Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080907City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 2007 7:00 PM City Hall -Third Floor Conference Room Meeting Materials: EXH 1. J. Surber, Staff Memo re: Remand of Item #3 (Proposed rezone of R-II along the Northern Shoreline), July 19, 2007 revised. EXH 1.1 Map, Original Proposal re: Proposed Rezone of R-II along northern Shoreline, Feb. 15, 2007 EXH 1.2 E. Toews - Cascadia Planning Services, Letter regarding the Proposed Rezone (McFarland property), July 12, 2006 EXH 1.3 Agenda & Minutes: Planning Commission Meeting of February 15, 2007 EXH 1.4 Map, Existing Conditions (Exhibit 4), undated EXH 1.5 Map, Revised Proposal, Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 4, 2007 EXH 2 A. Nelson & J. Surber, Proposed PTMC Code Amendments, August 1, 2007 EXH 2A Suggested Code Amendments H/L Revisions Table, August 6, 2007 EXH 2B Attachments for Suggested Amendments Document, August 6, 2007 EXH 2C Revised Chapter 17.56 PTMC -Home Occupations, August 7, 2007 EXH 2D Proposed Bill Format Changes to Day Care Facilities (Revised August 9, 2007) EXH 2E Proposed Bill Format Changes for Optional DNS (Last revised August 5, 2007) EXH 2F Proposed Bill Format Changes to Variance Chapter, Revised August 4, 2007 EXH 3 A. Nelson, J. Surber, S. Wassmer, Home Occupations: Key Changes and Questions, August 9, 2007 EXH 4 A. Nelson, J. Surber, S. Wassmer, Child Day Care: Key Changes and Questions, August 9, 2007 EXH 5 S. Wassmer, Child Care Facilities and Home Occupations within the City of Port Townsend, August 9, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Roger Lizut called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. II. ROLL CALL: The following Planning Commission members were present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Alice King, Bill LeMaster, Roger Lizut, Julian Ray, and Liesl Slabaugh George Unterseher was excused. Staff: Rick Sepler, Judy Surber, Alyse Nelson, and Suzanne Wassmer were present. III. AGENDA: • Julian Ray moved to accept the agenda; Liesl Slabaugh seconded. The motion to approve the agenda, as written, was approved all in favor. Planning Commission August 9, 2007 Page 1 of 10 • IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Lizut repeated his suggestions from the previous meeting about reviewing the minutes, for the benefit of new Commissioner Fry. Minutes of July I2, 2007: Steve Emery moved and Liesl Slabaugh seconded that the minutes of July 12, 2007 be approved, as written. The motion passed, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Remand of Item 3 of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan docket -Reopened Public Hearing (Judy Surber, Senior Planner) Chair Lizut reopened the Public Hearing by reading the full script of the rules of order. He reminded those who wished to speak to sign in. During the reading of the rules, he asked if any Planning Commissioner had any interest, financial or property, to disclose in connection with this matter. There were none. Staff Presentation: Judy Surber began the staff presentation with a review of the paper exhibits mailed previously, as well as the e-mailed exhibits. The staff memo relating to the remand item (EXH 1.) was revised July 19, with five exhibits attached. She said that the Planning Commission had reviewed and held a public hearing on the 42 items of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Docket in February, 2007. For this item EXH. 1.1 (map) shows the original proposal. The area outlined in red, zoned R-II, was identified as a possible mapping error during the SMP process, and wished to see the bluff zones down zoned to R-I consistent with upland properties. During that review process, the City received a letter from Eric Toews representing McFarland, owner of the property identified on EXH. 1, pointing out that the reasoning for the zoning had been well thought out during the Comprehensive Plan 1995 process. She said that reasoning was based on drainage basins; EXH. 1.4 shows the drainage basin divides. In the Comprehensive Plan, it says that for areas in drainage basin 4, the R-I zoning at 10,000 square feet minimum lot size should apply. But for basin 1, that recommendation was not made. Block 50, the McFarland Property, remained in R-II. However, the original intent of down zoning that area for consistency with the shorelines designations still holds true. The Shoreline Master Program Update was just adopted in February 2007. In that, they looked at the bluff management zone as well as the shorelines jurisdiction. In EXH.S, she pointed out the recommended rezone which staff made after several meetings with Mr. Toews, representing Ms. McFarland. He is in agreement with what is shown in the recommended rezone (EXH. 5). This would improve consistency with the parcels in Sea View Estates that are in the R-I zoning district. Referring to EXH. 4, she said that the shorelines designation and the bluff management zone encumbers the majority of the McFarland Property; it is consistent with Sea View Estates which is zoned R-I to include the parcels 3-7 in the down zone. The remainder of the McFarland holding, lots 1-2 of block 50 and the blocks south of the shorelines jurisdiction, would stay R-II because they are in Basin 1 and do not fall within shorelines jurisdiction. There is clearly buildable area in lots 1 and 2 outside of the management zone. Mr. Toews said that is highly likely that if Ms. McFarland . retains and develops the property, there would be a clustered design, rather than individual lot development. Through this recommended rezone, the impact on the overall density is not significant. She noted that Eric Toews was present to testify. P/arming Commission August 9, 2007 Page 2 of 10 • Chair Lizut asked if there were written materials for submission, without speaking. There were none. Public Testimony: Eric Toews, Cascadia Planning Services, 375 Hudson Street, Suite 204, Port Townsend, WA Mr. Toews identified himself, and noted that he was representing Susan McFarland, owner of the subject property. He said that he and his client support the staff recommendation for lots 3-7 of block 50 to be down zoned from R-III to R-I. He said they