Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110807• CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda -November 8, 2007 EXH 2. J. Surber, Staff Memo -Draft Code Revision Ordinances: Title 17, 18, 19 and 20 Revisions and Clarifications, November 1, 2007 EXH 3. Draft Omnibus Ordinance, pages 1-22 and 23 -28; prepared 10-25-07, revised 11-02-07 EXH 4. Draft Child Care Ordinance, paged-10, prepared 11-02-07 EXH 5. Draft Variance Ordinance, pages 1-6, prepared 11-01-07 EXH 6. Rebecca Lovett, a-mail to Suzanne Wassmer re: Planning Commission Meeting Tomorrow Night regarding Child Care, November 8, 2007 EXH 7. Erica Delma, e-mail to Suzanne Wassmer re: Planning Commission Meeting Tomorrow Night 11-08-07, November 8, 2007 CALL TO ORDER Chair Liesl Slabaugh called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL • A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Alice King, Bill LeMaster, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher. Kristen Nelson and Julian Ray were excused. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Jerauld Fry moved for acceptance of the agenda and Steve Emery seconded. The agenda was approved, as written, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of October 11, 2007: Ms. Capron moved and Mr. Unterseher seconded for approval of the minutes, as written. The minutes of October 11, 2007 were approved as written, all in favor. Chair Slabaugh signed the final version of the minutes for June28, Julyl2, August 9, and September 13, 2007 for the permanent record. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None . VI. NEW. BUSINESS Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 10 November 8, 2007 a. 2007 City of Port Townsend Municipal Code and Shoreline Master Program Revisions - Public Hearing Chair Slabaugh stated that this was to be a legislative public hearing; she explained that the hearing would proceed according to the Rules of Order. She opened the public hearing and read the Rules of Order in their entirety. She asked those who wished to speak to sign in and to speak at the rostrum, if possible, so that their testimony could be captured on the audio record, and offered to arrange for special accommodations for any person speaking, as necessary. She asked everyone to limit comments to three minutes; she said that applicants would be given five minutes to speak. She asked all those who planned to speak to stand and take part in the swearing in process. During the reading the rules, she asked of the Planning Commissioners, "Do any Councilors/Commissioners here tonight have any interest in any of the properties or issues being discussed, or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing, or have any disclosures to make?" There were no disclosures. She described the order of proceedings. The order would be: staff presentation; public testimony, staff response; Planning Commission questions. Chair Slabaugh then introduced Judy Surber, Senior Planner, who made the staff presentation. Ms. Surber noted that all Commissioners present had participated in the earlier workshops on this topic. She recalled that this set of code revisions, for which three different ordinances had been drafted, addressed the "low hanging fruit" of all the possible code revisions that had been • identified by staff for this year. The Development Services and Planning staff keeps a running list of code problems or state revisions that require code revisions. Since not all can be addressed at once, the list had been prioritized in terms of high importance and low staff input/resources; these have been termed as "low hanging fruit". Several others of those requiring more effort had been included in the workshops. She said that minor variances and child care revisions were ready, but home occupations had been more of a challenge and would continue on a separate track. She noted that the workshops for these proposed ordinances had taken place on June 28, July 12, August 9 and September 13, 2007. Ms. Surber referred to the summary memorandum (EXH. Z), and walked through key issues. Omnibus Ordinance -These encompass a variety of fairly straightforward revisions to Title 17, 18, 19 and 20, as well as one revision to the Shoreline Master Program. She pointed out several of the more significant ones, beginning with Title 17. Item 1, Homeless shelters in C-II and C-III zones. She said this was spurred by the American Legion homeless shelter initiated the previous year. The intention is to allow accommodation of this use through the conditional use permit process. She pointed out the revised text on page 4 of the Omnibus ordinance, section I, noting the changes to definitions and land use tables. Item 2, Clarify Number of Detached Dwelling Units on one lot in R-I and R-II zones. She explained that the current code is not explicit in this regard. The revision would state clearly what is and is not allowed, ensuring that the appropriate infrastructure is in place and that issues arising with new development are properly addressed. