate services has increased with respect to certain elements of critical inftastructure while not changing with respect to other elements. WASTEWATER: Re-rating of the wastewater treatment facility in 2001, has increased overall . treatment capacity by approximately 13%. The new forced main/trunk sewer line from Kearney . 2 · · · St. to Tremont St. has increased the capacity and reliability of the system's principal sewer conveyance line. The Gaines St. Pump Station Replacement Project, currently under construction will add to the conveyance system capacity and reliability as well. In general the collection system has grown concurrently with development although areas exist throughout town that are not served by the City's wastewater collection system. WATER: The expansion of the F St. water main from 8" to 12" from San Juan Ave. to Chestnut St. has increased water service capacity and pressure to a significant portion of the town. In general the distribution system hâS grown concurrently with development although areas exist throughout town that are not directly served by the City's water system. Continuous minor system repairs and improvements have increased the system capacity in certain specific areas of the City. The transfer of the Tri-Area water system to the PUD in exchange for the Glen Cove water system has not significantly impacted the City water system capacity positively or negatively. STREETS: The completion of the Sims Way Overlay and the F St Renovation projects have not significantly increased the capacity of these roadways to vehicular traffic, but roadway quality and safety have been improved. These major projects, and other smaller projects, have increased pedestrian and bicycle capacity. STORMWATER:. No significant change in capacity. The Capital Improvement Program for each element of infrastructure is developed in conjunction with the system facilities plan for each element. These plans are reviewed and updated . periodically. The CIP list is also reviewed annually as part of the City Budget development process and changes in the CIP may be incorporated as required by legal, regulatory, or operational needs. Finding: 3. Is sufficient land designated and zoned to meet proiected demand and needs? To determine if sufficient land exists to meet demands, the Planning Commission reviewed growth rates and land consumption since 1996. Based upon our growth rate, the demand is less. The city was zoned to accommodate a projected annual growth rate of 2% over the next 20 years while our actual growth rate is 1.6%. Land consumption over the first quarter of our 20 year plan has been less than 25% for every land use category save one (i.e., C-ffi zone). 3 Total Land Area Vacant Land Area In Acres Land Area In Percent of Total Percent of Land Use (In Acres Less (Less Platted Rights of Way, ~ Developed Land Developed vacant. Designation Platted Rights of Marinas, and Government Develo Way and Marinas) Owned Land) Since 1996 Since 1996 Since 1996 R-I, Single-family low 9.5% density 550.6 286.9 30.2 5.5% R-II, Single-family medium densitY 1547.2 539.7 72.9 4.7% 11.9% R-III, Medium Density Multi-familv 156.4 86 10.2 6.5% 10.6% R-IV, High Density Multi-familv 20 13.1 0.9 4.5% 6.4% C-IIMU, Neighborhood Serving Mixed Use 8enter 17.1 4 0 0.0% 0.0% C-IIIMU, Community Serving Mixed Use Center 14.6 7 0 0.0% 0.0% C-I, Neighborhood Commercial 2.1 0 0 C-II, General Commercial 98.5 37.5 1 1.0% 2.6% C-II (H), Hospital Commercial 10.8 4.1 0.5 4.6% 10.9°Æ C-III, Historic Commercial 26.4 1.2 0.7 2.7% 36.8% MlC, Mixed Commercial / Light Manufacturin~ 63.3 45.6 2.1 3.3% 4.4% M-II (A) Marine Related Boat Haven 60.9 0 3.3 M-II (B) Marine Related - Point Hudson 18 0 0 P/OS, Existing Park or Open Space 587.2 1.4 0 0.0% 0.0% P/OS (8), Public / Mixed Use 82.6 0 0 P-I, Public / nfrastructure 150.9 0 0 Given that plenty of opportunities exist to remodel and reuse historic buildings in the C-ill district the 36.8% vacant land consumption does not raise concern. However, there is some concern over the pattern of development within the R-ill multi-family zoning district. Single-family homes are consuming land intended for higher density, multi-family development. The R-ill and R-IV multi-family zones were created with the intent of promoting affordable . 