Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10102002 Min . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Richard Berg, Nalcy Dorgan, James Irvin, and Michael Hyland. Frank Benskin and Alice King were excused; Bernie Arthur was unexcused. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Senior Planner Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Thayer asked for changes the agenda: 1) VII. New Business, move the Kelly-- Jefferson Transit Rezone (LUP02-046) to precede the Ron Pak -- Indian Point Amendments (LUP-02-048); and 2) Upcoming Meetings remove the October 10th meeting. Ms. Dorgan made a motion to accept the agenda as changed; Mr.Irvin seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 1b 2002 Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the minutes of September 12, 2002 as amended; Mr. Hyland seconded. All were in favor. September ~ 2002 Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the minutes of September 26, 2002 as amended; Mr. Berg seconded. All were in favor. Ms. Dorgan noted a discrepancy in the Staff Findings & Conclusions for Amendment #4. Mr. Randall stated those Findings & Conclusions shouii be corrected in the October 24th meeting to read: Finding 1)". . .The most recent study released by the County, Glen Cove Land Use Operations: A strategic Analysis by Earth Tech in September 2001, recommends designation ofan expanded Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). . . . ." Chair Thayer discussed the meeting agenda stating agenda item General Public Comments is for general comment of anything not relating to the two public hearings.. Following will be Unfmished Busines!mld New Business beginning with (LUP02-046) Kelly--Jefferson Transit Rezone. Ms. Paula Mackrow asked regarding the Kelly rezone, that they understood it would not be heard at this meeting. Chair Thayer reported they would be discussing that and she woùd ask for public comment ITom anybody that would not be able to be at the meeting on the continuance.. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VII. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 1 Open Record Public Hearinl! of the 2002 Amendments to the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan · KELLY-JEFFERSON TRANSIT REZONE (LUP02046) Chair Thayer turned the meeting over to Ms. Surber who explained BCD had received an appeal of the SEP A threshold determination for the Kelly--Jefferson Transit Rezone that according to Municipal Code will be heard by the Planning Commission but also requires a minimum 10day notice. This item needs to be continued to a time and date certain. The date recommended by the appellant and the appellants attorney is November 21,2002. When the date is set, they will send out public notice per the Municipal Code and bring both the SEP A appeal and the project to the Planning Commission on that night. The Commission would be conducting a public hearing, making a decision on the SEP A appeal and then on the merits of the project that will then go forward to City Council. Ms. Surber called for questions. Ms. Dorgan asked regarding Comp Plan Amendments. Ms. Surber explained the date set in the Comp Plan is to assure the project proponent of a Comp Plan amendment, that a decision would be made at the latest at that date. She said that whenever you have an appeal, it results in pushing that date back. The procedure is the same; the dates are going to change. Chair Thayer called for a motion. · · MOTION SECOND Ms. Hersey Continue the hearing to November 21, 2002 Mr. Berg Discussion The question was raised if there would be no discussion tonight, only public comment. Chair Thayer replied the only thing tonight, she would ask if there is anyone who cannot attend the November 21 meeting, and if they cannot and wish the Commission to receive their testimony tonight. She reminded the Commission this is quasijudicial and there would be nù exparte communication between now and November 21. They would only take testimony tonight, nothing else, and out of fairness no one would be allowed to testify at both meetings. Mr. Hyland asked to make a motion; the Chair stated there was already a motion on the floor. Mr. Irvin asked if the rest of Comp Plan amendments would go through as scheduled for presentation to the Council, that this would be a carryover until it is fmished. Ms. Surber replied that was correct. Mr. Hyland said he had a mendly amendment. Chair Thayer asked to deal with the issue of testimony separately, that this was only to continue the hearing until November 21. Mr. Randall explained the procedures of a formal public hearing; usually there is only one comment opportunity. The applicant makes a presentation and is allowed a rebuttal; staff is allowed a presentation and rebuttal as well as the attorneys for the parties. The public is allowed one statement. Allowing someone to speak now and speak again later would not be consÏ;¡tent. The purpose would be to allow someone who could not be here at the November hearing to get comments on the record. Mr. Hyland objected, and said he may not be here in November and would like to hear their comments that the people in attendance CaIre to testify. Chair Thayer assured they would allow them to testify. Mr. Randall pointed out the appellants in attendance requested that November date, that this is not to penalize anyone. Mr. Irvin also reported he might not be at the November meeting, and his intent would be to listen to the tape. Chair Thayer questioned if they would have a quorum. Mr. Randall said BCD will check to ensure a quorum before formally notice the meeting. Ms. Hersey asked if they would make a decision that night. Mr. Randall indicated that would be up to the Planning Commission. In the past have taken the testimony, done the rebuttal, etc., the Planning Commission deliberated and made a recommendation. Chair Thayer stated they could always continue the meeting. Mr. Randall said, if necessary, they could continue it to a date they set at the close of that meeting. VOTE Passed, 5 in favor by show of hands, Mr. Hyland opposed At 7:15 p.m. Chair Thayer opened public testimony and asked if there were atyone who wished to testify at this meeting rather than the meeting scheduled for November 21. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 2 . . . PUBLIC TESTIMONY Ms. Gabriella Ashford, 175 Grant Street She would like to see that area residential not commercial zoning. They have a young child and here are a lot of children in that area. She wanted a park or something, but not commercial. Ms. Ashford said she personally felt the need in the City of Port Townsend for young families to start their business, that they all need to buy land and havea place to do commercial business. They would like to have a boat building operation, have land that is affordable and not have to lease. She said whatever brought up this rezoning, there are lot of people who would like to buy property that is commercidly zoned for small business. She felt the area was appropriate and wished the City would open up space for small businesses. As a bookkeeper she does business for several business around town and is aware of how much of a problem there is. There are many who would even have the resources that could buy a nice piece of property and run successful business, much like this one, and have not found in that place in Port Townsend. She referenced the recent Peninsula Daily News article that reported the aTÎval of a new shipyard in Port Angeles versus Anacortes, that both had offered them the opportunity to buy land. She indicated they had primarily chosen Port Angeles because they had the support of the people to expand in that area. She wanted to see more small businesses have support, but did not think expanding