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 2 of 10 November 8, 2007 • Items 3 and 4, Increased minimum ceiling height in particular mixed use and commercial zoning districts. This was spurred by experience with the McCairn Building on Sheridan Street. The current 10 foot ceiling height did not allow for ventilation and filtering systems needed for medical offices, and it has proven to be quite difficult to find occupants for this ground floor space. She said the proposed 12 foot ceiling minimum and associated 5 foot increase in building height is appropriate to the mixed use districts, and for the C-II and C-II(H) districts. -The same revision will be placed in the Shoreline code under Urban. Ms. Surber said that all revisions under Title 18 are fairly minor and deal with what information is shown on the face of plat maps/recordings. Under Title 19: Item 13, Provision for Optional DNS process ... Currently, two noticing periods are required: Notice of Application and SEPA Threshold Determination. Since this is quite time consuming and therefore costly for developers, this would streamline the process for minor projects by having only one comment period for both. Item 14, Maximum Density applies for development within critical areas and their associated buffers. Ms. Surber said that in staff's opinion this was an oversight in the code and should be corrected. Item 15, Clarify Code Related to Geologically Hazardous Areas. The current language is not easily understood, and has been replaced with a table that outlines when a geotechnical report is required. • Item 16, Coordinate CAO and SMP regulations. The current CAO refers to a passage in the SMP Update regulations. The change is to include the passage directly within the CAO for ease of use. Ms. Surber noted that Title 20 is a purely procedural chapter and that the Planning Commission is not usually concerned with this material. However, because it is being revised via the Omnibus Ordinance, it is included for the Planning Commission's. information. It relates to the noticing requirements for Type II permits, which require notice and are heard by the Director rather than the Hearings Examiner. Items 17 and 18, Take out legal notice requirements for some Type II permits and add mailing to adjacent property owners ... She said this better ensures that the neighborhood will be informed of pending development and costs no more than before. However, there are a few Type II's for which both noticing and mailing are recommended: short sub-divisions, cottage housing developments, those requiring SEPA review, and Type II Shoreline Permits. Item 19, Clarify information needed for a site specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. Ms. Surber noted that the existing requirements for submittal were not adequately addressing the impacts that asite-specific change would have on infrastructure, density and proposed uses. This revision would clarify the code to focus on such potential impacts. Item 20, Make Short Plats that involve vacations Type III applications. When there is a street vacation involved, a hearing is warranted. If there is not a street vacation, a decision at the Director's level is appropriate. i Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 10 November 8, 2007 Item 21 and 22, Add References to the Shoreline Master Program within the Development permit application section of the PTMC, etc. and add shoreline permits to the permit application framework tables. This is to keep the PTMC in synchronization with the SMP. Item 23, In DR 5.10.4, add 2 feet ... and in DR 5.10.8, add requisite increase in building height. This is the SMP change corresponding to items 3 and 4, discussed above. She noted that this amendment would need to be approved, not only at the City Council level, but also at the Department of Ecology. Minor Variance Ordinance -Currently, the definition of a minor variance is rather limited. A minor variance is a Type II process, which the Director can decide upon. Otherwise, the application is channeled into a Type III hearing examiner process. Staff believed that there was insufficient flexibility for the Director to look at certain de minimus variances, and that the current criteria were unreasonably restrictive. The intention of this draft Ordinance is to revise the definition and criteria to provide greater flexibility where appropriate. She pointed out the new definition on page 3 of the Variance Ordinance (EXH 5) and, for A., cited an example of an existing single family home with two lots where the lot size does not quite meet the minimum for infill development. A 5 percent variance on this type of situation would allow sale and development of the second lot, and therefore encourage infill development. She walked through the descriptions of the other cases where 5 percent leeway is proposed: B. Up to 5 percent below the minimum lot size for Cottage Developments; C. Up to 5 percent below the minimum lot area for Planned Unit Developments; and D. Up to a 20 percent reduction of one setback in the residential zoning districts. • Child Care Ordinance - Ms. Surber said that this item was more challenging than the others. The initial simple task of making the text and tables consistent with each other led to the realization that the WACs and definitions had changed. This led to more extensive revisions for the child care ordinance. Ms. Surber recalled ideas from the workshops which the State did not support. For example, although the State does not certify preschools, but there was language in the WACs indicating that they would review a preschool for compliance. However, when asked to confirm that, they said that service could only be done for tribal situations and not otherwise. She noted that attempts had been made to be more permissive in certain ways. She said the intention had been to treat family in-home child care and family preschools in the same way. The State limits in-home child care to twelve