Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100605 MinutesCITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, October 6, 2005 Meeting Materials (SMP): L Cambalik/PSAT Memorandum to Planning Commission, RE: Drafr City of Port Townsend SMP Update, dated October 5, 2005 2. Eric Toews Memorandum to Judy Surber, Proposed Revisions of DR-5.13.5,10-OS-OS 3. Surber, Staff Report: View Corridor Appendix as Referenced in Drafr SMP, 10-06-OS 4. SMP DRAFT 4, Octobet , 2005, Chapters 1 - 15 5. Agenda -October 6, 2005 6. Guest List -SMP, part 1 (Additional meeting materials are listed within topic sections below) I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. King called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM II. ROLL CALL The following commissioners were present: Ms. Capron Mr. Emery Ms. King Ms. Slabaugh Ms. Thayer Mr. Randels * Mr. Randels arrived at 7:24 PM. Mr. Lizut was excused. Mr. Kelety is still on a Leave of Absence. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Thayer mov¢d that the agenda be accepted, which was seconded by Mr Emery. Agenda approved by unanimous consent. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes was postponed. V. NEW BUSINESS Open Record Public Hearings Hearings on the following three items: A. Proposed Revisions to Shoreline Master Program 6:00 -'7:00 PM B. Statutory Street Vacation Ordinance: to begin at 7:00 PM C. Formula Store/Restaurant Ordinance Staff Report - A SMP DOE Meeting: Ms. Surber reported on her 09/30/05 meeting hr Olympia with the Ecology team. She met with their coastal geologist; Jeffrey Stewart, who oversees our grant; Paula Ealers (sp?), his supervisor; and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 1 Peter Scallon, one of the main policy ecology representatives who has been involved in the guidelines process since the inception. The purpose of the meeting was to exchange information, and to try to get some feedback from them regazding our progress (product and process), to date. She said they are all extremely happy with where we aze, and it appears that Port Townsend is the only jurisdiction that will actually accomplish the deadline. DOE does not make formal comments until the Program has been adopted or approved at the local level. She said they thought we were very close to the mark. The types of constructive comments they made were directed toward reducing redundancies and making the document more user- friendly. Ms. Surber noted that with more time and money, she would be delighted to work on refining the document in those ways. She recommended to them that when the DOE provides their formal feedback , which wIll include any add change requirements, as well as optional suggestions, then we can choose how much more time and effort to apply to improve the document. Responding to a question from Ms. Capron as to whether the Port Townsend SMP Update is regarded by the DOE as a model for other jurisdictions, and so might be looked at more critically. Ms. Surber said it was, but only in the sense that it will be the first. On the other hand, the DOE has a strong desire to see the process completed, and "to get the document out there", so editorial refinements are secondary in importance. Ms. Surber said that their specific suggestions will be passed on to City Council along with the Planning Commission version and recommendations. PSAT Formal Comments (EXH. 1: Since the last meeting, Puget Sound Action Team has formalized their comments and had them signed by their director. They are similaz to the version discussed at the last meeting. For certain items, they accepted/adopted Ms. Barber's marginal notes/responses. In other cases, they retained the comment/ text as they had originally stated it This letter will be reviewed later in this meeting. E-mail of October 5 from Eric Toews regarding DR-5.13.5 (EXH. 2): Although it does not specifically mention RVs, this revision relates to the policy and development regulation aimed at phasing out the RVs in Point Hudson. View Comdor Appendix (EXH. 3): Placeholders and references in the SMP document refer to this appendix. Ms. Surber noted that the two graphics (from the Gateway Development Plan and the Urban Waterfront Plan) both identify view corridors. The intention is to produce a single melded graphic that would become the View Corridor Appendix for the SMP Update document. SMP Update Draft 4 (EXH. 4): This includes all SMP chapters reviewed by the Planning Commission, with their all their edits, to date, incorporated. Last week, Commissioners had been asked to send any edits for Chapter 3 (092905 EXH. 1); minor edits from Ms. Capron have been received and incorporated. At the end of the previous meeting, the Point Hudson Marina section (092905 EXH. 4) had not yet been reviewed. Of pazticulaz interest was the language about the RVs: Policy 5.13.2, page 44, and whether or not a corresponding development regulation should be drafted to accompany that. Public testimonv - A. SMP Eric Toews, Port Townsend Basically, I`m just here to affirm the testimony that we submitted a week ago, and remind you of i[. In essence, our concern was with the proposed language of DR-5.13.5. Our uncertainty was how such language would mean anything at a staff level in terms