Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout113006 Minutes CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Pope Marine Building, Port Townsend Thursday, November 30, 2006, 7:00 PM Meeting Materials: EXH. I Agenda for November 30, 2006 EXH. 2 J. Surber, Memo to R. Sepler, Background on Bedrooms as Measure of Density in the R-lll and R-IV Zoning Districts, November 9,2006 EXH. 3 R. SepIer, Memo to Planning Commission, Dwelling Units versus Bedrooms as a Measure of Density in Single Family Attached Housing in R-lll and R-IV Zoning Districts, November 9,9,2006 EXH.4 Attachment 2, Ecology Required Changes to SMP Draft December 21, 2005 EXH.5 Attachment 3, Recommended Changes to SMP Draft December 21,2005 EXH.6 DOE letter to Mayor Mark Welch, Port Townsend SMP - Approval of Comprehensive Update, dated October 27, 2006. EXH. 7 Revisions to the SMP Restoration Chapter, including two (2) graphics EXH.8 Port of Port Townsend, Letter to Judy Surber regarding SMP revisions, November 30,2006 EXH. 9 Guest List for November 30,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair George Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL The following Planning Commission members were present: Alice King, Roger Lizut, George Randels, Julian Ray, Liesl Slabaugh, Cindy Thayer, and George Unterseher Harriet Capron and Steve Emery were excused. Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director and Judy Surber, Senior Planner 111. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Randels stated that Mr. Sepler had requested an adjustment of the agenda that would place the Interim Ordinance Workshop as the first order of business. This would allow Mr. Sepler to proceed to the City Council meeting at the Fire Hall at the conclusion of that agenda item. He noted that since this Planning Commission meeting location had been changed from the Fire Hall to the Pope Marine Building, that would also provide more time for members of the public to arrive before the SMP Public Hearing. Ms. Thayer moved that the agenda be approved, and Mr. Ray seconded. The agenda was approved as amended, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Corrections to minutes for November 2,2006: Page 1: Ms. Thayer moved that the minutes be approved, as l.vritten, . Page 3: Mr. Sepler.................. very low in present value, . Page 4: Mr. Ray..... off-street parking requirements, allowing. Mr. Emery ............. of the U. District....... Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2006 Page I of9 Mr. Ray moved and Mr. Unterseher seconded that the minutes be approved, as amended. Minutes of November 1, 1006 were approved, all in favor. Chair Randels suggested that, as a general rule, for any Commissioner who arrives after the roll call, his/her time of arrival should appear in the text of the minutes to correlate with the agenda topic in progress at that time. Corrections to minutes for November 9,2006: Page I: The recorder verified that Mr. Emery had been excused from this meeting. Page 2: There was comment about the parenthetical 2006 SMP completion date, with no correction. Page 6: Item 31 - .... ....repairs and alterations Ms. Thayer moved ana.Mr. Unterseher seconded that the minutes be approved, as amended. Minutes of November 9, 1006 were approved, as amended, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) VII. NEW BUSINESS Interim Ordinance Workshop (Rick Sepler) [Note: This topic was considered in its entirety prior to IV. Approval of Minutes, per the approved changes to the agenda under Ill. above.] Mr. Sepler noted that materials (EXH. 2 and EXH. 3) had been distributed at the previous meeting and offered extra copies, as needed. He recalled that the City Council had adopted an Interim Standard, which was based on concerns raised by staff regarding the use of bedrooms as a measure of density in R-IlI zoning specifically for single family attached, for not more than 4 units, i.e. a four-plex (4 units) or less. He said the matter had been considered previously. The Planning Commission had recommended that it not be in the code, i.e. it was originally in the code, then removed, and then reinserted. He said that staff had tried to describe in EXH. 2 the prior train of events and the major reasons cited for previous decisions. In addition, EXH. 3 is an analysis discussing the key issues and the concerns. The interim measure prohibits the use of bedrooms as a measure of density for R-III single family attached dwellings; this will expire in February. Towards that end, the Planning Commission has been charged to consider whether it is appropriate to continue with the existing standard or to adopt modifications to it. Mr. Sepler said that it is anticipated that a December 21 public hearing on a recommended ordinance will be held by the Planning Commission on this issue. Mr. Sepler said that a fundamental issue is that although bedrooms are used in a number of places as a measure of density, specifically in determining capacity requirements for septic system permits, it is less used for density itself. The default tends to be more for dwelling units or for dwelling units per acre. He said that in Port Townsend, because of pre-existing planning, we have further modified that to be 12 units per 40,000 square feet, as opposed to 43,560 square feet, in the R-lll zone. Mr. Sepler discussed the two questions that have been raised regarding this issue: 1. Should bedrooms be aI/owed as a measure of development density for single family attached housing, and 2. Should a minimum lot size be established for single family attached residential development, because there is a direct linkage between the t\.,V'o? He said that a review of the code indicates that there is no specific minimum lot size; there is a staff interpretation of how that is determined. However, there are those who have an alternative interpretation that yields a lesser square footage requirement per unit. Both are described in EXH. 