children at any one time; although there could be, for example, 40 children enrolled overall, no more than 12 could be on-site at any one time. The staff sought to treat family preschools the same way. The draft ordinance allows in home preschools in the manufacturing districts as well. The primary provider would need to be the primary resident of the home. The day care centers and stand alone preschools are more of a commercial venture, and do not have a residential component. She said the current code does not allow a day care center or stand alone preschool in either the C-I or C-III zoning districts. The proposed language would have these facilities as a permitted use in C-III historic commercial and as a conditional use in C-I. There is also a change to make it easier to process a conditional use for a day care center or stand alone preschool. Currently if you are entirely contained within an existing structure, you can get a minor conditional use permit. However, because these facilities often have an outdoor play • area, that places them into the major conditional use process. The new code now has a new definition for minor conditional use permits that includes situations where the only exterior development is for play area and parking facilities. P/anning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 10 November 8, 2007 • There is one change that makes the code more restrictive: Currently the code allows a day care center or stand alone preschool (no residential component) with 13 children or more as a conditional use in single family residential. In the scenario of a house uptown on a 5,000 square foot lot being sold and used for a day care center or stand alone preschool, the proposed code would not allow this. It would allow day care as an accessory use or as a conditional use permit. Examples include: a church with day care daring church services or during evening activities in the church would be allowed as accessory; a church leasing space for a day care center weekdays when not the space is not otherwise in use would be conditional; or a day care center in a planned unit development, provide the center is planned from the start of the PUD. All three of these would be allowed in the single family residential zoning district. Ms. Surber pointed out comment letters regarding this ordinance that had been received. She briefly described the major point of each letter, stating that both parties would also make their comments directly to the Commissioners. Ms. Surber noted Erica Delma's point about the age range cited in the new definition. She explained that the 30 months to five years is based on the state's definition of preschool age children. Referring to Rebecca Lovett's letter, she noted that she believes her concerns can be addressed through a slight modification of 17.52.OS.OC page 8 line 6. She read the section and said she would change that to: For the purposes of this section, any child day care center in operation in any zoning district which was lawfully established prior to February 27, 1995, may continue as a pre-existing use. She said that would address the existing lawfully established centers and anything new would need to comply with the provisions of the new ordinance. • She pointed out that the environmental review for all of these revisions was noticed, and the SEPA comment period ends on November 22, 2007. No comments have been received to date, and none are anticipated. She reminded that the Planning Commission can consider the revisions prior to the end of the comment period because they are making a recommendation only. The last page of the staff report notes the action options that may be taken by the Planning Commission. The suggested motion is also shown. Chair Slabaugh opened the floor for public comment. Rebecca Lovett, 808 56"' Street, Port Townsend Ms. Lovett said she wished to comment about the proposed child care ordinance. She said she owns the Neighborhood Schoolhouse located at 1227 16"' Street across from the Grant Street School. This is an R-II zoning district. She noted that the change suggested by Ms. Surber would cover her facility, but she wished to comment on possible future day care applications to the City. She said she strongly believes child care is essential in this city to facilitate economic development and to allow us to raise our children in a way that makes sense, in a way that is nurturing and to allow both parents to work. She said that the existing preschools are wonderful and the enrichment programs are wonderful. However, it is the day care center that will provide all day care for children outside of the home during working hours. Also, she is happy to see that more accessibility is addressed for in home child care. The current problems that are seen with in home child care are with regard to dependability. Because the licensee is in residence in the home, any family illness or family emergency causes an interruption in child care service because there is no staff to fall back on when needed. This seriously impacts the families that rely on child care services. She noted that her facility serves about 20 families, and employs two people fulltime and five or six teens part time. She said that not allowing a child care center to go through the conditional use process in the R-I or R-II zones drastically reduces the likelihood of a center starting in Port Townsend at all. She added that being so restrictive is a bad idea. Planning commission Meeting Page 5 of 10 .November 8, 2007 Referring to a city zoning map, she noted that day care centers are not really money making ventures, that the majority of families making use of such centers are on DHSH subsidies. To lump these day care centers with retail type of commercial venture is inappropriate. 