of reviewing the conditional development proposals. I think, in the main, Policy 5.13.2 is, in fact, implemented through the classification of pemtitted conditional and prohibited uses within the Point Hudson environmental designations. The suggestion that we have is that the existing development regulation be modified to simply indicate that the City will, as Judy (Surber) indicated in her staff report, on a recurrent basis as part of the seven-year review and update to the planning code under GMA, basically look to see how Policy 5.13.2 and the composite development regulations For Point Hudson are working, and whether adjustments need to be made. That would include RVs, and the mixed use facility, or whatever we are calling it now, and take a composite view to see whether or not adjustments in the Policy and permitted conditional uses were necessary. I think our suggested language Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 2 could work either as a development regulation at 5. ] 3.5 or could just be appended as supplemental policy language to Policy 5.13.2, either way. Thank you very much for your time, patience and consideration. At this point, Ms. Surber responded to a question from Ms. Slabaugh about the numbering of 5.13.2 (Policy) and 5.13.5 (DR). She said that she would tend to place the suggested revision under a policy rather than a development regulation, because development regulations aze used, for the most part, as tools for reviewing permits. There was a brief discussion about wording and placement, appazent consensus on this item, [hat is, agreement that the Policy should be amended as proposed by the Port. Action on this item was deferred until after Public Testimony. Ms. Surber also reminded the Commissioners of the option to close public testimony for SMP with this meeting, but recommended that since Draft 4 had just been released, it would be better to leave it open for another week. The Commissioners agreed to do so. There was no other testimony at this portion of the meeting. Planning Commission Drag SMP Review/Revisions - A. SMP Policy 5.13.2 and DR-5.13.5 (EXH 2, 100605) Ms. King stated for the record that there was consensus on adding the Port's suggested language to Policy 5.13.2. Ma. King: What about DR-5.13.5? Should it be removed or remain? Ms. Thayer recommended that this DR- S. 13.5 be removed. Ms King asked for staff s opinion on that. Ms. Surber said that if DR-5.13.5 were left in place, the staff would be back in the untenable position of holding responsibility for determining what is financially self- supporting, without a practical means to do so. If the regulation is deleted, the policy amendment provides for periodic assessment and revision if necessazy, which is a better option. Mr. Emery seconded the motion; all were in favor of removing DR-5.13.5. Staff Report on Point Hudson Mixed Used Facility (E%f7. 7- 09290.57 Commissioners reviewed the background information in the staff report, and the proposed language that would more clearly limit the bulk and scale of a future mixed use facility at Point Hudson. Ms. Thayer said that she thought it was a good compromise. Ms. Slabaugh recalled Mr. Crockett's comments about the need for space to accommodate ADA pazking and other requirements. Ms. Surber said that she believed these issues had been appropriately addressed. Ms. Slabaugh moved that the draft proposed by staff by approved. Ms. Thayer seconded the motion, and it was approved by alJ. Section 9.3 Alteration of Natural Landscape (EXH. 5 092905) Ms. Thayer recommended that the new language be approved. Mr. Emery seconded. The revised section 9.3 was unanimously approved. Cambalik/PSAT Memorandum to Planning Commission (EXH 10100605 and EXH 6, 092905) Ms. Surber noted that her margin comments indicate staff response or note where PSAT changed their comment or recommendation in the formal draft to coincide with staffs position. Ms. Surber noted that, for the most part, the only differences of opinion were related to items where PSAT preferred to be more explicit, while staff deemed that unnecessary and redundant. Ms. Thayer said she was in favor of making the edits according to the notes provided by staff. Ms. Slabaugh agreed, saying she saw no red flags. Ms. Thayer recommended that the notations be accepted, and items amended, as noted. Ms. Slabaugh seconded, and all were in favor. Ms. Surber added that the final letter would be included in the packet for City Council so that PSAT would have the opportunity to pursue with City Council any issues no[ approved by the Planning Commission. View Corridor Appendix (EXH. 3, 100605) Ms. Surber said that since these Views had been established in plans adopted by the City, the intention was to preserve them and include them in the SMP. Ms. King asked if there was any discussion. Ms. Thayer said she agreed with Ms. Surber, and recommended drat it be approved as an appendix. Ms. Slabaugh seconded, and all were in favor. Draft Findings and Conclusions: Ms. Surber explained that she was still working on the draft of the Findings and Conclusions, which would then be reviewed by Mr. Randall. She said it would be structured in such a way as to be suitable for incorporation into City Council's resolutions, so that