that particular area would get much support rrom the community. She thought it should be zoned residential, park or something other that what was docketed. There being no other testimony, at 7:20 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public testimony for the Kelly-Jefferson Transit Rezone and announced they would be having a hearing on both the SEP A and Rezone on November 21, 2002. Chair Thayer called for Ms. Surber to make the Staff Presentation m Amendment (LUP02-048). RON P AK -- INDIAN POINT AMENDMENT (LUP02-048) Description: Amend the Shoreline Master program (adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan) to clarify that the subject site is specifically excluded rrom Urban Waterrrmt Special District Performance Standards concerning ground floor uses, and to allow Conference Centers as wateFenjoyment uses, and to clarify that all water-oriented uses are encouraged in the Port Townsend Urban Watemont Special District. The amendmtnt may also require revisions to the Urban Watemont Plan and Section 17.28.030 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC). Options: 1) Approve revisions as suggested by applicant 2) Deny 3) Divide the question BCD Recommendation: Divide the question. A. Recommend Denial of Amendments to Section 4.106 Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District, Introductory Text (3rd Paragraph) and Policy 1 (a). B. Recommend denial of amendments to Section 4.106 PTUW Special District, peiformance Standard #9 b (iii) giving exception to 50% rule. C. Recommend denial of amendments to the SMP Appendix D, Examples of Water-Oriented Uses, Water- Enjoyment Uses (Page 104) to include "conference centers" and Approval of Revisions to the definition of water enjoyment use as drafted by Staff. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: Œor A & )Ð a. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; b. Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid, and no new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 3 . . . Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and c. The proposed amendment does not reflect current widely held community values. The language in the Shoreline Master Program proposed for amendment was adopted in 1992 under Ordinance 2320. Ordinance 2320 responded to widely held community values as expressed ina statistically validated 1991 Citizen survey. Nothing has been entered into the record that would indicate a change in community values since the 1991 survey. d. Proposed amendments would meet concurrency requirements and would not result in probable sigl.ificant adverse impacts, however. e. They are inconsistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Urban Watemont, adopted by reference in the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan as a subarea plan. f. The subject property is physically suitable for the uses proposed by the amendments (e.g., transient/residential with non-water oriented uses on the ground floor), however, such nonwater oriented uses do not make appropriate use of the city's watemont shorelines and do not meet the city's goal of public access to the shoreline. g. The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. Vacant land along the urban waterrront is limited. h. The proposed action does not materially affect the land use and growth projections nor would it materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services. 1. The proposed amendment is contrary to the goals of the Shoreline Management Act. RCW 90.58.020 states in part "uses shall be preferred which are . . . unique to or dependent upon use of the statè s shoreline. . .shall be given priority for single family residences, ports, shoreline recreations uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvemmts facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for sIDstantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state." Suggested Findings & Conclusions: (For Ç) a. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid, however, b. New information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. The applicant, Ron Pak, has inquired into the classification of "conference centers". Conference centers are not currently mentioned in the Shoreline Master Program. The city seeks to clarify that conference centers may be classified as a water enjoyment use provided that such use conforms to the public access and enjoyment provisions of the Master program. c. Including conference centers in the defmition ofwateFenjoyment uses would ensure that public access/enjoyment features were inherent in any future application for a conference center. Access and enjoyment of the shoreline are widely held community values. d. The proposal meets concurrency requirements and would not result in probable significant adverse impactsto infi'astructure or place a burden upon service capabilities. Conference centers are no more intensive than any currently permitted uses in the Port Townsend Urban Watemont Plan (e.g., restaurants, mixeduse hotels, museums). e. Adding conference centers to the defmition of water-enjoyment uses would be consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. For example, the amendment is consistent with the goal to preserve and enhance shcreline access (policy 3.8 of the Land Use Element). f. Pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program Use Classification Table, Commercial waterenjoyment uses are suitable uses in the urban, Port Townsend Urban Watemont,Suburban, and Conservancy Designations g. The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term interests of the community in Planning Commission Minutes October 10,2002/ Page 4 . . . general. Vacant land of sufficient size to accommodate a waterrront conference center is very limited. h. Conference centers are similar in intensity to other uses currently permitted wateFenjoyment uses (e.g., restaurants, mixed-use hotels, museums). The proposed action does not materially affect the land use and growth projections, which are the bases of the comprehensive plan and would not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall area of the city. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA, the county-wide planning policies and the Shoreline Management Act. In regards to preferred uses, RCW 90.58.020 states in part". . .and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location onor use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state." Ms. Surber, Staff Planner noted the record for the PAK proposal consisted of: - Staff Report dated September 5 prepared for the Workshop held September 12,2002 - Staff Report dated October 3 prepared for this meeting, October 10,2002 - Exhibits P-1 through P-12 attached to the two Staff Reports _ Written comments rrom Planning Commi;sioner Alice King, to be read into the record during this meeting as Exhibit P-13 During her presentation Ms. Surber pointed out on the map, Exhibit P-1 0, property owned by Mr. Pak, the applicant, roughly Y2 acre ofwatemont property generally locatedbetween Gaines and Walker Streets on Port Townsend Bay, commonly referred to as Indian Point. She also noted it is next to the Tides Inn Motel. Staff conducted a SEP A review and issued a Determination of Non Significance on August 28. At the September 12 Workshop they basically gave an overview of Shorelines issues: - Origin and Shoreline Management Act, November 1972 - Shoreline Master Program (SMP), locally adopted in 1994, both a planning document outlining goals and policies as well as a regulatory ordinance that sets performance standards - Shoreline environmental designations (urban; natural, conservancy, suburban) all within 200 feet of our ordinary high water mark -- our shoreline jurisdiction. All projects proposed