38.59 She pointed out the areas being opened up, in red and purple (Commercial Districts). She noted however that because of the state regulations regarding outdoor space, it is not very viable to set up a child care center in these commercial areas. Even ii' expensive outdoor space could be afforded, it would most likely be paved, which is not child-friendly playing surface. She pointed out the dark yellow area (R-III), where she is now located. She said that the City is planning to cut out the yellow and dark yellow areas of Port Townsend [that is, prohibit child care centers in these districts]. Ms. Lovett noted that currently, it is permitted through a conditional use process, which she described as fairly stringent. She said it is costly, requires noticing and appearance before a state examiner, as well as approval of any and all neighbors. She said, "but my argument is that child care should be considered infrastructure to our City, and a basic amenity for people who live here. So, it should be considered more like a school, and not like a commercial venture that should not be located in a neighborhood --because that is where you do want to raise children, you want to raise them in your backyard. Honestly, Port Townsend is not large enough to be fearful of some huge KinderCare going into some residential area. The population would never be able to support anything so large. If, at some point, the population jumps 30,000 people and there is concern, alright. But in the meantime, we are talking about those kinds of numbers; we do not have that many children. We have more children than we have care for, but we don't have as many children as it would take to have "the Wal-Mart of child care centers'' to be placed here. So, I would like everyone to consider keeping the R-I and R-II zones open to child care center development, with a conditional use. It is that neighborhood that would be impacted, and if that neighborhood truly doesn't want their children in their backyard, then they won't be. And, if they do, then it is not limited. Thank you. Erica Delma, 807 Taylor Street, Port Townsend Ms. Delma said she has apre-school at 840 Washington Street. She began by stating that in addition to the comments in her letter, she agreed with everything Ms. Lovett had said. She said she was sad that in her reading of this ordinance, she was focused on that which applied to her specific situation. She said that every point made by Ms. Lovett is entirely valid and accurate. Even looking at other communities she has lived in, such as Kitsap area and Greater Seattle, it is not an uncommon thing to see a child care center in a residential neighborhood -actually it is a very positive thing. I think keeping that and allowing that to happen with a conditional use is a very good idea. Other than that, she said she thought the ordinance was positive overall, and that it opened up pre-schools in home. She noted, regarding the age range, that her Montessori based school works with children of ages two through six. She said she groups the children by age into two years; three-four-five years; and six years. The environment and classrooms have been built around that configuration. Ms. Delma said her school is downtown, and while her school may be grandfathered, perhaps the ages mentioned in the WACs were not binding, and she suggested that the Commissioners may wish to consider greater flexibility with the age ranges defined. She added that with regard to the play area requirements, that the boundaries should include fencing. Her final point was that although the State does not license pre-schools, everyone should rest assured that the pre-schools in Port Townsend are of high quality and meet or exceed the standards. She noted also that many of the State standards address meals and naps and the like, these issues are not as relevant in pre-schools where the children are present for only 4 hours per day. Staff Response: Judy Surber had no response except to commend the speakers for their very . compelling arguments. Chair Slabaugh said she agreed, noting she was impressed with the speakers' clear and succinct comments. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 6 of 10 November B, 2007 Planning Commission Questions: Jerry Fry asked for an explanation of the date February 27, 1995. Judy Surber replied that the date appears in the existing code and is likely the date the code was first written. A check of the PTMC revealed that the code originally written in 1997. Mr. Fry said he would like to clarify the reason for that date, or set a more current date. Bill LeMaster raised a question regarding the number of children in a day care center; he noted that the number thirteen was stricken out on page 3, line 48, in the definition of child care center in the draft ordinance. Ms. Surber responded that she believed the change was made to indicate that a child day care center that has no residential component, whether 10 or x number of children, is not regulated as an in home preschool or in home child care facility. So, if it requires state licensing, it would be subject to that, and if not, there are no specified limits on the number of children. Mr. LeMaster asked if there were a limit