Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092205 Minutes . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP Thursday, September 22, 2005 Olympia Room, Waterman and Katz Building Meeting Materials: EXH I. Surber, Staff Report, Draft Shoreline Master Program, dated 092205 EXH 2. SMP Chapter 9, Specific Modification Policies and Development Regulations, Draft 3, dated 092205 EXH 3. SMP Chapter 9, Draft 2 (July 21) with Port suggested edits, and staff comments in margin, received from Toews/ Winters via e-mail EXH 4. Port ofPT, Suggested Policy and Development Regulation Revisions, Recreational Vehicles and the Proposed Shoreline Mixed Use Facility (Section 5.13), dated 092105 EXH 5. Watts/Randels, e-mail: SMP section 12.4.2, dated 092105 and 092005 EXH 6. Agenda - September 22,2005 EXH 7. Guest List - September 22, 2005 EXH 8. Planning Commission Subcouunittee (Randels, Lizut, Emery)Memo on Formula Store Legislation, dated September IS, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chair Randels. II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members present were: George Randels, Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, and Cindy Thayer. Liesl Slabaugh was excused, and Jeff Kelety continues to be on leave of absence. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Randels asked if there were any proposed changes to the agenda. Ms. Thayer asked if the workshop items would be done first, before SMP. Mr. Randall said, yes, but it would be very brief, limited to handing out materials for the following week. There was a discussion about meeting start/end times for September 29 and October 6, and a suggestion to begin at 6:30 or 7:00 PM, because of the difficulty of 6:00 PM for Ms. Slabaugh. There was also clarification about the agendas for those upcoming meetings, i.e. both would include public hearings for proposed ordinances. Mr. Randels moved that, with the additions to upcoming meetings and the proviso that the times of the next two meetings would be revisited later, the agenda be accepted. Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Randels asked if there were any corrections to the minutes for August II. Page 3, 3,d paragraph, line 3, drop s from Mr. Randalls Ms. Thayer moved that the minutes be approved, as amended. Mr. Randels seconded. Minutes of August I I, 2005 were approved, all in favor. V. NEW BUSINESS Workshop Items A. Formula Stores: Mr. John Watts, City Attorney, gave a brief surmnary of the proposed Formula Store legislation. This Connnission appointed a sub-couunittee comprised of George Randels, Roger Lizut and Steve Emery to review, with staff, the proposed formula store legislation. A memo prepared by the sub-couunittee (EXH. 8, 092205) describes the process followed and recommendations of the subconnnittee. It states that the subconnnittee recommends in favor of Formula Store legislation, similar to the interim ordinance, but with concern about legal vulnerability in the coutext of equal protectiou. Mr. Watls explained that the City had retained Seattle attorney, David Bricklin, to prepare Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 1 an independent opiuion, which along with other supporting materials is attached to EXH. 8. The primary question is What is the legal basis with which to distinguish zoning regulation differentiating . between a formula store or restaurant and a non-formula store or restaurant, square footage being equal. He said that both he and Mr. Bricklin pointed out that there is an absence of appellate court authority on the issue, in Washington or anywhere else, for a precedent to inform this process. He also pointed out a memo from David Goldman in the packet, documenting Mr. Goldman's position in favor of formula store legislation. The current ordinance, with some clear exemptions, is recommended to be carried forward. It would apply to formula retail, formula restaurants; formula establishments are defined as having a certain number of characteristics, like a standardized array of merchandise, menu, signage, etc. Exemptions include services such as insurance, real estate, grocery stores, banks. auto sales, health care, etc. There is a conditional use process for formula restaurants to go through, and some other restrictions: not to exceed 3,000 s.f.; cannot co-locate with another formula establishment in the same building; cannot have more than 50 ft. frontage. The reach of the ordinance is in the commercial districts ouly, It would not apply, as drafted, to Fort Worden, but does apply to Point Hudson and the Boat Haven. The other distinctiou is that formula retail/restaurants are not allowed in the Historic Commercial area. He said it was important to understand that the basis for any such regulation is not and cannot be economic protectionism. The draft makes it clear that the basis is to protect the unique character, the special place