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2006 Page 2 of9 Chair Randels asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Sepler was referring to minimum lot size within R- III and R-IV. Mr. Sepler said that meant within R-IIl, specifically for single family attached dwellings. He said that R-IV was somewhat beyond the scope, by its nature, with a different density requirement. He added that dnring the first quarter of2007, staff expected to propose code fixes to address this more broadly, and that it was not specifically an issue for the Planning Commission to. consider as part of the Interim Ordinance set. George Unterseher asked how PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) would be affected by this. Mr. Sepler responded that PUDs would not be affected because they are allowed to vary density, within 20 percent, and are also allowed to vary lot size and standards. He said it is a "binding site plan" approach, where the developer must show the how the complete ensembles of buildings, roads, utilities are located. He said that staff has concluded that there should be a minimum lot size per single family attached dwelling in the R-1II zone; that lot size should be 5,000 square feet. He noted that that would mean two units (duplex) in a single 5,000 square foot lot In addition, bedrooms may not be the best measure of density. If the intent is to apply a bonus, perhaps a bonus scheme dealing with the totality of an area would be a better. That is, not just on a lot by lot basis, but at a project level. Mr. Rande1s pointed out that that is known as a PUD. Mr. Sepler added that that provision for a bonus is covered in the code. In conclusion, he said staff recommends eliminating bedrooms as a measure of density for single family attached residences in the R-III zone. Staff further recommends the minimum lot size for single family attached residence be clarified in the code as 5,000 square feet, i.e. two units, or duplex, per 5,000 square foot lot. Each additional single family attached dwelling unit would require an additional 2,500 square feet. In R-IIl, 7,500 square feet would be required for a triplex dwelling. Mr. Sepler reviewed the Planning Commission role for this meeting: Determine if amendment and lor revision of the applicable regulations are warranted and in the public interest. He added that he and Ms. Surber would be happy to answer any questions about the background or the substantive issue on the table for the evening. Chair Randels noted the statement on page 1 of the memo (EXH. 3) indicating that the R-IV portion of this would be considered outside of this expedited review process. He said that he understood this to mean that bedrooms would remain in the code for R-IV alone. Yet, under staff recommendation on page 4, R-IV zoning districts are mentioned along with R-III. Therefore, he said he wondered why this should not be dealt with all at once. Mr. Sepler said that the Planning Commission could choose to consider the broader scope, if so desired. He also clarified that staff did not say that bedrooms are totally inappropriate; the focus here is requirements for single family attached residences. Mr. Ray asked if the discussion should be limited to R-llI and R-IV. Mr. Sepler responded that the Planning Commission had been directed to consider the Interim ordinance but, typically, they are free to consider the related issues. In response to a follow up question from Chair Randels, Mr. Sepler said that page 3 ofthe memo should be revised by omitting the reference to R -IV. Public Testimony C. L. Flint. 3162 McClellan Street. Port Townsend Mr. Flint said that he is an owner of several R-III parcels around town, and is currently developing two of them. He identified his main issue as follows: '''If someone can build this structure, this 3-bedroom structure on a 50 x 100 foot lot, and c0mply with the parking requirements, setbacks and everything, then what does it hurt? The world has kind of changed here the last few years, and we are living in a place where the automobile may no longer be as predominant a thing as it has been through most of our lives. I think that to increase the density in some of these neighborhoods, with smaller structures, is consistent with how Port Townsend has always developed, and keeps these buildings in a scale with the neighborhood - it makes them look more like a single family structure than it does an "'18-plex". My other concern is that I'm a local, small town sort of guy, and I do these developments myself; and in order to start doing, I mean, you guys want to talk about this as 40,000 square foot lots, but a lot of these parcels are owned by Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2006 Page 3 of9 individuals who only own 5,000 square feet. So, what you've kind of done is taken away their ability to develop smaller scale type structures that look more like the character of Port Townsend. I own some of these blocks, and what this will kind of do is put me out of business as a local guy. The numbers get kind of ridicuJous. I would have to borrow three or four million dollars to build out one of these projects in the scale and scope that you guys are talking about. There doesn't seem to be much demand for large apartment buildings in Port Townsend, and I think they've kind of become eye sores. So, my thought is if you leave this the way it is and somebody is able to comply with all of the requirements, we actually end up