major rewriting is Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 3 avoided. The draft Findings/Conclusions will be e-mailed eazly next week so any final edizs can be made, public testimony can be closed, and final recommendations can be made at the October 13 meeting. She had also sent a summary of the SAG consensus items out to the advisory group membership to ensure that their recommendations have not been misrepresented in any way. Ms. Surber requested that any new minor edits or corrections be e-mailed to her, as soon as possible, so that they can be incorporated. The intention is to begin the Thursday, October 13, meeting at 7:OOPM. The Cedaz room maybe in use for a special Ciry Council meeting; if so, Commissioners will be notified of a room change when that is determined. Ms. King announced a break at 6:53 PM, until the Ordinance portion of the meeting at 7:00 PM. B. Statutory Street Vacation Ordinance -Open Record Public Hearing At 7:06 p.m., Vice-Chair King opened the pubic hearing and reviewed the rules of procedure. Meetine Materials for Statutory Street Vacation: Ex. A* Memo dated Sept. 14 from the Planning Subcommittee on Statutory Street Vacation. Ex. B* Copy of Draft Ordinance and Exhibit A on setbacks in residential districts and zoning Ex. C-1 Letter dated September 29, 2005 from Elizabeth Merrill Ex. C-2 E-mail dated October 5, 2005 from Liesl Slabaugh forwazding Non-motorized Transportation Advisory Boazd Comments Ex. C-3 E-mail dated October 5, 2005 from Liesl Slabaugh Ex. C-4 E-mail dated September 17, 2005 from Joanna Loehr Ex. D Ordinance 2897 Interim Ordinance Ex. E Memo dated October 6 Memo City Attorney John Watts -with remarks on Draft Ordinance Ex. F New Exhibit A to the proposed ordinance Draft Memo from George Randels to the City Council forwazding Commission findings, conclusions and recommendations * Indicates materials distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting. The remaining items were distributed at the meeting: Staff Presentation - B. Stamtory Street Vacation John Watts reviewed the list of materials provided to the Commission before the meeting and the list of materials available tonight, including a staff memo summarizing his remazks on the Draft Ordinance. Mr. Watts provided background/his[ory on Road Law of 1890, a Slate Law adopted in the firs[ legislature. This law affects certain pazcels platted while in the County and not, at the time, within City limits. He showed on maps these affected plats, platted in the 1870s and 1880s and explained that if, for example, an area was platted in 1887 and annexed as part of the City within 5 yeazs, it would be taken out of the application of the 1890 Road Law. Although other cities and counties including Jefferson County have dealt with this statutory street vacation situation for many yeazs, the City had not faced this issue until a few yeazs ago. The Interim Ordinance adopted by Council in Apri12005 was intended to preserve the status quo while Staff could investigate options. Mr. Watts reviewed that under the interim ordinance, setbacks and density are calculated based on originally platted lot lines and use of statutorily vacated rights of way is limited to yazd, landscaping, and storage. The Ordinance precludes any structures (including Fences) in statutorily vacated rights of way. He then reviewed that, assuming that a judicial determination has occurred, the Ordinance only deals with what the zoning rules are, it does not deal with how to obtain a statutory street vacation nor say how the City should respond to requests. Addressing public comments on the ordinance, Mr. Watts noted that the issues Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 4 presented by Owen Fairbanks and Peter Lauritzen are not before the Commission at this time. The issues raised by the Planning Commission subcommittee aze addressed in the ordinance including the setback from the private easements with one exception. Referring to the subcommittee recommendations, he explained that recommendation #6 is to consider adopting easement standards (width, surface, number of homes served). This issue would be taken up separately by Staff; primarily Public Works, and might not be as much a zoning as a development standard issue. The basis of the zoning regulation is set forth in the draft ordinance and it is primarily to maintain the existing density and the look, feel and character of neighborhoods based on the City's GMA comprehensive plan. Mr. Watts stated that his memo also addresses what would occur if there were no regulation. Another concept he mentioned is the issue of prescriptive easement. In a situation where there has been a long- standing improvement and it has existed for at least 10 years, the public would gain a prescriptive easement to maintain that improvement. This prescriptive easement generally only applies to the area of use. So outside of the area of use might still apply to the 1890 road law. Exhibit A to the draft ordinance is intended to provide a setback rule for these easements. Public Comment - B. Statutory Street Vacation Staff reported that all public comment submitted to date has been provided to the Commission. Chelcie Liu (1688 Taylor St), who was one of the property owners affected