of the town, the historic district, and the tourist economy. That is, tourists do not come here to visit formula stores; they are attracted by the existing unique character and feel of the town. He said it is also intended to protect against traffic impacts. He asked commissioners to e-mail any questions in advance, so that he and Mr. Randall will be prepared to answer them at the hearing. Mr. Randall also pointed out that the existing (Number 2869) and the new proposed (has a blank instead of number) ordinance drafts were also among the attachments to the memo. B, Statutory Street Vacation: The Planning Couunission subcouunittee, George Randels and Cindy Thayer, met twice with Mr. Randall and Mr. Watls. The recommendation was to retain the concept of . interim regulation that preserves the right of way for development, allow uses like landscaping but not fencing, and retain the concept of interim regulation that would not allow the vacated right of way to gain increase in the number of lots or increase in the density. The underlying basis of the draft ordinance is that the town was laid out in a block pattern with rights of way between the blocks, over 100 years ago. The Comprehensive Piau, pursuant to GMA requirements, includes residential density plans developed on that same basis, specifying ratio of lots to blocks for each zone. It would be inconsistent with the Comp Plan to allow an increase in density by allowing structures to be placed in the rights of way. The draft ordinance does not deal with development regulation requirements; it simply deals with the uses. Staff requires more time to review that aspect with Public Works. The concept, at the subcouunittee level, was that the development regulations would remain the same, whether developing using existing rights of way or using former, now vacated, rights of way. City engineering desigu standards would apply in either case. Mr. Randels asked if any member of the audience wished to speak about either of the two workshop matters. There were none. Commission members had no questions for staff, so the workshop was closed. Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program Update Public Hearing (Continued from September 15, 2005 and previous meetings.) Mr. Randels, once again, opened this portion of the meeting by stating that the public hearing was continued from previous meetings, and that the rules read at the first meeting remain in effect. He asked commission members to state if any circumstances had changed with regard to conflicts of interest or other relevant items. There were none. Mr. Randels then asked Mr. Surber to begin the staff presentation, and to please remind the Couunissioners of what chapters/sections remained to review. Staff Presentation: . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 2 . Judy Surber, Senior Planner, said that she had developed a table to track progress and work remaining. She said that the commissioners should have already received Chapter 8, which would be reviewed at this meeting. Chapter 9 ( EXH. 2), is in the packet for tonight. Chapter 10, July 21 version in the binder, remains to be reviewed; Mr. Randall will point out the highlights. Chapter I I - 13 were doue at the last meeting. For Chapter 3, Ms. Surber will provide a summary of the inventory. For Section 5.13, there are RV and other language changes to review. Impervious surface limits need further review, and transient/residential uses in the Urban Designation will also require attention. In addition, substantive revnites or changes scattered throughout the document will be compiled and reviewed once more after all the chapters have been edited by the Couunission. Chair Randels noted that, as agreed, he had checked with Mr. Watts regarding a question in Chapter 12, and could report on that at the appropriate time. Ms. Surber identified each of the exhibits above. For EXH. 3, she noted that the Port's suggestions for Chapter 9 were received too late to incorporate within EXH. 2; she has v.rritten her comments in the margin. EXH. 4 is also from the Port, and will be reviewed at the next meeting. Ms. Surber explained what is meant by specific modifications and how Chapter 9 is intended to be used. She walked through the highlights outlined iu her staff report (EXH I.). She noted that although there is natoral overlap amoug various chapters, she found that Chapter 9 was much too cumbersome and needed to be pared down. She and Paul Inghram are still working on that; EXH. 2 coutains edits primarily from the Department ofFish aud Wildlife. She said she gave great defereuce to those suggestions because they are responsible for issuing approvals for hydraulic projects, work done around the OHWM:, and have vast experience with bulkheading, etc. . Ms. Thayer asked, at this poiut, iff etch was defined in the documeut and it was agreed that it should be defined in the