with structures - where the bulk and dimension of them fit more in the neighborhoods of Port Townsend. R-III was designated the way it is to be sort of a transitional type zone in these neighborhoods where it was zoned, so we are trying not to build, I mean the zoning code was trying to not have these great big structures in these R-IlI neighborhoods, so I think the zoning code has worked, today, nobody has ever tried to build one of these yet. Nobody has ever tried to jump through the hoops to get it done, and they can't build it and address the parking and all the other requirements that are built in to the code presently. So, I don't think that this thing has the potential to cause any harm to the community left the way it is. And I think it is (was) actually pretty forward thinking when they did it, because they were actually trying to get people into these smaller more compact structures, rather than ending up with that stuff that we've got on San Juan Avenue that, you know, in my opinion, is heading to be a slum in the not too distant future. So, I think that this thing has worked, in so much that no one has ever used this density bonus yet, or figured out how to use it, so why don't we leave it alone until somebody tries to do it and see ifit will work. It seems that we have kind of got the cart in front of the horse on this one, and have decided there is a problem before there ever is a problem. So, I'd like you to just leave it alone, and it appears to be a non- starter anyway for most people, but what it does is allows smaller developers the opportunity to build some multi-family housing without having to import customers from Seattle that build these large apartment buildings. So, I'd like to see it left alone. Thank you. Chair Randels thanked Mr. Flint and asked if there were any others who wished to testify. There were none. He then asked if there were any questions for staff or for Mr. Flint. Commissioner King stated that she did not have questions, but recalled that she was on the Plarming Commission about five years ago, when this issue was first considered. She said she voted against it then, and hadn't changed her mind. She said that if a density bonus is desired, there should be direct acknowledgement of that intent, and the measure should be clearly identified as a density bonus. She also stated that the requirements for receiving the density bonus should be clear and specific, whether that is to build affordable units, or a PUD, or other. She said that she was not against the density bonus. She said that she did not see that requiring 5,000 square feet for two units necessarily mandates a huge apartment complex or detracts from the small town look, i.e. she did not follow the reasoning or logic that leads to that conclusion. She added that she was in favor of moving away from number of bedrooms as a density measure, and towards dwelling units. Chair Randels said that he had a question about Mr. Flint's testimony, specifically the statement that this measure would inhibit development that is more to scale with adjoining neighborhoods. He asked if it was not correct that under the existing provisions, theoretically, one could build a tri-plex with three one bedroom rmits or a duplex... Mr. Flint interjected, "with two eight bedroom units". Randels: "Or they could each have one bedroom?? of two - four bedrooms versus three. But, if that's the case, how would the scale issue be germane at all- those two structures would be pretty much the same size, would they not?" Flint: "No, not necessarily." Randels: "A duplex with two bedrooms each, versus a triplex with one bedroom each?" Mr. Flint again said that he did not agree, noting that he "built these things for a living". He said that it is hard to get two bedrooms in smaller than 1500 square feet. Mr. Sepler said that the core issues and the concerns of the staff are not disagreements with increased density. He noted that the challenge that arises is the impact on transit and parking. Ms. King asked, "Do we just want to encourage higher density, or do we want to encourage affordable housing? If we want to encourage affordable housing, there may be a number of ways to do that. I am not convinced that one bedroom apartments are necessarily the way to go; I am not certain what the market wants, nor the optimal mix of affordable housing. I understand that this issue can become complex, i.e. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2006 Page 4 of9 defining affordable, and defining what is affordable. But, what is the reason we want to increase density, and why are we giving this density bonus, if it isn't to encourage affordable housing?" Mr. Ray noted that another member of the public (Vem Garrison) had arrived. Chair Randels explained that the meeting had begun with the density issue, and asked ifMr. Garrison wished to testify. Mr. Garrison indicated that he would like to speak, and apologized for arriving late. He said that he hoped "'he could establish, so that no one makes a wrong assumption, what the original intent was" (of bedrooms as measure of density). He said, "Quite often when we look at the zoning rules, no matter how they are put together, it has to do with the intent and actually what the existing power structure wishes to have. If you wish not to have a bonus density, you won't have it, because you can go through the existing code and come up with some creative inventive decisions saying it was never meant to be. I was on the Council when the bonus density was created. It was pnt together by a conglomerate of not politically aligned people. It was an eclectic group of Shulberg and others of the other side that came forward. It was clearly meant to be a bonus