within that area, uses albwed, are determined by the SMP, not the zoning code. - Shoreline uses categorized: "primary", "secondary", "conditional" in order of preference or appropriateness on a particular shoreline. - Ordinance 2320, passed in 1992. Revisions intended to encourage water-oriented uses over residential transient accommodations and were designed to meet DOE suggestions of encouraging mixeduse projects as a tool for achieving water-dependent activities, civic revitalization, and public access on the shoreline. Ms. Surber pointed out the current proposal by Mr. Pak seeks to relieve the property rrom the SMP policies and regulations that were adopted by Ordinance 2320. She noted that during the workshop several questions were raised by the Commission that she re!ponded to in the October 3 Staff Report. The one response to the Notice of Pending SEP A Threshold Determination was a comment letter rrom Mr. Randy Davis, Department of Ecology (DOE). Mr. Davis came rrom Olympia at Planning Commission request and will be available for questions and testimony. Mr. Davis' comments and the applicant's response to Mr. Davis' comments are contained in Exhibit P-2. She discussed BCD Recommendations and suggested division into three sections. BCD recommends denial of each but suggests an alternative to item C): A) Policy l(a), water oriented uses. B) Performance Standard #9 b (iii), 50% rule for ground floor C) Amendments to SMP Appendix D, not to add "conference centers" outright as a water-enjoyment use. BCD suggests an alternative as their preference, that it depends on the design, whether or not it is accessible to the public. Their alternative is to amend Water-enjoyment uses in defmition 105 to include conference centers. . . (providing they meet the requirements and provisions of the SMP.) Ms. Surber went through the Findings & Conclusions noting that the 1991 survey referenced in (c.) was included in Commission packets at Mr. Irvin's request. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 5 Chair Thayer opened the meeting to Public Testimony calling for the Proponent to speak. · PUBLIC TESTIMONY · PROPONENT: Ms. Ande Grahn, Olympic Peninsula Planning, representative for Mr. Ron Pak She spoke of complications and thinks one thing has been misrepresented. She said theSMP defmitely supercedes the zoning in an area; however, if something is permitted in the urban area of the SMP, but not in the underlying zoning district, you are not going to be able to do it. That is part of what has bought Mr. Pak to this meeting. Ms. Gralm said in the urban area, there are lot of things that are not allowed that are not commercial uses: a marina with grinding, etc., industrial uses which are permitted in the urban shoreline area, but not commercial. She referenced Exhibit P-9 and discussed the Urban Watemont Special District zones indicating the SMP creates an overlay that includes urban, conservancy, and rural zones; the zoning above it has another set of overlays. She said when you match up all of the overlays and all t:œ different plans, you have one undeveloped piece of property that has a special set of regulations on it, and she did not believe that was the intention of the 1992 amendment. She did not think the public response to the 1991 survey was intended to addr~s a specific piece of property, and thought the fact specific other pieces of property were particularly exempted rrom the series of regulations addresses that. She cited concern that Point Hudson and the Port of Port Townsend boat haven be preserved for marine oriented and marine related uses, marine trades; that was the point being addressed and very appropriate in those areas zoned for mixed-use and light industrial uses. In a commercial area, particularly regional services commercnl district which the Urban Waterrront Plan and the SMP acknowledge are primarily urban commercial, the kinds of marine trades related uses available in a commercial zone are extremely limited. You can't build boats there, can't grind or forge things or œcessari1y even rig things there. This is an area where you sell things. She indicated you can only sell so much marine chandlery and we are already doing that in this town. Her client has a piece of property he is interested in developing. Ms. Grahn referenced Exhibit P-8 public access provisions, showing her clienfs property, Indian Point, and also showing an extensive amount that is City property for which they have long identified they would like to create public access. She reminded it costs money to develop those and said it is not going to happen unless there is development on the property that is going to pay for that. She pointed out that in asking for these provisions and considerations with the SMP, they are asking for the opportunity to create a development to be proposed and reviewed by the Commission and the City Council, a development that will be consistent with the SMP, and that provide public access. They are just asking that the property owner be allowed the same range of opportmities that other business owners in a similar zone and a similar situation be allowed to look at, so he is not constrained by a very narrow interpretation of what a marine trade supported, wateForiented use is. Their concern with the overlays between all of the plans, between policies and provisions, between goals and actual standards, there is a way they could say the only thing that could be built there is this very narrow range of uses, that there is no other property in town that is constrained in thlt way. Ms. Grahn said they attempted to fmd a series of amendments that would create the least amount of changes to the plans that are already in place, to the Comprehensive Plan, the umbrella to the SMP. They believe the marine trades belong to Point Hudson and the Boat Haven, that water-oriented uses and water access is extremely important all along the shoreline. She suggested in Provisions: o Pak A. Changing the language is just a clarification. Wateroriented is the umbrella. She said if they don't want to change that, it is agreeable to them. It is policy language; it is not directive. o Pak B. Would like performance standards considered even though BCD Staffhas recommended denial. They believe that something has changed; a specific piece of property has a hardship or bears a burden that no other properties in this town bear. Why were those other pieces of property exempted? Why was the Historical Waterrront exempted, and the properties on the side of Water Street exempted, but not this parcel? They understood why parcels zoned mixed-use and light industrial uses should be included in this, because those properties have a bigger and wider range of uses to meet this accomodation. Inside the commercial, special commercial zone that says the ¡riority uses in that zone are transient, commercial, restaurant, things that serve a local or visiting population, becomes an additional hardship. Changing the Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 6 · · · · wording changes what could happen on that property; it doesrlt mean anything will be permitted that isn't permitted. It means an app1icantion which the Commission and City Council can review. It puts that piece of property in the same position with all the rest of the properties that are commercially zoned, as opposed to light industrial or mixed-use in that area. o Pak C. Regarding Staff suggestions to changing language to include Convention Centers. They wanted to mentione it mostly because all the plans were silent on it, because that is one possibility Mr. Pak has considered. She reiterated this is not a project specific proposal; no development is proposed at this time. The property is on the market, and Mr. Pak has entertained a variety