Glossary. Public Testimonv: Larrv Crockett, 153 McCUrdv Point Road, PT After a few preliminary remarks that followed ou the meution of the term fetch above, Mr. Crockett said he would like to speak to two points in Chapter 9. Regarding DR-9.4.6, he said that the origiual draft called for docks uo higher than 3 feet above the water, nor exceeding 6 feet in width. He said that in both Port marinas, there are wider sttuctores, aud that is of necessity for streugth. Also, that for specific purpose floats, the width must be significantly greater than 6 feet, for stability and safety reasons. He gave specific examples of 12 aud 20-foot width requiremeuts. He noted that Ms. Surber had already put an OK next to the Port's proposed revision. The second item was DR-9.4.7 in the September 22 draft, which he had uot seen before. He said that the origiuallanguage was adequate, and that he wasu't certain what the intent of the new language was. He recommended reverting to the previous wording. . Mary Winters, Port Attornev, apologized for the late submittal of the Chapter 9 edits, which she deemed "really small". In walking though EXH. 3, she said the intent of adding "or shoreline exemption" in Policy 9.3.1, was to be clear that there are certain actions that alter the shoreline, like the Larry Scott Trail, that are allowed. She said she wasn't clear that Ms. Surber's suggested language actually addresses that point. For 9.4.2, both policy and DR, she said that the origiuallanguage prohibited liveaboards; Judy's ( Surber) uew language "except in marinas" is acceptable, if the Connnission prefers it to what the Port submitted. The last section, which Larry Crockett had just commented on, was intended to clarify that the situation is different within marinas. EXH. 4 was an attempt to draft something by pooling collective notes ( Crockett, Toews, and Winters) to make it easier for staff, based on Alice's language. We put it in the passive voice Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 3 and attempted to change the tone of it. She said, "You had agreed that the mixed nse facility could potentially go on the parade grounds, correction back forty, leaving the parade grounds open, but only if the . size was commensurate, so we tried to address that concern." Footnote I is not intended to remain in the text. In 5.13.5.4 we tried to clarify this objective of replacing RV income with anotherrevenue source... Referring to a recent City Council meeting, she said this mixed use facility is confusing to them, and is probably going to be a relatively big issue at some point. She said that she realized that the definitiou of mixed use facility was crucial, and she asked if the Planning Commission might think about whether those defmitions work or need to be reworked. The entry for liveaboards in the table needs to be made consistent with the text. She also requested a copy of the list of vistas and the findings and conclusions, as soon as drafts are ready. Chair Randels then closed the public comment portion of the meeting, for September 22. Staff Resoonse: There was none. p1:mnlni! Commission Deliberation: Mr. Randels said that before getting into the detailed review, he would like to take lime for discussing larger issues, including the resort issue and what happened at City Council meeting. Ms. Surber said she did not have full information about the City Council meeting issues and outcome, as yet. She asked Mr. Randall ifhe had any information to share. He said he was not present at that meeting. He understood that the zoning code amendment text that Council had seen did not have accompanying defmitions and text laying out the full picture of the mixed use facility and related regulations. Mr. Randall reasoned that the Planuiug Connnission had debated and reviewed the issue quite a bit, and although it may need to be refmed and explained, he did not necessarily believe the Couunissioners need withdraw or completely rethink the SMP policies/regulations involved. Mr. Emery intetjected that he recalled that the . outdoor decks issue was also voted down or changed from what was recommended. (Several people responded that that was not the case -- the mixed use item was the only thing that was sttuck.) Apparently, due to illness and schedule conflicts, there were uo planners present to answer questions or offer background and rationale. Since Mr. Crockett had been present at the City Council meeting, Mr. Randels asked ifhe had additional information to share with the Connnission. Mr. Crockett noted that the PDN newspaper had reported the Council deliberations incorrectly. He said the connections between the RVs, the revenue stream, and the facility had not been made clear. He said his understanding was that the 3500 s.f. per restaurant had been approved, and that a deck can be in addition to that, assuming permit requirements and HPC approvals are met. They did not