density to increase the quantity of housing on the market, to diminish the size of the houses that we were having, these McMansions, and to cluster more people in areas where they can share transportation." "It is now no longer just something that we have the luxury of just theorizing about. Global warming is irreversible; it's possible, now, that you no longer have to worry about the zoning, just go ahead and let it die. But, we can do what we can do to minimize. And you want to put as many people in as tight a housing as you can, sharing transportation options and opportunities, so that we can get rid of our cars. It doesn't do anyone any good to say that the bedroom density didn't mean anything... it did. It meant if you had a 5,000 square foot lot, and you built 3 one-bedroom units, you are going to have a tri-plex. It wasn't a mistake, it was intentioned to be that way, and it was written that way. So, when we talk about intent or interpretation, all of that is just taking advantage of historical amnesia. As developers, it doesn't put any money in our pockets. The more units you have on the market, the more affordable the units are. That's been supply and demand, that's an economic law. The smaller they are, the more affordable they are. We have an option now, and this is another zoning use that was never allowed to occur. We are here reviewing it, and it was never used. The cottage ordinance was never really used. People went around it and used PUDs because they couldn't make it work. So, here we are on the verge of possibly using the bedroom density bonus and our new director says he doesn't like it because it's bedrooms and dwellings and they don't mix. Site by site, think of 50 x 100 lots, don't think of one acre projects. Now they are saying, it only meant multi-family. So, if you make these giant ugly apartment houses, where people are jammed together and can hear their neighbors through the walls, then sure maybe they can have the density. We build twenty-four and put them all in one big ugly building. That's the new solution. So, if you are willing to build twenty-four at a time, you can have the density. So, the intent was to allow it site by site. It was to allow more units to be built, and now we can coincide with some creative transportation incentives. Flex cars, assessments on developers if they build more than ten, that they contribute to a flex car or commuter van. And let's kill the automobile, that's killing the earth. If you don't make room in urban centers for more people to live, you are directly contributing to global warming. We sprawl, we drive our SUVs, we live in our McMansions with these big giant boilers, and we have bedrooms we don't use, but we heat them, and we kill the earth. So, it's a chance to let an ordinance exist, and let it actually be applied once or twice before you have this emergency ordinance. What was the emergency? Someone was going to build something? I won't go all. I appreciate you letting me speak late." C. L. Flint said that he had one more comment. He said all of these R-III zones are located on or near mass transit - that was part of the zoning choices when they made the R-III zones. "When you develop one of these sites you are required to put in access to mass transit, you are required to put in access to a Handi-van or whatever they call it. So, zones are kind of set up to function and start to eliminate the automobile from them. The worse thing about parking requirements is, as a maximum and letting them drive zoning, if you build the parking they will come. If you build stuff without parking, people will figure out how to live there without a car. But as long as you keep building big parking lots, they keep going up. They've learned that lesson in Seattle. This ordinance probably nears a whole lot more what they are trying to do in cities now to increase density in these zoning districts by eliminating places for automobiles, and making it more difficult to park, instead of going in the other direction and creating big parking requirements. They Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2006 Page 5 of9 are building lots of apartments and stuff in Seattle, San Francisco, and New York city. They allow them to build condominiums in the buildings that don't have parking and when you buy it, you know you don't have a parking place. It's forward thinking - but I don't suppose we could get there from here." Mr. Unterseher asked Mr. Flint to clarify an earlier comment he had made. He asked him ifhe had said that it was difficult to build a two bedroom in less than 1500 square feet. Mr. Flint said yes, that was true. Mr. Unterseher said that he disagreed, noting that it was quite doable. Ms. Thayer followed up, asking ifMr. Flint was talking about a two bedroom duplex. He said no, a two bedroom unit takes about 1500 square feet. Chair Randels asked if there were any further comments; there were none. Mr. SepIer said that based on direction from the Connnissioners, he would prepare a draft that could be included in the hearing on December 21. Chair Randels said that he recommended that, if the bedroom density measure was deleted, it should be for both R-IlI and R-IV. He said that he agreed with Alice King that any density bonus measure should be clearly spelled out. He said that it did not make sense to him to have a dual method of determining density. He stated that "per unit" is the nearly universal standard, and he did not see any reason why the City shouldn1t use it, too. Mr. Lizut asked if staff should also list the possible incentives, including the density bonus. After a brief discussion about PUDs versus applicability to smaller lot sizes, Chair Randels asked Mr. Sepler if that