of options and people who are trying to do those things. They are trying to clarify for those inérested people what could be allowed. She said Staff recommendation would be acceptable to them; they would never want to bring forward a proposal that was not consistent with the definition ofwateFenjoyment. She said due to the nature of that piece of property surrounded by City rights-of-way on all three sides, any project that is proposed is only going to enhance the public access by developing those rights-of-way, by making them available to the public by using private funds because public funds ha\en't been available. Mr. Ronald Pak , Owner ofIndian Point Property Mr. Pak said Ms. Grahn represents his view well. He wanted to give the reason for his request. His property is approximately 42,000 sq. ft. including public parking and parking spaœ for the Tides Inn. He felt unfairness in paying property tax on his property. While all other property owners have developed, only the owner of this 42,000 sq. ft. property has the very ambiguous restrictions on the conditional use. Mr. Pak explained he did not have a specific project, but for the future if it can be fmanced he would like to develop something very nice with a small conference hall, big enough for county and city people to use. At one point he had discussions with a banker for devebpment. They looked at his property and said because of the ambiguity on the condition put on his land it would be very hard for them to evaluate the value of the development. He noted that at one point he ran into a fmancial problem when the stockmarket collapsed. He was trying to sell his land, and again the ambiguity of the condition placed on his land drove the potential buyer away. He decided to develop it himself, but he still needs some clarification and be rree rrom any restriction on theuse of the land so he can have a fmancial backup rrom the bank. He said he does not intend to build any condominiums or apartments, but the project he foresees is a restaurant with a banquet room and conference hall and an art gallery. Mr. Pak referred to the Staff Report saying it clarified some things, but he still does not want to see any restriction that would give a wrong impression to a potential buyer or fmancier. He said that was his purpose and felt he had a strong reason to ask. He noted his property is the only one that has this kind of restriction. He mentioned those that built condominiums and apartments, but promised he would not build that kind of project. He would like to have it rree rrom any ambiguity and restriction on his propety. He asked that they consider his circumstances as a tax payer, that it gives him a heavy burden. He said ifhe has the ability to amend the restrictions, he would be able to develop his land and have some income fÌ'Om this property. Mr. Randy Davis, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47775, Olympia WA He came primarily because the Commission invited him to answer questions. Mr. Davis asked to make a few background comments saying he felt confident the Commission is familiar with the Shoreline p1ann~ process because together the City and the State are working on a comprehensive rewrite of the City's Shoreline Plan. His only concern about the process was that it is a partnership and there are specific State and City roles. He said SMP amendments generally fall into two categories: 1) Comprehensive, such as what is being done by Port Townsend for the entire Plan, for the entire City; and 2) Project, closer to Mr. Pak, where a property owner looks at the f,lan and issues are presented in an amendment Mr. Davis thought they are dealing with a project type of amendment tonight. He said on one of these types of amendments they have a situation where a person is attempting to do something, develop their property or change it. The other end of the spectrum is speculative land development of which the DOE has historically been less than supportive. Mr. Davis indicated he had met with Mr. Pak, toured his property, which he said was a nice piece of property, but has not discerned actually what the isæes are. He knew Mr. Pak needs some support, and that DOE and the City are also willing to support him. He said he can answer Commissiorls questions but can't quite figure Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 7 · · · out where this is going; at this stage DOE doesn't have to make a decision. He does not have a decision, but would like to go on record with the City what DOE concerns would be with this amendment, the purpose of his letter. Those comments are basically things they can expect his agency to bring up as the process goes forward. He sat! he is available for questions, but they do not have a "yes" or "no" recommendation tonight on the amendment. At 8:02 p.m., Chair Thayer closed the hearing for Public Testimony on (LUP02-048) and opened Planning Commission Deliberation PLANNING COMMISSION DELffiERATION & ACTION: Ms. Surber clarified the statement made at the beginning of Ms. Ande Grahrls presentation about SMP trumping zoning, etc. Regarding overlay districts, she read rrom Chapter 17.26 PTMC that: ". . . The use provisions of the Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program shall govern over the use provisions of this titleeven [emphasis added] if a use is permitted pursuant to the Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master program which would not otherwise be permitted under the title." She said they have grappled with this in reviewing their SMP. Mr. Randall indicated that sometimes when you compare the Shoreline Code and the Zoning Code it doesn't seem to make sense. He pointed out some things that seemed rather odq that is the way the Shoreline Code is currently written. He responded to Ms. Grahn's presentation clarifying what he felt the issues (also included in the Staff Report) are: A. Amend the SMP Section 4.106 Port Townsend Urban Waterrront Special District, Introductory Text (3rd Paragraph and Policy l(a). (Staffrecommended not substituting Water-Oriented for Water-Dependent.) B. Amend the SMP Section 4.106 PTUW Special District, performance Standard #9 b (iii) giving exception to the 50% rule. (Mr. Randall suggested clarifying by adding at the end... "Provide an opportunity for the public to actively or passively enjoy the community's waterfront amenity such as water-enjoyment uses.") C. Amend the SMP Appendix D, Examples of Water-Oriented Uses, Water-Enjoyment Uses (Page 104) to include "conference centers". (Appears to be in agreement with the applicant.). Ms. Grahn concurred with Mr. Randall's suggestion for B., and said she just wanted to see water- enjoyment in there somewhere. Mr. Randall replied that was his sense, that Ms. Surber's idea was good that water-dependent and water- related be listed separately, that they are preferred uses, but maybe adding such as wateFenjoyment uses clarifies that is what they are talking about. He indicatw the 50% rule is the tough one; having wateroriented uses on the ground floor is complicated. He referred to Exhibit P-l1, Use Classification Table, and said it is rather like zoning and rather not like zoning. Under Commercial, Mr. Pak's property is Urban and more specifically PT Urban Watemont; if water-related, water-dependent or water-enjoyment, it is listed as a permitted use; if non-water oriented, it could be allowed but a conditional use. Exhibit P-4, Performance Standards, the 50% rule applies in the Port Townsend Watemont Special District -- #9 stands out. He referenced previous projects, Thomas Oil site and the Bayview projects. It appeared the City felt they were getting a bit inundated with condominiums, and following that adopted this rule to make a condominium project more difficult, or if you did