on the number of children that would be allowed on a 5,000 square foot lot in R-I zoning. Ms. Surber clarified that R-I would have a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size and R-II would be a 5,000 square foot lot size. Ms. Lovett was recognized to comment on this. She said that according to State regulations, there must be 30 square feet per child, not including kitchens, bathrooms, and hallways, as well as 75 square feet of outdoor play area per child. Any child under the age of 30 months requires 70 square feet of indoor space per child. After a brief discussion and additional calculations, she estimated a maximum of 45 children per 5,000 square foot lot. Ms. King returned to the question of the February, 1995 date. Ms. Surber said she was open to changing the date. • Ms. Slabaugh asked for clarification on whether the play area includes fencing. Ms. Surber said. it was her assumption that an outdoor play area would include fencing. Ms. Slabaugh asked if there were other reasons, other than consistency with the State, to include age specifications. Ms. Surber replied that the City Attorney and the State regulators could be consulted to see if it is a problem for the City to have different age range specifications for pre schools. Given that the State does not license pre-schools, she said that they might not have an issue with it. Ms. Slabaugh asked Ms. Lovett where her child care facility is located. Ms. Lovett said it is located across the street from the YMCA on a small street. There was clarification that this is a stand alone, not an in home, center. She said she served about 20 families; her license allows up to 15 at one time. After determining that there were no further questions, Chair Slabaugh closed this portion of the public hearing. Planning Commission Deliberation At Chair Slabaugh's suggestion, the Commission agreed to deal with the Child Care ordinance first for the convenience of the two guests who had spoken to this issue. Harriet Capron said that she thought Ms. Lovett had been extremely persuasive. She said she would be in favor of permitting child care in R-I (and R-II) as a condition use. She said • neighbors have the option of voicing their objections, if any. George Unterseher said he would agree to that. Ms. Slabaugh asked if there were concerns with the numbers of children, based on Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of YO November 8, 2007 • the calculations, discussed earlier. She noted that parking and traffic had been raised as possible problems in earlier discussions. Ms. Capron said she would leave that to the neighbors. Ms. Surber reviewed the conditional use permit approval criteria, noting that the criteria must be met. The fact that a neighbor simply objects to child care is not relevant, the objection needs to be based upon the approval criteria. A discussion ensued regarding how possible traffic and parking impacts could be prevented and/or ameliorated. Ms. Surber said that there could be a limit placed on the maximum number of children present at one time. Ms. Surber said that through the conditional use process, that number would come to light. Location on an arterial or small street would need to be factored in. , Ms. Slabaugh said she resonated with the comment made during testimony that those who undertake care child are motivated not by proft but by love and passion for children. She said she very much values the quality child care services that operate in this town. In response to a question from Mr. Emery about process, Ms. Surber said she was prepared to accept either Planning Commission endorsements or revisions or a decision to continue deliberation on any of the ordinances. Mr. Emery said he would prefer to have the input from the City Attorney on the age range question before finalizing Child Care. After a brief discussion, he proposed that, subject to Mr. Watts review, the age range specified in the Ordinance be changed to `from 24 months to 6 years': There were no objections to that change. Mr. LeMaster proposed that the Planning Commission direct staff to include R-I and R-II in the conditional use process for child care entities. There were no objections. • Mr. Fry proposed that the date of February 27, 1995 be changed to the date when the ordinance is passed. After a brief follow up discussion, Ms. Surber said she had mentioned that that provision could be made applicable to any zoning district. She said she would amend the language for this and the above changes and return for final Planning Commission perusal. Mr. Fry moved and Mr. LeMaster seconded that staff be requested to revise the Child Care draft ordinance as discussed to be approved at a later date. Motion was approved, all in favor. Planning Commissioners and staff thanked Ms. Lovett and Ms. Delma for their participation. Ms. Surber asked, with the Planning Commission's agreement, if she may include some of Ms. Lovett's comments in the findings for this ordinance. Ms. Lovett and Commissioners agreed. Minor Variance Process Ordinance: Chair Slabaugh referred Commissioners to the summary on page 5 of the proposed variance, and asked for any discussion. Ms. Surber provided clarification on the nature of the change: up to 20% reduction on one setback in the residential zoning districts, replacing the prior 10% reduction. Mr. Unterseher asked about the status of the setback proposal proposed by Jeff Randall. Ms. Surber said that this ordinance largely addresses the issue raised by Mr. Randall and allows for the simpler process and approval criteria. She said she could verify with Mr. Randall whether or not this ordinance, as proposed, fully addressed his concerns. Mr. Unterseher said that this is a very important issue for this town because of the number of lots that may need special consideration for obtaining a building permit. Chair Slabaugh agreed, recalling the testimony of Richard Berg and the examples presented by staff at previous meetings. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 8 of 10 November 8, 2007 Ms. Surber reminded that there had been a change to the wording in SECTION 1 B, page 3, line 25; cross out `area' and replace with `lot size'. Mr. Emery moved for recommendation of the Variance draft ordinance, as written and amended by staff, and to direct staff to prepare a Summary Transmittal to the Council with Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions based on the Recitals contained in the draft ordinance. Mr. Unterseher seconded. The motion was approved, all in favor. Omnibus Ordinance: Chair Slabaugh asked if there were any issues or questions for any items in the list. Commissioner LeMaster noted, for discussion, that the items 3 and 4 regarding building height did not address C-III. He asked why the particular height limits had bcen chosen and why not use one height for all. He said if 50 feet is acceptable in the historic commercial district downtown, why is it not appropriate for all mixed use etc. Ms. Surber said that 50 feet downtown is probably compatible with existing structures. That height has been somewhat controversial in the uptown area. For mixed use districts, that height may be objectionable in neighborhoods. The reason for the change was to accommodate overhead utilities by adding two feet to the ground floor height. For ease of implementation, 5 feet was added to the overall building height in each zone. She said to increase to 50 feet in all zones would be a huge change, i.e. from 35 to 50 feet in some cases. Chair Slabaugh explained that height tends to be a complex and controversial issue, and further changes to the proposed ordinance would need to be noticed and discussed. Ms. King agreed. • Mr. LeMaster said the topic is on the agenda for the first meeting of the Uptown Bulk, Height and Dimension Group, of which he is a member. After a brief discussion, Commissioners agreed that the issue would require future airing, and could not be concluded in this meeting. Ms. Surber added that the change is for a five foot increase and the actual maximum depends on the actual maximum height currently in each zone. She said the bold print is correct and she would adjust the text to make that more clear before the code goes to Council. She referred to pages 5 and 6 where the specific heights per zone are listed. Chair Slabaugh referred to item 19. She asked how this change would have affected the specific Comp PIan proposals that had been presented to the Planning Commission. Ms. Surber referred to the Omnibus ordinance, page 26, where the strike out language is project specific. She said that often requests for comp plan amendments are for specific projects. If decision makers have based a zoning decision on that project, and that project is never completed, the zoning change still stands, allowing any other uses permitted in that zone. This clarifies to the applicant that the critical information concerns the parameters of this zoning, and whether or not it is reasonable to proceed with that zoning change. The vision of that particular project is not as important as the overall expected impact of the zoning change, to be applied for all projects in the future. There was no further discussion. Mr. Emery moved for recommendation of the Omnibus draft ordinance, as written and amended, and to direct staff to prepare a Summary Transmittal to the Council with Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions based on the Recitals contained in the draft ordinance. Mr. Fry seconded. The motion was approved, all in favor. ., VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None P/arming Commission Meeting Page 9 of 10 November 8, 2007 VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Chair Slabaugh restated upcoming meetings information for Mr. LeMaster, who had missed that discussion at the beginning of the meeting. November 22 -Cancelled (Thanksgiving Holiday) December 13 - 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update Public Hearing -Continued Sign Code Workshop December 27 -Cancelled (Winter break) IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) Chair Slabaugh reminded Commissioners that December 13 would be the last meeting of her Planning Commission tenure, and there would be a need to elect a new Chair at that time. Mr. Fry stated that he would not be able to attend the December 13 meeting, and that he was not interested in filling either the Chair or Vice Chair position. Ms. Surber distributed informational materials on levels of service at intersections and zoning maps, which had been requested at a previous meeting. • On behalf of all Commissioners and staff, Chair Slabaugh wished Commissioner Kristen Nelson a Happy Birthday. X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery moved for adjournment and Mr. LeMaster seconded. The motion was approved all in favor. Chair Slabaugh adjourned the meeting at 8:25 PM. Lie l~.lfibaugh, Chair Gail Bernhard, Recorder • Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 10 November 8, 2007