by the Garrison/ Flint settlement, spoke in favor of this ordinance. He thinks it is good to maintain ability to plant trees and vegetation. He fully agrees there should not be any structures in that azea, however, he would not object to fences. He believes the ordinance does a goodjob of maintaining the City's and adjacent landowners' rights. Owen Fairbanks (508 Lawrence). Although he is a member of the Non-motorized Transportation Advisory Board, he is speaking as an individual. His concern is the potential loss of trails and trail connections and is uncertain what impact this ordinance would have. He would like the Commission to recognize these trails as a community asset. He provided some examples of areas where there are not yet good formal foot connections. Joanna Loehr (1751 Tyler St). Supports comments made by the previous people. She was involved in [he Gamson/Flint settlement and was the most at risk for having her property ruined by this development and is most grateful that this law was passed. She particulazly likes the amendment just offered regarding the setback area and supports the new ordinance that has been written. Regarding trails and fences, she agrees trails aze very important to the community. She knows there are some serious problems near them where there is no trail coming up Maple Street and people are cuttently coming up private property. People who own property are visibly upset and she sees this as an opportunity for a public trail. Agrees with Owen there are places where more public trails would be appreciated. Regazding fences, she personally has no objection to a fence in the right-oS-way. However, regazding [he issue raised by Elizabeth Memll of the possibility of no trespassing signs, she believes no trespass signs would be more offensive than a fence. She asked Staff to address if there was a prohibition offences in this recommended ordinance. Imants Golts (1505 Madison) spoke about his concerns about fences in statutorily vacated streets. He also supported allowing fences in areas vacated through statutory street vacations. Staff's Response to Public Comment - B. Statutory Street Vacation Mr. Watts noted that the fence prohibition was m the original interim ordinance as a measure to preserve the status quo. Pending review, there could be no structures, including fences in the right-of--way. The Planning subcommittee carried this concept forward. The zoning code does not require a setback for fences and with a few exceptions, fences could be built right on the property line. If a trail has been in place for 10 years or more, a judge is likely to say the trail would stay. For a trail improvement less than 10 years old, arguably it would not qualify for a prescriptive easement. Responding to the question whether the City could on its own open up aright-of--way now that might be subject to the road law (example given) -and/or should the City ask [he non-motorized committee [o open that trail? It is his opinion, that unless the issue of who gets to do what in the right-of--way is settled, then we should not be undertaking that action. If an abutting owner/developer applies for a permit to utilize an unopened right-of--way, the public access issues would be addressed at the Staff leve]/at a policy level, but there are no guarantees that trail right-of--way would happen. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Randall reviewed two options: 1) if the City or non-motorized group wants to build a trail in an azea, the City could approach the property owner about granting an easement for a trail right-of--way, and 2) if the property owners would not gant an easement, the City might use the authority of eminent domain in limited instances where the Vail was needed by the public. Mc Watts agreed these two options aze available. In reviewing fence options, Mc Randall explained building setbacks and fence standards. Within the setback area and for side yards adjacent to the street, fences above 4-1/2 feet must be only partially sight obscuring (50% open). Vegetation is treated differently than fences. In response to questions from Mr. Emery where he asked if any of these rights of way aze in the shoreline area, Mr. Randall stated that it appears Pettygoves Addition including Cosgove, Root and Reed Streets appeaz to be. Mc Watts explained the assistant state attorney general opinion on shoreline issues. There was a request for an opinion on the Shoreline Management Act or the state law that protects access whether the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) would supercede or trump the road law and the opinion is that they would not. You could not take something away that had been granted to a property owner. Steve asked whether the Commission would have to go back and address this in the SMP and Mr. Randall indicated the Commission would not. Ms. Slabaugh asked how much authority the City has to regulate. She said there appear to be two distinct situations when you would apply a prescriptive easement for a trail. Mr. Watts agreed that if the road law applies and the owner obtains a judicial determination that fight-of--way is no longer the right-of--way, the City would have no right to put in a Vail unless they consent and the City buys. If the public