this, you would have some of these restrictions to make it more appropriate on the watemont, 50% of the ground floor wateForiented uses. He went on to say that water-oriented again could be water-enjoyment uses, a restaurant, kayak rentals, etc. It is a little more complicated than the 50% rule applies to all commercial businesses, it only applies to these transient residential uses. If this amendment passed, he tried to clarify that aconference center, if it were designed with some public access that was water-enjoyment use, would be a permitted use. If you have a conference center with transient accommodations, the more restrictive policy would apply, the 50% rule, but if you have aconference center that did not have transient, residential accommodations, it would be a permitted use. A nonwater-oriented commercial use, would be a conditional use but would also not have the 50% rule. He was trying to clarify where the 50% rule came rrom and what it applies to. Chair Thayer read Ms. Alice King's comments into the record as Exhibit P-13. Ms. Hersey asked for clarification, that she thought she heard it said with any of the three water uses, there could not be any living space on the fIrst floor and asked if it can't be on the fIrst floor can it be on the second? Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 8 · · · Mr. Randall was trying to say the 50% rule only applies to residential and transient accommodations and specifically says a minimum 50% of the total ground floor aral of all buildings which include any transient shall be reserved on continuous basis for water-oriented uses. Specifically Mr. Pak's property talking about conference centers, the predictability for him to know who or who not to sell to, what can be devebped on his property -- it is confusing and difficult to give an answer. He thought they were actually working through it and wateiOriented, enjoyment or dependent uses are primary uses, which means you get a Shoreline permit which does not have to meet the tougher conditional use criteria, does not have to go to DOE for their approval (though they can appeal it), and unless you have resident or transient accommodations, you dorlt have to include such things as wateroriented, but if you do have transient or residential accommodations at least half of the first floor has to be waterdependent or water-enjoyment use (e.g., restaurant, kayak rental). That only applies to ground floors. Ms. Surber replied to a question rrom Ms. Hersey that Performance Stædard 9a states, "Residential and transient accommodation uses shall not occupy any portion of the ground floor of any buildings. Accessory uses, such as lobbies . . . are allowed. . ." Mr. Randall gave an example of a threð-story, new hotel, new condo, etc. it could have office/lobby 50% of the ground floor, restaurant 50%, or some other rental space reserved for wateFenjoyment, dependent or water- oriented uses and the rooms above. Ms. Hersey asked if it would be an outright permitted and/or conditbnal use. Mr. Randall replied if it were concluded to have enough characteristics to be a wateFenjoyment use, it would be a primary use that would not require a conditional use permit. If not, it would fall into the commercial non-water-oriented that requires a conditional use permit, but only requires 50% if it is transient or residential use. MOTION SECOND VOTE Ms. Dorgan Divide the question Ms. Hersey Passed unanimously, 6 in favor by show of hand BCD Recommendation: A. Recommend Denial of Amendments to Section 4.106 Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District, Introductory Text (3rd Paragraph) and Policy l(a). Mr. Hyland asked if Mr. Pak's property is for sale? Mr. Pak replied it was not now, that it had been. He tried to sell it. Mr. Hyland asked Mr. Pak if he minded if his asking the selling price. Chair Thayer stated that has no bearing on what we are here to decide, and it was determined Mr. Pak did not need to answer the question. Mr. Pak said he had nothing to hide. Ms. Gralm clarified for Mr. Hyland this project is speculative; their concern is the regulations are terrifying people. Regulations have made it impossible for her client to attempt to get a permit, that on numerous occasions Staff Planners have told hin they don't think he can actually apply. She explàined that part of this process for them is a very expensive administrative decision or determination. Chair Thayer directed the Planning Commission that this is a quasi-judicial decision, and that they can only make decision based on the request by the applicant. Mr. Hyland agreed and said the background had been relevant to him. He spoke of public access, that he had grown up in New England then moved to Oregon. He spoke of Rhode Island that las a lot of shoreline. He indicated their Attorney General wanted to determine how many feet of shoreline was available to the public; they hired law students to do a study and found in looking at such things as easements that public access was minuscule. He said he was biased, that over the hundreds of years people had built buildings and today there was very little public access and very little public parking. Oregon's laws read that there is public access to all beaches in all navigable waterways, whi:h now includes most of the Willamette River. Chair Thayer interjected referencing Mr. Hyland's statement that he was biased. She asked ifhe was saying he was biased in terms of this application. Mr. Hyland replied that no he was biased for pœlic access to property. Mr. Randall spoke of the Quasi-Judicial Appearance of Fairness Doctrine that applies and asked the proponents if they were opposed to Mr. Hyland's bias for public access. Ms. GralJan pointed out that any project would be reviewtrl consistent with any existing regulations of the City of Port Townsend that ensure that all shoreline development of any kind has adequate public access and meets Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 9 · · · the goals of the SMP. She also noted that almost 3/4 of this property, the shoreline propeJty, is in City ownership already. Mr. Hyland then asked regarding water-enjoyment, does that mean that the public has access as long as they are buying, or also if they are not spending money there? Mr. Randall replied in Appendix D, examples of water-enjoyment uses, it depends on the situation. He cited The Surf restaurant as a water-enjoyment use and that as a condition of approval they were required to provide an additional deck outside the deck for their client's use for the public whether or not they are buying something at The Surf. He thought that typically in waterenjoyment uses you don't have to buy to enjoy. Mr. Hyland noted the condomirl.