4 · housing and diversifying housing stock. The ''Future Needs Assessment" of the Draft Hosing Element concluded that there was a shortage of multi-family development in the city. Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element calls for at least 105 acres of additional undeveloped land to be zoned for multi-family development. Two multi-family zones were created and with adoption of the Land Use and Zoning Maps, the city established 176 acres of multi-family zoning (156 acres in R-ill and 20 acres in R-IV); roughly **acres of which were previously developed (Table 2). Since 1996, single-family residential development within the R-ill multi-family zoning district has consumed nearly half of the total land developed. If the current trend continues, the city would not attain its minimum goal of 105 acres. Finding: 4. Are the assumptions upon which the plan is based invalid? Fifteen assumptions for Port Townsend's future influenced the formation of the Comprehensive Plan (page II-9, Introduction, Comprehensive Plan). Five years following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the majority of these assumptions continue to be valid. Current growth trends and County planning actions indicate that one of the assumptions may prove incorrect; specifically, the Plan assumed that "population growth within the City and Jefferson County will considerably exceed that of the state and nation as a whole". · OFM and Census 2000 data indicate that, since adoption of the Growth Management Act, the City's growth rate has fallen behind that of the nation and the state (See #1, above). Unlike a growth rate that exceeds projections, a slower growth rate does not compel the City to take immediate action. Recall that the Comprehensive Plan is a 20- year plan. But the current downward trend coupled with plans for a second Urban Growth Area in the County, may prompt the City to revisit the plan in the near future. Jefferson County is proceeding with plans to establish a Tri-Area urban growth area (UGA) and a limited area of more intensive rural development (LAMIRD) in Glen Cove. Currently, the capture rate for Port Townsend is roughly 40% of the County's total population growth. The County may revisit population allocation with formation of the Tri-Area UGA. Any significant change in the City's allotted growth may trigger revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: 5. Are there changes in community wide attitudes that necessitate amendments to the goals and puq>oses of the comprehensive plan and the basic values embodied within the comprehensive plan community direction statement? · Determining community wide attitudes requires a scientific survey and/or an extensive public outreach program. Public participation was extensive during the years leading up to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. As documented in Ordinance No. 2539, the city conducted an extensive public participation program, involving thousands of hours of citizen discussion, questionnaires, over 50 public meetings, citizen workgroups, and numerous public hearings. Although citizens have continued to be involved in city government on a broad range of issues, the attitudes expressed do not necessarily represent the attitudes of the community as a whole. 