disapprove of the mixed nse facility per se; what they disapproved was the additional 3500 s.f. restaurant associated with it.. Any restaurant in that facility would be allowed only the unused portiouofthe 11,000 s.ftotal. Ms. Thayer asked if the schedule and process for the City Council and SMP would allow a Planning Commission representative an opportunity to address this and other issues directly with the Council members. Mr. Randall said the schedule was not final, but he expected there to be a workshop and at least one hearing, possibly others, beginning as early as October 20. Mr. Randels said he would plan to attend the workshop and at least one hearing, and would encourage other Commissioners to attend, as well. Mr. Randels then reported on his communication with John Watls regarding Section 12.4.2. He read Mr. Watts' response, which advises striklng one sentence and suggests new language that he would support. (A copy of the e-mails exchanged on September 20 and 21, 2005 has been labeled as EXH. 5, 092205.) Mr. Randels said he did not think the new sentence was necessary. He moved that everything following the first sentence in 12.4.2 be stricken. He added that he was not suggesting that Mr. Watts' new sentence be added. Mr. Emery seconded that. Ms. Thayer said since she hadn't been party to the e-mails, she could not vote on the motion. She said she would like to have a copy in order to consider it. Mr. Randels reminded . that he had wished to debate this issue the previous week, and was urged to consult with Mr. Watts. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 4 . Randall offered to make copies so that it could be dealt with before the end of the meeting. 12.4.2 was pending distribution of written material and further discussion. Motion on Cha d. b d th b drftR b 4 . apter 8, e its ase on e Septem er 15 a eVlew egms on page Page Line! item Edit Comment 1 25,34 Change style; egA proposal not Your Inconsistent with the rest of document; proposal discussed previous week - 091505 3 6 Chanlle of to or Discussed nrevious week. 4 9,17,21, Indents should go away when changes 24 accented 6 Reference appendix for delineated vistas GR: also awaiting look at this list of vistas 21 Strike the second sentence OR: did not want banners and posters in the list of flashing 8.2.6 Add" unless ..... "(to acconnnodate Port's JS will reword signs directing boaters to Office, ete) 6 14 The US Soil Conservation Service under the auspices is part of the USDA;s 36 Define subtidal and intertidal 7 DR-8.4.2 to Subordinate to DR-8A.I and check hierarchy SE had question about seaweed 8.4.3 of numbering from 8.4.4 on harvesting permits on North Beach; Ans: "recreational hand harvesting is not subject to SMP regs" 8 Add ending oeriod. 14 Inkeeping--addspace 11 10 Affects not effects 14 Substitute allow for orovide 12 32 e.... 32 Reword: Each use activity and every type of shoreline modification should be carefully identified and reviewed for compliance with all aoolicable sections of this Master Program. 13 5-7 Reword IS will clarify 14 36-37 Shoreline Administrator 16 22 No change Port's edit solved SE's problem re: vibration 14-16 Add: No such wMte products Re; visible waste products 32 Shall be not have been 35 Delete second shoreline 17 20 Check consistencY of no-net-Ioss IS will cbeck WACs 18 8 Drop the word be; colon after shall; change the rest of the list following as necessarY 19 13 Comma inside the Quote ??? 28 Prohibit instead of Do not permit 20 19 Comolv with not comolv to 31-32 ... unless there is a wn"tten agreement allowing said encroachment 21 8 Bathymetrics is one word- comma after and 20 Start with Demonstrates that 35 As far as practicable AK.: Clarification --This section on mooring buoys is all about public mooring buoys. 22 14 Change introductory language; after zoning code sav;" and the rellUlations of this section. 24 12 ... address instead of satisfy 25 7 Jet skis confirmed to be deleted I Prohibit the use of ....; should not occur comes out 30 Needs a period . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 5 36 Add viers 26 13 Change to a Policv "Encourage ...." Is beach-combing now nrohibited? 32 Add comma after establishments 35 Cans for S D P 39 Add: ,.. Program, and obtain a Letter of Exemotion. 27 28 ... more than (our(4) dwelling units 28 5 To locate 29 8,28 Remove imDacts 16 Subdivisions:; change list below: add shall or JS will wordsmith shall be orohibited, ete 30 8 ... more than four... 31 8.14.4 Relocate... 8.14.5 Ensure that archeological data... by attachin~,.... Make two sentences. 