would make sense in the context of this ordinance. Mr. SepIer noted that there are certain approaches such as Flex-Car or measures that reduce the need for parking that could be considered, but also noted the anticipated schedule for completing the recommendation. Ms. King said that she thought consideration of incentives would be fairly complex, and that more time would be needed. Mr. Ray agreed, stating that market forces, the reality of available transportation options, and the long term vision was very complicated and interdependent. Chair Randels added that there were important questions such as arrordability of the unit or affordability for certain portions of the market, such as large families. He noted that options for that segment are few, and that the existing law is not addressing those needs. Mr. Sepler noted that, if desired, the Plarming Commission can recommend that these incentive issues be considered separately from the Interim Ordinance issues at a later date. Chair Randels agreed that could be included in the work plan for next year, at the direction of City Council. Mr. Septer summarized by noting that he would prepare a draft ordinance, a notice about the hearing on December 21, ensure appropriate SEP A process, and then the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to Councilor carry it onward. Mr. Sepler left the meeting to attend the City Council meeting a16:35 PM. Mr. Flint and Mr. Garrison also left the meeting at this time. There were no other members of the public present. Chair Randels returned to the regular order of the agenda: ApprovaJ of Minutes, documented under IV. above, followed by the SMP Hearing. There was a brief recess before the SMP hearing to allow set up of the projector, and time for Commissioners to read the letter from the Port (EXH. 8). Puhlic Hearing - Ecology Required and Recommended Change to the Draft SMP (Judy Surber, Senior Planner) Judy Surber reviewed the list of materials received at the last meeting and/or mailed prior to this meeting (EXH 4 -7). She explained that the letter from the Port of Port Townsend (EXH. 8) had been received just this evening; paper copies were distributed at this meeting. Ms. Surber said she had met with the Port of Port Townsend and their attorneys, Eric Toews and Mary Winters on Monday, November 27. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2006 Page 6 of9 Ms. Surber recalled that after the workshop held on November 9, there had been relatively few open issues. She said the only new information pertained to the Port of Port Townsend's request, and that she would address that first. Chair Randels pointed out that this was a public hearing and that, considering the absence of any members of the public, the normal reading of the rules of order had been dispensed with. Ms. Surber said that the Port's letter and discussions between the Port and Ms. Surber were focused on two main points: Treatment of water enjoyment uses at the northeast boat basin, and corrections to the variance provisions. The former is the most germane to the Port. It has to do with the change discussed of mixed use development per the City's meaning in the SMP, i.e. you must mix your uses with water related uses. DOE has come back and said that is not the right definition; you must mix with water~dependent, period. Therefore, in order to keep the intent that the City had for that term, the City had to switch terms and just say a combination of uses or a mix of uses and just not use the Ecology term of mixed use development throughout this document. She said that she/they then searched and tried to insert the appropriate language throughout the document. In its letter, the Port has looked at a few of those items where the new language has been inserted, specifically attachment 2, items 13 and 14. The first is policy language, and 14 is the development regulation that is specifically pertaining to that policy. "Ifyou recall, the Northeast Boat Basin-was an area that was going to allow a transitional zone between the commercial visitors' area, where you have hotels and restaurants going on, and the main industrial marine trades of the Main Boat Basin where the enhanced haul out facilities provide for those services involving easier access to larger boats. There was a cap, however, on water enjoyment uses, specifically restaurants. If you wanted to do a water enjoyment use, such as a public park, there was no cap on that. But if you wanted to do a restaurant, you were limited to two restaurants with a square footage limitation, and that was placed in the draft SMP." "The wording, as it is proposed in item 13, Attachment 2, reads: Within the Northeast Boat Basin, first priority should be given to water dependent, water related and water enjoyment uses, including public access uses. Second priority to non-water oriented uses, combined with water dependent or water related uses." She said that this is where we had to change the language and not call it mixed use. "What the Port is proposing is that we use the language water oriented. Water oriented would mean that you could also include a water enjoyment use in this. Although staff said at the meeting with the Port that water enjoyment can be a component of a mixed use, you must not lose water dependent or water oriented; it must be part of the mix. However, the proposed language in the letter from the Port says water oriented; you could read that to mean "1 can mix non water oriented with water enjoyment", and that is not correct." She said that during conversations with the Port, she thought there was a mutual understanding and agreement, and believes that this may just be an oversight. Ms. Surber said she was hopeful that this item