5 Given that the assumptions of the plan remain valid (Item #4) and that circumstances have not changed substantially (Item #6) in the five years since Plan adoption, it is assumed that the attitudes expressed in the Plan also remain valid. . Finding: 6. Is there sufficient change or lack of change in circumstances to dictate the need for an amendment? Circumstances have changed to a limited degree. As noted in Items #1 and #4, population growth has been slower than anticipated and the County is proceeding with plans for a new Tri-Area Urban Growth Area. There have also been regulatory changes that affect the city's Plan, please see Item #7, below. Circumstances have also changed in the employment sector of Port Townsend. · The Port Townsend Paper Company reduced its workforce with the closing of the bag plant at the end of 200 1. The number of employees dropped from 460 to 380 employees, a difference of eighty. · Nesting Bird Yurt Co. suspended production and laid off 15 employees in November 2001. The company has found' local investors and intends to resume production in March. · The NWMC has purchased the Thomas Oil Site as proceeding with clean-up of the . site. It is estimated that approximately 20-35 FTE will work at the NWMC when completed. · Applications have been received for the restoration of the Cannery Building adjacent to Quincy Street Dock. The owner plans to establish a software business. · The Port of Port Townsend resumes control of Point Hudson on April 1, 2002. They are currently developing a Master Plan. · A Final Plan has been issued for Phase 2 ofLynnesfield housing development. · Several residential subdivisions are in permit process. The overall goal of the economic development strategy was to foster a net increase of at least 680 "family wage" jobs within five years of adoption of the Plan and 2,700 "family wage" jobs by the end of the 20-year planning horizon (pagevm-16). To meet these employment targets, a healthy business climate needs to be nurtured in Port Townsend. Traditionally, local governments have played a significant, though limited role in shaping how local economies perform. Regional, national and global economies have had a much greàter impact on the local economy than economic development plans and policies adopted by local jurisdictions. Nevertheless, local government can provide leadership in several key areas as outlined in the Economic Development Strategy. . 6 · · · Implementation of the economic development strategy is critical. As noted in our Year 2001 Assessment, the Commission is concerned that inadequate infrastructure is impeding development within the C-ll and M-C zoning districts. Much of the vacant C-ll and M-C land located west of Thomas street lacks needed infr~ructure (water, sewer, streets, storm water). Several businesses have recently been deterred from locating in these areas due to the cost of extending infrastructure. The city should support extension of infrastructure to the C-ll and M-C zoning districts to encourage commercial and light industrial development as envisioned by the Plan. Finding: 7. Do inconsistencies exist between the comprehensive plan and the GMA or the countywide planning policy for Jefferson County? During this year's annual update process, the city is required to review the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to ensure that they are complying with the requirements of the GMA as amended (RCW 36.70A.130). The City's Comprehensive Plan was GMA compliant at the time of its adoption in 1996. However, the GMA has continued to evolve as the result of amendments and interpretations by the Growth Management Hearings Board. These amendments and interpretations will likely require corollary amendments to goals and policies in our plan. The city has retained a qualified consultant to assist BCD staff in the required review and evaluation of the Plan. Where needed, draft amendments will be formulated and included in the Preliminary Docket. The Countywide Planning Policies have been amended twice since their adoption. One amendment added the Port of Port Townsend as a voting member. The second involved revisions to Policy 6.1 to amend the definition of affordable housing. The city's comprehensive plan is consistent with the amended definition. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Planning Commission, Cindy Thayer, Interim Chair 7 · I- Z W f/) w 0:: a.. 0 I- co 0') 0') ~ w Z ..J 0 In ¡:: · ~ 0 ::> 0:: l- f/) Z 0 0 ~ w z - - ""i' 0:: · l- ii - ~(-D In it') co CW) ! ~ ('I') ~ u it') CD 0r- e( or- .... ('I') 0 CW) Q) Q) CO T'" Ø) LL. CD 0) ~ tT ,.... ,.... It) ('I') ,.... or- en N N It) Ci it') N ,.... .... Q 0 N CO I- or- ~ ..... e it') N Q :::» N CO or- :u: In :!:: E it') ex) .... ('I') Q) N N a. :u: fI> Q) fI> 0 Q) c: 0 Q) c: "0 Q) .ü) "0 Q) .ü) a:: Q) ~ a:: 'E ~ CO 'E u.. CO I u.. Q) I Ci º :¡:¡ '5 .... .~ 0 en :2 I- - · · en w z o N ....J ....J « · ..J ~ "=t ~ to ~ I"- 0) to 00 ('t) 0) N N ...... 00 "=t 0 N ~ to I- - to 0 ~ N 0) 0) ('t) 0 N ~ 0 10 ~ ('t) N ~ 0 10 0 0) "=t 00 "=t 10 0 10 N 0 "=t ~ "=t N ~ CJ) 00 CJ) l"- N "=t 10 10 "=t ~ N CJ) "=t to - ~ co 0) CJ) ('t) 00 00 ~ "=t 10 0 0 CJ) "=t "=t - ~ I"- CJ) 0 "=t I"- 0 "=t 0 0 10 CJ) ('t) 10 0) - co CJ) 10 ~ 0 N ~ 0 0 0) CJ) N N - It) CJ) 0) 0 0 0 10 0 0 ~ CJ) ('t) - rJ) ..J Q) ~ E 0 rJ) 0 I Q) I- ~ "0 "0 0 1~ ~ ~ (ij E ::J 'ë 'e Q) co Õ a:: co u. ~ co Q) .¡:: I U. E (ij Q) rJ) - ::J I rJ) g ¡:: :þj => E 'e ::J .5 co '3 C 0 Q) "0 en :2 :2 « () E ¡:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ Q) Q) Q) 0 Q) Z Z Z Z Z () Z Q W ::) U) ~ U) t: :E ~ W Q. t: In ~U .- N I"- ...... 10 "=t ~ I"- ('t) ~ ~ N 0 0) ~ I"- "=t ..J ~ "=t I"- 0 ('t) 00 ('t) ~ ~ 00 "=t 10 N N Ó N to ('t) ~ 0 0) ~ "=t to to 0 to 00 N to 00 I"- to 10 Y7 Y7 - I- 10 N "=t I"- ~ ('t) N Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 ~ Y7 00 10 to I"- 0 "=t 0 0 0) N ('t) ('t) 0 to "=t 0 ~ I"- "=t_ ~ 0 ~ 00 10 - 10 ct5 N I"- 0) N to 0) 0 N ('t) 00 "=t 10 0) N to 0 "=t_ N 10 ('t) 0) 10 00 0) N I"- Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 0 Y7 ~ Y7 ~ ~ 10 ~ I"- 0 ~ to 00 "=t I"- "=t "=t 0) "=t ~ N 10 0 ~ ~ ~ I"- ~ 0 ~ 00 to to 00 0) 10 10 0 ~ "=t ('t) to 0) ~ 00 to 0 to Y7 00 ~ 00 00 to 0 N to Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 ~ ~ Y7 Y7 ~ Y7 N 0 0 to to I"- to I"- "=t 0 0 ('t) 0) 0) 0) to 10 10 0 00 I"- 10 I"- 0 CJ) l"- e¡) 0 10 0 N 0) to CJ) 10 0) ~ ('t) ('t) ~ "=t 0) CJ) ('t) ~ N ~ ~ ('t) ~ "=t - I"- Y7 Y7 Y7 N "=t Y7 "=t Y7 Y7 Y7 ~ Y7 ~ ~ to ~ ~ 0 0 0 0) 10 ~ 0) 10 to Y7 to ('t) to N 00 ~ 00 ~ co ~ 0) l"- N "=t ct5 10 CJ) N I"- "=t N ~ ('t) CJ) N ('t) 10 Y7 00 0 0 - Y7 Y7 Y7 - ~ ~ I"- Y7 Y7 rJ) ..J Q) ~ E 0 Q) 0 I I- 2- "0 "0 > 0 'ë ~ co E ::J E .(3 Q) co Õ a:: (ij u. L.. ~ co Q) .¡:: I U. E .~ Q) rJ) - ::J I rJ) º c E => E 0 ::J L.. C co ::J C 0 Q) "0 en :2 :2 « () E c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) 0 Z Z Z Z Z () Z it U) Z o ¡:: « ::) ..J « > · · · February 28, 2002 To: Port Townsend Planning Commission Re: Amendment to Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, Item 11 "Agenda" I would like to request that at our next meeting we revise our Rules of Procedure, Item 11, "Agenda", to include a Public Comment period. ~C)~ ffanc, Dorgan PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION RUlES OF PROCEDURE Page 4 C. 10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A conflict of interest shall be handIed as described in Section 12, Condud of Business. 11. AGENDA An agenda shall be prepared for each meeting. Items of business shall be stated as follows: l.Call to Order .I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Roll Call . Acceptance of Agenda Approval of Minutes Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) Unfinished Business 7. New Business 8. 9. 10. Other Business Communications Adjournment ....... -. . ...... ." 1-2. CONDUCT' OF BUSINESS 12.1 It shall be the policy that each p1aßning Commission member shall be familiar with the Open Public Meetings Act, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, the Pltmning Commission Rules 01 Procedure, and Planning Commission Publk Hearings . . . . . . Procedures. 12.2 At the beginning of the -meeting, the chairperS()n may state all ihe agenda items and -' . the timing for. those within the meeting so ihat the length of discussion and the length . . . ....... . of the meeting may ~ controned in an effort to adjourn by 10:~ p.m. No new business Will be taken up after 9:30 p.m. .