17 Semicolon should be comma 32 8.15.1 No change; AK: questioned if Use Table: transportation facilities and this policy were cOIDnatible 2-3 Should reference Shoreline Administrator 35 Needs a neriod 33 26 Soell out CUP ~- Conditional Use Pennit 34 14 Add non-moton"zed before modes 35-37 II Remove italics 35 7 Add outfall to definitious JS will find broader term to associate with outfall with or under 36 24 Need a regulatiou to match Policy 8. I 6.2 Check to see where recvclin~ annears 37 18 - 26 Add semicolons' Gener 8.12.6 Note: Port has no enforcement powers, aI so JS needs to work on language for the DR Chair Randels called for a five minute break at approximately 8:00 PM. Chanter 9 Snecific Modifications, Draft 3 dated Sentember 22, 2005 Page Line! Item Edits Comment 1 19 ... activities not activates 25 -27 ..a., b., ce., 2 2-3 Master Plan c~ns Search and renlace thrau_hout chanter 16 ... that not which 36 ... use. unless otherwise supported by this Add Master Prom-am. 3-9 Section 9.3 SKIP until rewritten 10 12 Delete a 21 Prohibit instead of do not allow 11 12 Add comma after: ....floats DR-9.4.l Reword to make consistent with dr-9.4.2 Regardiug liveaboards JS will do this offline 12 2 Delete where reauired. 10 Inner harbor line - OK GR: need definition? JS: done 11-12 Use Port's laugoage EXH 3, page 5 Re: DR-9.4.6 dock and float dimensions 13-18 Use Port's langoage EXH 3, page 5 and add DR-9.4.7 compromise after safe operation, shading of critical salt water habitats, passage below the structure for non-motorized recreational vessels. and aesthetics... . 13 32 Which becomes that and remove conunas 14 1-3 Remove italics Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 6 . . . . 19 on Semicolons after text of a., b., c. d. ...and 15 8 Comma after assessment 12-13 ... which becomes that 17 Renumber list to start "vith a. and check ending punctuation for consistency 20 and 28 Fix previous strike out; struck parts of water and navir;ration 16 5 Benthic Per JS/DOE, there is now a definition ( not P1lTIkv stuff on the bottom) 19 Disposed of at ....... 17 12 ....such as 18 Semicolons on a, b, c lists Check the lists for consistency throu"hout 20 29 Fix nrevious strike out -- soace missimz 21 20 and 32 Period inside the quote 28 oeomomholopv Add definition, if not already done 33 [I sed not sued 37-39 A1ilUl hullets 22 14 Just use {!Toins not concrete ~oins Was ~ the WACS, but Ok to chanoe 8 Qpening (lUote is backwards 38 No change GR: Is this a lawsuit waiting to happen? Deferred -- may revisit, but edits may have solved the concern. 23 PoI.9.7.1 Reduce or eliminate PoI.9.7.3 Relocate existing structures out of hanns way in preference to constructing structural defense works. 27 Pol 9.7.9 Prohibit instead of Do not nermit 6 "hard' not "Hard" 28 24 Check font, indent and make part ofb. above; in general, glue it back together 36 Delete the * at end 29 29 What is a system wave action? JS: Check with Paul In.hram 30 Done 8:25 PM . Mr. Raudall gave a brief introduction to Chapter 10. He said that as the administrative and procedural chapter, it contains no new policies or regulations. The new things that are introduced are with regard to the permits. In the current SMP, there are no administrative conditional use permits, administrative minor shoreline substantial developmeut permits (Type II's), or administrative variauces. He said staff runs into situations, rather frequently, where an exemption allows a very minor activity. However, for a slightly less minor activity, a substantial development permit is reqnired. So, the tools or options are not adequately graduated to fit the range of applications normally encouutered. In this SMP update, Mr. Randall drafted new procedures with lower thresholds, to deal with less significant developments more efficiently. Within the section for each, he attempted to follow a similar format. First, there is a description and explanation about what the pennit is, what the process is, and a reference to section 20.01 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. He not~d that neither Mr. Watts nor Mr.Inghram believed that the citation ofPTMC 20.01 would imperil the Code or make it subject to DOE review. The tables at the back of the chapter are presenting the textual information in a different format. (He noted that the tables have formatting errors, which will be corrected.) Some of the application information has beeu pulled from the WACs. Au example is how to deal with multiple permits in a single process. . Chaoter 10 Administration and Permit Procedures, Draft 2, dated Julv 21, 2005 Page Line! Item Edits Comment 2 8 Fonns should not be italicized 22 Shoreline exemvtion Dennit chanlled to Letter of EXeIDDtion - search and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 7 Letter of Exemvtion replace exemption permit throu2hout 14-15 Delete ..(hereinafter referred to as Shoreline Director( and use Shoreline Administrator throu~hout 21 Add the before shoreline 3 10 Spell out square feet [ s.f. is a standard abbreviation, in other City documents 1 15-16 Such as -...... facilities in oarentheses General Change numbering and punctuation to be consistent with rest of document 18 Drop a value of 4 3-4 Decision maker should be two words; Search and replace tbroughout comma after Examiner; and... appeals will be heard... 