interest has been lost, the City has no right to demand the right to place a street, sewer line or Vail. Mr. Randall said the distinguishing feature is that they would have to comply with the City's minimum engineering design standards. Ms. Slabaugh reviewed an example of trail developed less than ten years ago -Chestnut Street. Mr. Watts reviewed that while it might accomplish the non-motorized trail system, if the City could ask all those who have property subject to Statutory Street Vacation to grant a 5-7 ft. easement for Vail purposes, this would run counter to property owner rights. Through a development or through subdivision, there would be an opportunity for the City to condition project approval with adequate provisions for trails, but the courts do not allow the City to say that anytime it wants, it can run a trail or sewer line on private property. The City could not pass the ordinance saying statutory street vacation applies to all situations except for all trails in the non-motorized plan for example. Mr. Watts reviewed that one option before Council was to say if a property owner wanted to obtain a Statutory Street Vacation and was willing to condition i[ on trails, an option for the City might be to release a portion of the public interest in certain rights of way, in exchange for certain conditions similar to the Gamson/Flint settlement However, this is not what we aze dealing with tonight, but instead are discussing what the land use rules aze once all public and private interest are released. Public cladfy_inp questions/comments - B Statutory Street Vacation Chelcie Liu indicated the Gamson/Flint settlement agreement preserved the Chestnut St. trail and there is an easement for it. Elizabeth Memll (1656 Tyler St). She would like to lmow why there would be no public right or public interest/why you would want to limit fences in those azeas. Joanna Loehr (1751 Tyler) asked if the ordinance stands as written with fences being prohibited, what is the likelihood of gantrng a variance. Ms. King closed public hearing on this item. Commission Deliberation - B. Statutory Street Vacation Ms. Thayer said her particular recollection in the subcommittee is that if a party goes through Quiet Title process then there would be no problem with fences. Mr. Randels said in those situations where there was a risk of being landlocked and a situation where they could not get quiet title, in those circumstances, they would. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Watts explained the difference between release of public interest only versus quiet title action where all interests are eliminated. Unless a judicial decree occurs, Staff would not make a decision as to which private rights aze affected, but would leave it up to a judge. Ms. King said she understands this ordinance addresses public and private interest and agrees it is better to have regulations in place. She felt that once someone has built a fence, they are less likely to say [hey would grant a trail easement. Ms. Thayer said this was not the intent. There was further question~request for clarification that a statutory street vacation is the elimination of the public right-of--way, and a Quiet Title is something beyond. To release City interest requires a court decree -- apartial quiet title -- the City could probably release its interest with a deed. In either case, it would only release the City's interest, not any other individuals or private interests. Mr. Emery reminded the last course of eminent domain could be exercised Mr. Watts said you are getting into a gray area of the law. The basis of the ordinance is to preserve a look and feel of the neighborhood, but not to say we don't want you to build anything there because it would make it easier for a future public improvement. Mr. Randall asked about the possibility of using a variation of the regular street vacation process -and existing rules in place, and then new rules where if someone is in the Statutory Street Vacation and has particular interest such as placing a fence but would not have to go through the normal street vacation process. He asked if it could be considered to allow a vacation with conditions. Mr. Watts noted that Council considered this, but thought it would be too unwieldy and complex. The fast position of the City is that unless there has been a full quiet title action, then the owner doesn't own the right of way azea and you cannot build out in the azea -there are other people in that plat that have a potential to use it. The ordinance provides a back up. In other words, if there is a release of the City interest only, still no permits issue for development in the right of way because of other private interests. He proposed making a change to the edited version of Exhibit A to the draft ordinance (distributed tonight) under item C. To the sentence that says, "For purposes of this section, setback applies to all development and structures" you would add "except fences." He proposed then eliminating the word "fences" in the following sentence "Fences, antennas, wall, and rockeries maybe located anywhere within the lot lines established for the lot by a plat or subdivision." He reiterated that the ordinance says that building setbacks still apply and