Ïums next to the Bayview have public access that he enjoyed. Ms. Dorgan asked Mr. Davis, as a DOE representative, 1) if he could imagine an example of a water enjoyment use facility that would not allow public access within the facility; and, 2) if the definition of water enjoyment public access component is if you only have access to the exterior ofth: facility you are within the parameters of water-enjoyment. Mr. Davis replied he could imagine it because it is a statewide struggle. He said Mr. Hyland was referring to a problem they have where they do conditioned development for public access and cane back years later to fmd out it is not being honored and that people are forced to buy their way into these facilities to enjoy it. He said prefacing that, they are really talking about several different types of public trust interest, that the trail hat goes along the beach would be physical access to the water. There is also visual access and what they are terming watef enjoyment is a development, structures that have types of uses that have some relationship to the water. Watef enjoyment is a stretch; definitely water-dependent and water-related are historical and have some kind of commerce or navigational relationships to the water. Water-enjoyment was created as an extension of recreation. Years ago DNR did not honor water-enjoyment; they didn't define it and consider it in their leases, but he thought they have since changed. He said both comments are appropriate, but to understand this particular project, you have to sort them out. Just because Mr. Pak would provide a water-enjoyment use does not necessarily mean it would be the sum total of all public interest in the development. He said we might still be interested in the visual impacts and physical impacts or physical access to the water. He thought the strategy of wateForiented is to try and sort out. Everyone wants to be on the water, it is to try to give preference and priority to those folks and those uses that need to be on the water first to make sure they are taken care of in a given community. He said that in essence this is th preamble of the Shoreline Management Act; those priorities are listed starting with waterdependency (obviously, single family residential was included to accommodate the real world). Those uses then are the priorities, and other uses should be allowed, but only after you have dealt with your priority uses and environmental protection, the other part of the Shoreline Management Act. He said all these things being talked about are reasons why he spoke earlier about project amendments on the one end being speculative, and on the other end fixing a specific project, and is why he cannot discern this, because he is not seeing or hearing a specific project that is inconsistent with the Citýs Plan, not that it doesn't exist, but that he is not hearing it and will make it tough for the Commission to sort it out. He said it would make it a lot easier if they were here with a specific plan; instead oflooking at all scenarios, we locked in on one. He said if they want to build condos or a restaurant he and Ms. Surber could show them how; maybe it needs an amendment, or maybe not. He was looking for the applicant to step forward and provide the leadership as to exactly what they want, and then he can help them get there. He said that was his comment when he met with then onsite, and it is the same a month later. Ms. Thayer said that is not the avenue tonight; they are not asking for a specific project. Mr. Davis replied that isn't for the City but it is why he wrote it into his letter. He stated itwill be for the State; you can deal with those kinds of issues now, or deal with them later, but unless they can really figure out what is going on and how to amend it, to make it work for Mr. Pak, there will still be concerns. Ms. Dorgan thought it seems the applicant wants unfettered use of his property and was not sure they could do that. Ms. Davis said he is not so sure DOE can do that either, unless unfettered use involves waterdependency, water-related and other priority uses of State shorelines. Mr. Irvin said he didn't here the same thing; he heard the applicant he would like clarification so he knows what he can do, with or without restrictions. He thought he heard Mr. Pak indicate he sees the 50% rule as being the greatest restriction he sees. During Mr. Randall's discussion of the Use Tables, etc., he heard him say that if you accept all of the Staff recommendations and act upon them, that the applicant can still come forward with a permitted use that involves something like a restauran~ an art gallery and a meeting room and not even be concerned Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 10 · · · with the 50% rule; that, as he understands, it only applies to residential and transient. He said rrom his perspective, it seems if the Commission would act upon these three proposals as Staff recommends them it would provide clarification for the applicant to go forward for a project with a specific proposal. If it involved residential and transient accommodations, the 50% rule would still be there. He asked if he was correct Mr. Randall concurred, that was what he was saying. Chair Thayer also concurred. Mr. Hyland said he enjoys listening to Mr. Irvin and appreciates his professionalism, but also agreed with what Ms. Dorgan said and heard too. He thought the applicant was being honest, but his experience is many times people will say they do not know what they want to do with the property, and then sometime after being approved come up with a proposal that looks like it might have been planned a long time ago. He said he had lots of questions. He referenced Mr. Davis' remarks about visual impact. He asked about the controversy around the Tides Inn and the giant electric transformer, and how they promised to pay for this public access. He said they do not have that public access now, and you see a lot of that. He felt the City made a huge mistake and thinks the City and the owner of Tides Inn pulled a number on the citizens of Port Townsend at that point. Ms. Hersey asked if they were to permit as waterenjoyment, does Staffha\e specific rules and regulations set forth? Would you have to come up with rules and regulations that constitute the visual enjoyment portion, a certain number of windows to be considered a visual enjoyment, if not how are you going to come up with those? She asked if they come for a permit, how are they going to permit it, water enjoyment as it relates to recommendations A and C.? Mr. Randall responded that the Urban Waterrront Plan has guidelines that apply to different areas along Sims Way, but as they get down to the area in question he did not think there were a lot of guidelines that refer to visual appearance of buildings. He thought she was talking about esthetics. Ms. Hersey replied if they are going to use the building for water enjoymentand it is a restaurant, etc., the enjoyment is the visual looking rrom the inside to outside, as well as looking at the ocean. She asked if it was going to be 3x5 windows, or 200 sq. ft. of a water vista rrom the inside out? What are your regulations? Mr. Randall turned the question to Mr. Davis who indicated all these questions are right on, how to regulate that. He said the minimum standards DOE has used are reflected in these amendments in the defmition they use of water enjoyment. They talk aoout spatial relationship in that the water enjoyment portion must be located and oriented toward the shoreline. The fact that the Port ToWnsend plan talks about the first floor having a percentage is a performance standard for guaranteeing public use of Sloreline. When they say 50% of the first floor is water oriented or water-enjoyment, that is about as far as we get. He said you are right, you can have a person that would suggest a restaurant, and that although it would be foolish, not have it orientedto where you can even see the shoreline. You can have a person that builds a restaurant and as now in another case, decide to change uses to a gambling casino that is not considered a water-enjoyment use. He said they are right; they are all talking abœt issues at hand. He thought it best to deal with a specific proposal, and then they know what they are buying into. Mr. Randall said they do have defmitions of water-enjoyment; it doesn't give such things as square footage of windows facing the waer. Typically, that is the kind of detail you get when you have that specific project; the applicant comes forward with a proposal and not only gives them a site plan, where the building will be located on the property, where the public access is, but aloo elevations, how tall the building will be, where the windows will be, exterior lights, etc., view analysis. That typically happens at the project