13& 15 Comma after . .conditional use, and after oroDosed use, 3 10.6.4 Concept explanation - no edits JR: TIllS IS NEW ( for the record). Commissioners had no objections RL: HPC still reviews 15 Art not artistic JS: Coordinate and make consistent Per JR: strike artistic; make new 6. Art using with chapter 5 distinction between new definitions in Chanter 5 maior and minor artwork 4 10.6.3 Concept explanation - no edits JR: TIllS IS NEW ( for the record); refers to a Use that is not develomnent General Renumbering must be checked for GB - reformat/renumber to make as consistency throughout consistent as possible with rest of document 5 2 Strike 'a' and annlications. nlural 25-35 .....3. b,c. d.,e. 11 & 15 Strike 'a' and make uses. nlural 6 6 ...orovided under not bv 30 Chamze to undue instead of unnecessarv 7 1-5 Strike a and make plural; will be before heard 13-16 Same as above 28-31 Spacin~ and indent and a. b. 8 3 Interfere sin~lar 13 Double d. ; Variance should be caps when it's a oennit 33 DeleteAll Variances at beginnilll!' of line 9 8 Conditional Use should be Variance 19 ... from the date offiling.( the date the DOE renders a decision on 22-23 Conditional Use should be Variance 10 Decision maker column change Shoreline Administrator 11 9 chan.e before City Council Leave final before decision 12 Renumber and semicolons 32 ....to 'nor' 13 12 ... with requirements of 10.9.2 Ideas is that mitigation must be at the same level of detail as the Droiect 14 Conuua after site 20 ... impacts on views JR should check and delete if not needed 22 Coma after aDnlications 38 In accordance with not ner 14 13 ...processes,olural 14 Drocedures, are set.... 32 ...1971, such aDDlicanon may be denied or Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 8 . . . . made subject to any terms or conditions that are deemed suitable and reasonable... delete (OK). 16 7 ChanfIe 'a' to 'an J 16 ... base is lower case and dron this 5 Hall should be shall 6 Section 12.6 of Chapter 12 - Enforcement and Penalties 9-11 No italics and delete the colon 16 eft\: sufficient, dron PT 18 ... period/or demonstration of substantial .progress for a reasonable time, up to one additional year, based on.... 25 Add additional before year 28 Delete (1) affer one 33 a request/or permit revision; conditions is nlural 18 6 OK as is; no chanf!e 33 ..vermi! revisions may be apvealed 37-40 ..Permit, not authorized under the on'Kinal ?? leave as it is?? . Chapter 12 - Mr. Randels and Mr. Watts e-mail exchange: Motion on 12.4.2 was pending distribution of written material and further discussion. Mr. Randall distributed copies of the documeut, as requested earlier in the meeting. Ms. Thayer began to make a motion, and Mr. Randels reminded that there was a motion, with second, pending. He restated the motion as: that we drop everything after the first sentence of that section. Ms. Thayer commented that the City Attorney had been consulted and, since he and the City will be on the line for any impact, his revision should be accepted. Mr. Randall agreed. Mr. Randels said he would agree to a friendly amendment. Ms. Thayer moved to accept Afr. Watts recommendation to drop the second sentence and add his sentence in place of the deleted sentence. The motion was approved. Schedule Review: Ms. Surber suggested that she would like to schedule the September 29fu 6-7:00 PM hour for SMP revisions, including EXH. 4, the Point Hudson Resort issue. Ms. Thayer asked if the October 6 meeting could start at 7:00 PM. Mr. Randels said that would be better for him, as well, since he would be flying in to Sea- Tac during the afternoou. Mr. Randall said the order of business would need to be: Statutory Street Vacation hearing; Formula Stores Findings and Conclusions Review; then, time permitting, SMP Findings and Conclusions. October 13 is currently not scheduled for the Planning Commission, and the Cedar Room would likely be in use by City Couucil for the second reading on Formula Stores. The schedule will remain tentative pendiug progress during the next two meetings. The meeting ended with a rouud of applause for Ms. Surber and all that has been accomplished so far. VI. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VII. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS . 09/29/05: Public Hearing -- Shoreline Master Program Update, to start at 6:00 PM Formula Store/Restaurants Ordinance - 7:00PM Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 9 10/06105: Public Hearing -- Shoreline Master Program Update, to start at 6:00 PM Statutory Street Vacations Ordinance -7:00 PM 10/13/05: To be determined - IX. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 9:22 PM k&JJ Gail Bernhard, Meeting Recorder George Randels, Chair . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 22, 2005 Page 10