the statutorily-vacated area cannot be used to gain increased density. However, if the change is made as proposed, after a full quiet title action, it would allow a fence out in the right-of--way. Mr. Randall asked to clarify that there would not be a situation where the City has released its interest because it approved a statutory street vacation and that other property owners may still have a private interest in the right-of--way. He is hearing some of the Commission saying that there are two situations that should be treated differently- one where only the public interest is realized and the second where the public and all private interests have been eliminated. Mr. Randels concurred that is what is being said and he is uncertain this change is consistent with that desire. Ms. Thayer believes that the City's position on quiet title should be clarified in the ordinance. If [hey go [hm a full quiet title action, then they can have fences in the right of way. Mr. Randels agreed. Mr. Watts clarified that if a property owner has gone through a full Quiet Title, the Commission wants to allow a fence in the right-of--way, but not a structure. The Commission concured. Ms. Thayer confirmed that there should be no structure in the right of way. Mr. Watts then asked what is the Commissions desire if there were the same situation and only a public release? Ms. Thayer and Mc Randels answered that there would be no fence - only a fence allowed at the original lot line. Mr. Watts suggested that the Commission provide thew conceptual approval and then have Staff work on a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 7 revised ordinance to forward to City Council. He clarified that in a partial Quiet Title action against the City only, there could be no fences and no structures (as written in Exhibit A Co the Ordinance), but in a full Quiet Title action against the City and everyone, there could be no structures, but fences would be allowed. Ms. Thayer moved to amend and adopt the ordinance with the above principle in the ordinance that would be rewritten by Staff to be forwarded to City Council. The motion was seconded. During discussion, Ms. Slabaugh commented that while she would vote for this motion, she would have liked to maintain the fence rule in order to preserve the status quo. The motion carried by a unanimous vote with a roll call vote. 6/0/0 C. Final Action -Formula Store Ordinance -Adoption of Findings and Conclusions Meeting Materials for Final Action -Formula Store Ordinance: *Minutes of September 29, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting *Ordinance 2897, amending a Subsection of Title 17 Zoning and Adopting Interim Regulations Regulating Land Use Draft Memo from George Randels to the City Council forwazding Commission findings, conclusions and recommendations Mr. Randall led apage-by-page discussion of the changes made to the ordinance consistent with the direction given by the Planning Commission at its last meeting on September 29, 2005. Staff also recorded minor suggestions from the Commission for improving punctuation and sentence structure. On Page 5 under Establishment or Relocation, Mr. Randall suggested language clarifying the definition of street comers. He noted this section was not specifically reviewed by the Commission and was suggested for addition by Staff for purposes of clarification. Mr. Randall reviewed that the intent was to have formula businesses go in the "in-between" spaces in buildings, not the highly visible comer spaces. The Commission agreed with this concept. On Page 6 of the Ordinance, Mr. Randall suggested the Commission deliberate on the change made pointing out that the ordinance is now more restrictive as it applies sections to all formula retail that previously applied only to formula restaurants. It now includes "retail" in the sentence, which now means that for a formula retail and restaurant establishment to exist, it must be in another building with another non-formula business. The Commission felt that the ordinance as revised reflected the actions taken a week ago. They approved the ordinance in this form with edits as proposed. The Commission agreed that with the minor changes noted m ffie Ordinance, it would let the Ordinance go forwazd as decided at the last meeting and that the cover memo from Mr. Randels could be included as written. VI. UPCOMING MEETINGS 10/13/05: Conclude Hearing -Proposed Revisions to Shoreline Master Program -Finalize Draft Findings and Conclusions 10/27/05: Public Workshop 1. C-II Design Standazds Update 2. Adult Entertainment Ordinance -Downtown C-III Historic Commercial Zoning District 11/10/O5: Public Hearing -Adult Entertainment Establishments Ordinance -Downtown C-III Historic Zoning District VII. COMMUNICATIONS -There were none. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 8 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer moved to adjourn the meeting; the motion was seconded. AI! were in favor. The meeting concluded at 9:14 p.m. L~ George Randels, Chair G"~( ~~ Gail emhard, Meeting Recorder (SMP) n iG t~.-nMt, ~~ve~c`E/l>/~ Ioanna anders, Meeting Recorder (Statutory Street Vacation and Formula Store Ordinance) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 6, 2005 Page 9