level, so yes, but no there are not specific standards in here about how many square feet of windows, etc. Ms. Hersey asked, the City does take care of that? Mr. Randall replied that is part of the application procedure, showing the design of the building, what its going to look like, how it is oriented on the property. He enumerated some very legitimate qæstions for the decision maker, on the Shoreline project the Port Townsend Hearing Examiner, is public access being taken care of, are public views of the water being taken care of, or are they being unnecessarily impacted? Ms. Hersey said she is bringing this up at the Planning Commission to make sure there are assurances of the enjoyment portion, if this is visual enjoyment. If this is being taken care of in the Citýs process, she said she is okay with that. Chair Thayer assured ifMr. Pak has a proj:ct it will come before the City. Ms. Hersey wanted to make that specific so they understand if they are changing something to a greater amount of projects there is still a stipulation, regulation that even as a permitted process it will be taken care of and things will get done through the City. Mr. Randall clarified he did not think subsections A and C are creating anything new. He thought it was really a clarification that under the purpose section in A) waterenjoyment uses are allowed, although !Ubservient and less encouraged than water-oriented and water-dependent. Specification clarification about conference centers Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 11 · · · should they be listed as water-enjoyment use if they provide those characteristics of public access, etc. He said the really new thing would be B) providing an exemption for this property rrom the 50% rule. Mr. Hyland said Ms. Hersey mentioned assurances and he reiterated to let history be our guide, and Tides Inn occurred only a few years ago. Mr. Randall said he needed to halt the conversation. He said Mr. Pak did not build the Tides Inn addition; he was the applicant on the project and got project approval, but Mr. Pak did own the Tides Inn at that time. Mr. Hyland countered he did not know who owns the Tides Inn, and doe; not know the history of it, other than what he read in the newspaper. He said that until now he did not know he had anything to do with the Tides Inn. He could say what he wanted. Mr. Randall answered that he could say what he wanted, but for the reIDrd there is public access along the entire shoreline of the Tides Inn. Mr. Hyland contended there were conditions that were supposed to be met, that were not met and the City ended up paying for them. Chair Thayer explained that could happen in any application. Mr. Hyland agreed but asked what kind of assurances Ms. Hersey was asking for are we going to get? Chair Thayer asked to entertain a motion on A. MOTION Ms. Dorgan Accept Staff Recommendations, Findings and Conclusions and Deny Section A of the Amendment Ms. Dorgan said she thought the existing language that covers all three aspects of shoreline usage is in the proper hierarchy, covers all aspects and does not need to be changed. SECOND Mr. Irvin Discussion Mr. Berg wanted to do one of two things, either vote no on Ms. Dorgarl s motion or offer an amendment that they add "such as water-enjoyment" uses to the end ofline b. Ms. Surber clarified the location is Exhibit P-4, page 4. (Policies 1.b. Mr. Randall's suggested clarification. ). Mr. Berg said Ms. Dorgan's suggestion is to leave 1.a. as it currently exist, not to accept the strike-out and underlined language, and Mr. Randall's suggestion is to add "such as water-enjoyment uses." at the end of 1.b. The reason for his suggestion, what he understood what the applicants want on this particular l.a. is just some clarification that water-enjoyment uses are okay here. By explicitly including the words in this policy, he thought he was addressing what they were asking for. He did not see any reason not to do it because it really doesn't change anything, just clarifies the policy. Chair Thayer asked Ms. Dorgan if she would accept a Friendly Amendment. Ms. Dorgan said her understanding of 1.b., which was definition. You are saying that by adding the words "water-enjoymenf' you are making clear that . . . Mr. Randall explained that sub b. is an extremely short summary or reference to wateFenjoyment uses. He said if you look at the defmition of water-enjoyment uses in the SMP, it is a much longer definition. He said Ms. Surber pointed out she felt 1.b. in its phrase was basically summarizing waterenjoyment uses. Rather than just vaguely summarizing we are suggesting specifically referring to it. Heanswered Ms. Dorgan that yes, b. is consistent with the defmition of waterenjoyment use. Ms. Dorgan added and the hierarchy remains. Mr. Randall replied the hierarchy is established through the SMP and he does not believe this is inconsistent with that hierarchy established in the SMP for those uses. Ms. Dorgan asked how this affects Point Hudson. Mr. Randall replied that this is in the Port Townsend Urban Watemont section of the performance standards. Point Hudson is a district within tlBt, and it does apply. Ms. Dorgan asked it that means that any component of public access at Point Hudson would fulfill the requirements of the SMP without even having public access necessarily inside the facility so you could walk around it. Mr. Randall said he did not think the answer is that simple. He said as they have been talking, the response Planning Commission Minutes October 10,2002/ Page 12 · · · to how any situation would work out on any specific piece of property is totally dependent on the proposal. Point Hudson has its own unique circumstanc~ with unique buildings and unique situations. He reiterated that adding such as water-enjoyment uses would not change the kinds of uses that could be proposed at Point Hudson, or how they would be reviewed. He thought it simply clarifies that wateFenjoyment uses in this policy are okay, and thinks that is consistent with the Use Table which also says that waterenjoyment uses are a permitted, primary uses, in Point Hudson as the other sections of the Urban Watemont Area. He told Ms. Dorgan he thoughthe knew her concern, and did not think this makes it easier to propose a use at Point Hudson that would only have a minimal public access. This wouldn't allow that to happen if it weren't already allowed. Ms. Dorgan said she wouldn't accept a Friendly Amendment because she felt the terminology in our SMP is very specific. She said this policy as it is written does not use the term waterenjoyment, and she is going to assume it is not there for a particular reason. Chair Thayer restated the motion is to recommend denial of the amendment. VOTE Passed 5 in favor by roll call vote, Ms. Hersey opposed BCD Recommendation: B. Recommend denial of amendments to Section 4.106 PTUW Special District, performance Standard #9 b (iii) giving exception to 50% rule. MOTION Mr. Irvin Accept Staff Recommendation and recommend denial of the amendments to Section 4.106 PTUW Special District, Performance Standard #9 b(iii) according to Suggested Findings and Conclusions SECOND Ms. Dorgan Discussion: Chair Thayer noted a typographical error of Staff Recommendation in. (line 5) and asked to have it changed to read "public". Ms. Dorgan gave a scenario asking to assume they include conference centers as a permitted wateF enjoyment use. If an applicant wanted to do a mixed-use development with residential above, under B) Y2 water oriented -- if they changed C), could they have the entire fIrst floor a conference center with residential use above. If changed to water-enjoyment, that would fit the requirement of the 50% rule? Ms. Surber replied it would depend on how you treated C). If you were to