could be clarified with the Port prior to the City Council presentation. Staff had suggested a parenthetical phrase that said water enjoyment may also be included as part of the development. It would say: "Within the Northeast Boat Basin, first priority should be given to water dependent, water related and water enjoyment uses, including public access uses; second priority to non-water oriented uses, combined with water dependent or water related uses. (Water enjoyment uses may also be included as part of the development.)" There was additional discussion about that change. Ms. Surber said that the intent may become more apparent in reviewing 5.12.2 -- non water oriented uses combined with water dependent and water related uses, in Attachment 2; she said they had replaced it with water oriented. Ms. King stated that that includes water enjoyment. Chair Rande1s said that he presumed the DOE would reject that. Ms. Surber said that the idea of a mix of uses means that water enjoyment uses would be supportive of the water dependent and water related uses. She said it needs to be clear that water dependent and water related must be present. Because she had just received the letter from the Port, she had not had the opportunity to get DOE's reaction to the Port's language. She said that DOE had no problems with the parenthetical phrase discussed earlier. She said that she would speak with Mr. Toews and expected that he would recall their Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2006 Page 7 of9 conversation about using the parenthetical phrase. Chair Randels offered to attend a meeting with Ms. Surber and the Port, if desired and if ills schedule permits. Ms. Surber added that one item in table 5.12-1 had been missed by all reviewers; the term "mixed use development" appears. Regarding the Port's corrections to the variance provisions, Ms. Surber explained that the Port had, in effect, rewritten a portion of a WAC. She pointed out that the rewrite may actually be clearer, but did not know if DOE would agree with the change. After a brief discussion, Ms. Surber suggested that it may be best to suggest the change to DOE, but not consider it a deal breaker, if they wished to retain the WAC language in the SMP. Ms. Surber agreed with the Port that the very last line of 10.7.1, Requests for varying the use... , was very vague and may actually be incorrect. The Port had suggested that the line be stricken. She said that she had called DOE and they had decided to check with their attorney. Ms. Surber said that this letter was the only public comment received. All of the changes to the documentation had been sent out to the Shoreline Advisory Group and all interested parties of record. She said that this hearing had also been properly noticed. Questions from the Planning Commission: Chair Randels asked about the Restoration Table organization. Ms. Surber explained that the intention was to add a priority column and show the ranking of High, Medium or Low. However, she said she had difficulty with the formatting and would correct that later. Chair Randels said he would like to check on items that had been flagged for follow up at the previous meeting: Recommended chanQes: Ite~ 22: Public Access Public/private separation; the question had been how this might impact Indian Point. He noted that the drawing had been provided to illustrate the meaning of the text. Item 33: Will this allow a partial review by the administrator, i.e. "some grey"? Ms. Surber said that she believed it would allow "some grey". Commissioners agreed. Items 67-68: Re-verify if superfluous and if both are needed? Ms. Surber said she had checked it and believed they required no changes. Reauired chane:es: Item 6: Mr. Randels said the issue was where the DOE got jurisdiction over historic structures. Ms. Thayer suggested that they were talking about the historic waterfront district. Mr. Randels said that he believed the word historic should be changed to existing and the stricken phrase should be reinserted. Item 9: For items a, b, c, d, the intent was to replace the period with a semi-colon after c. and move the '''or'' from after b. to after c. There were no further comments or questions. Chair Randels then declared the SMP Public Hearing closed. Planning Commission Deliberation: Ms. Thayer moved that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the DOE Required and Recommended Changes as amended during this hearing. Mr. Ray seconded the motion. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2006 Page 8 of9 Chair Randels raised the point that in addition to approving DOE changes, the Commission had made some suggestions that will need to be followed up and resolved by staff before the City Council presentation/hearing. Ms. Thayer said that her motion assumed that. Ms. Surber stated for clarification that, in her understanding, the motion would include items Attachment 2, items 13, 14 and 29 and Attachment 3,6 and 9. She also noted that item 35 also had the same issue of historic versus existing structures. There was no further discussion. The motion was approved unanimously, 7/0/0. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS December 14 at 6:00 PM - Joint Meeting with City Council: Upper Sims Way Update [Note: This meeting was subsequently postponed to January 4,2007.] December 21 at 7:00 PM -Interim Ordinance Public Hearing and Planning Commission Holiday Party IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) X. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer moved that the meeting be adjourned; Mr. Unterseher seconded. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:24 PM. .~~- Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2006 Page 9 of9