insert wateFenjoyment use into the appendix straight out, your scenario could happen. If you were to put it as Staff has suggested as part of the defmition of water-enjoyment all those other public access provisions would have to be incorporated. Ms. Dorgan said access set aside, she was talking about the actual facility. Mr. Surber suggested at looking at the defInition of water-enjoyment uses, provides for pa~ive and active interaction of the large number of people of the shoreline. . . as a general character of the use. She said if the conference center was excluded to the general public, she would think the City would have an argument that it is not part cf the general character of the use. Ms. Surber pointed out this is not a performance standard like providing a 3x5 window, until a project comes in and you start analyzing it it against the defmitions and deciding on a caseby-case basis. Ms. Dorgan said once you open this door, it loosens this so much, and. she said she does not want to loosen things up that much. She does not want to make conference centers that general She was trying to get clarification if they could have transient and r~idential component and could do that, whether they could just have conference centers, take their chances as to how much public access they would have actually inside the building. Mr. Irvin supported and made the motion suggesting they could think á numerous scenerios. He said if they accept Staff recommendations and adopt all of these A), B), and C) amendments, nothing has changed except the defmition which includes conference centers. He mentioned a possible application, thinking of physical acess which has been assured by the City and the applicant that Citÿ s properties guarantee physical access on the outside. He suggested kayak rental having counters in the rront, absolutely no windows in the back because kayaks are all stacked up against the wall so they are water accessible, a water-dependent application, the public would have no view whatsoever except in the physical access portion. That would be a permitted application, and he said you can come up with any scenario, either walk in andsee out; come in and see out; or come in and do business and not see out. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 13 · · · Ms. Dorgan indicated the problem with that analogy is you are talking about a wateFdependent business, which is our highest category of use. She noted they are getting downthe scale now to something like a conference center that could be any place. Mr. Irvin stated he does not see those categories the same way. He thought a watemont restaurant has more per person business than a kayak rental year round, and he wouldsee the water-enjoyment in this case as a higher use to the general public than waterdependent. Ms. Hersey called for the question VOTE UNANIMOUS, 6 in favor by roll call vote BCD Recommendation: C. Recommend denial of amendments to the SMP Appendix D, Examples of Water-Oriented Uses, Water- Enjoyment Uses (Page 104) to include "conference centers" and Approval of Revisions to the definition of water enjoyment use as drafted by Staff. MOTION Ms. Hersey Accept Staff Recommendation and according to Staff Findings and Conclusions deny amendments to the SMP Appendix D, but adding conference centers to the definition section Mr. Irvin SECOND Discussion: Ms. Hersey spoke of the need for more conference centers and the need to also have itat that end of town. She would like to see large groups and small groups in the winter; it would be a fmancial benefit and good for the community. The City still owns 2/3 of the beach and will not allow projects conflicting with our standards. Ms. Dorgan referred to primary characteristics of water-enjoyment uses in the SMP handbook and indicated she cannot see conference centers giving the characteristic of public access since it would be rented by private parties. She would like it kept as it is, as a conditional use under Shoreline. She thought the problem was with the bank, not with the policy. She liked the extra protection with conditional use permit; there is nothing that says we can't have a conference center. Mr. Berg said on one hand he ¡:greed, but whether or not it is a bank problem or a problem with the policy, it is a problem. If the bank is not going to make a loan on this project, they are not going to get it, whether conditional or whatever. The problem he had with adding conferenc centers to the list, it to solve this person's particular problem, but adding it forever. There were suggestions for conference centers at the Northwest Maritime Center and Fort Worden, as well as hindrances. Ms. Thayer felt if this is approved and an application comes in for a conference center, it would be highly scrutinized, there would be beach access, paths to the beach a number of things to provide for wateFenjoyment use. She felt a conditional use is an added a burden for any applicant. Mr. Irvin said in his opinion this is not a change of policy, but a change in deftnition of uses and specifically water-enjoyment uses that says including but not limited to. He did not see that much difference between a restaurant, a resort, a conference center, etc. Ms. Dorgan asked Ms. Surber if she had an applicant for a conference center, if they were to adopt the new wording for a deftnition, would that require a conditional use permit; isIÌt that the whole point of making the change, to get out of doing a conditional use permit? Ms. Surber answered if it met the defmition of waterenjoyment use, which has those provisions for the access, numerous people, etc., it would be defmed as a commercial waterenjoyment use, currently permittJd in that district in the Use Table. Ms. Dorgan posed that there would be no conditional use permit. Ms.Surber replied she could not guarantee that since there is no specific proposal and there are several sections of this code to look at when reviewing. Ms. Dorgan countered that we do know the way it reads now; it would be a nODwater-oriented commercial use. Ms. Surber stated unless there is an interpretation that it already fits under waterenjoyment use. Mr. Hyland totally agreed with Ms. Dorgan and thought it is a little wedge for changes to be made. He spoke of availability for conference rooms at Fort Worden. Ms. Dorgan said, for the record, mends recently returned rrom a cruise and gave little notice for use of a conference room at Fort Worden, not years in advance as previously suggested would be needed. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 14 · · · Chair Thayer called for the question. Mr. Berg asked for clarification of the motion. Chair Thayer said it was her understanding if the motion did not pass, they could have another mdion with the omission of conference centers. VOTE Passed 4 in favor by roll call vote, Mr. Hyland and Ms. Dorgan opposed Ms. Surber asked if they cared to include a minority report in their recommendations to City Council. Mr. Hyland and Ms. Dorgan were to briefly meet with Ms. Surber for inputto a minority report to express their views. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 24,2002 -- Finalize submittal to City Council November 21, 2002 -- Quasi-Judicial Open Record Public Hearing (LUP02-046) Kelly--Jefferson Transit Rezone IX. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Hyland reported he was the Planning Commission representative to the Affordable Housing Committee that will be meeting monthly for several months. Ms. Dorgan asked the he report on steps being take by the committee.. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Hersey and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. a~~ ~~~ Cindy Tha ' , Chair , ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2002 / Page 15