believe that this more accurately reflects the facts on the ground at the subject site and that the proposal increases consistency with the recently adopted SMP, as Judy Surber had mentioned earlier. At the same time, it preserves the current zoning on all those lots lying wholly landward of the bluff top, namely lots 1 and 2. He added that lots 3 and 4 are actually encumbered by right-of--way, rather than by lying waterward of the bluff top. "That is the northeasterly end of that portion of the block." By retaining the R-II zoning on the balance of block 50, much of the potential development density of the property would be retained. This density could be achieved in the future through a potential planned unit development (PUD) redevelopment of the site, situating development to avoid shoreline geologically hazardous critical areas. Therefore, for the reasons outlined in the staff report, the property owner supports the position recommended by staff. Chair Lizut asked for any additional statement or response from staff. Judy Surber added that the exact recommended action is listed on the last page of the staff memo. Mr. Toews also added that he wished to apologize for any information provided during the Planning Commission meeting of February 15 that was in any way misleading. He said that he and his client were wholly under the impression that all of the McFarland lots lay landward of the bluff. He said that only after that date had he come into possession of survey information that indicated that a portion of lot 7 was over the bluff facing the beach below. He noted that it was wholly unintentional. Ms. Slabaugh advised that George Randels should be informed of that, as well, since he was still serving on the Planning Commission at that time. Chair Lizut asked for any questions from Planning Commissioners for the speaker or staff. Ms. Slabaugh noted that, based on the aerial photograph, there are a number of lots in basin 1 that are zoned R-I. She asked if it was considered likely that other requests to rezone would follow, based on the decision for block 50. Ms. Surber said that since this was a downzone, not an upzone, that was not likely. Mr. LeMaster asked Mr. Toews if the intention or potentiality of clustered development would be recorded and transferred with the property under discussion. Mr. Toews said "not to his understanding". He pointed out that the rights of way within this block are largely vacated; to maximize the use of the property requires redevelopment. The current land owner believes that would best be achieved through a PUD, allowing deviations from the proscriptive standards in the sub-division code, while still allowing achievement of the zoned densities. But there is no requirement that this be recorded as part of this proposal. Mr. Sepler added that any property of adequate size could apply for planned unit development. Ms. Slabaugh asked about the Thomas Street right of way, which is not vacated. She recalled that the non-motorized plan provides for non-motorized trail bluff outlook access there. She asked if it is known if that area would be part of a planned unit development or would a driveway be located there. Mr. Toews said that his response could only be speculation, but if that area is part of the City's non-motorized plan, that factor would likely be a condition of redevelopment • approval. Ms. Surber concurred. Chair Lizut then asked for any comments "solely to clarify anything raised by Commissioners questions". There were none. Planning Commission August 9, 2007 Page 3 of 10 Chair Lizut then closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing. Mr. Emery said that he wished to endorse option number 2. He said that Elmira Park is a jewel, and that that piece of land needs to be protected. Mr. Ray moved that the Planning Commission recommend that Ciry Council rezone shoreline parcels generally lying between Hendricks Street and the Ciry Limits along the Strait of Juan de Fuca as depicted in EXH. S from R-II to R-I with the following exceptions: 1. Retain R II zoning on Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 8 -I7 inck~sive of block SO and Lot I of Block 39 of Fowler's Park Addition; and 2. Rezone the City of Port Townsend owned Elmira Park to P/OS. Ms. Slabaugh seconded the motion. Motion passed: 6/0/1, with Mr. Fry abstaining. BREAK: Chair Lizut called for the planned recess at 7:30 PM. A farewell reception with refreshments was held in honor of Roger Lizut. Commissioners and staff wished Chair Lizut well in his relocation to Walla Walla and thanked him for his many contributions to the City. All enjoyed the refreshments and Commissioners posed for the Planning Commission photograph. The meeting resumed at 7:45 PM. b. PTMC Code Revisions -Workshop II (Optional DNS, Child Care, Home Occupation) Alyce Nelson reviewed the packet contents, including the staff memo and exhibits. She pointed out EXH 2.A Suggested Code Amendments, including all items discussed in the past meetings. EXH. 2B is the table attachments. EXH. 2C deals with Home Occupations. EXH. 2D deals with Child Day Care Facilities. EXH. 2E is the Optional DNS (Determination ofNon-significance) showing formatting changes. EXH. 2F deals with the Variance chapter changes, which includes two options. Rick Sepler introduced the topic of Home Occupations. He introduced Suzanne Wassmer who is responsible for most of the Home Occupation permitting. A number of issues have been identified in the last few years. He said that there has been an increase in the number of new residents who are doing extensions of their prior work out of their homes. In addition, the City by its Comprehensive Plan supports Home Occupations, which can be environmentally beneficial by reducing vehicle trips, and economically beneficial by minimizing overhead. He noted that communities that are empty during the day can more easily fall prey to burglary and other crime. In this aspect, the City reserves broad discretion. There is no requirement by state Iaw to support this activity; it is considered a privilege. It is acknowledged that there are very different aspects and types of home occupation, with some being virtually invisible and having little or no impact on neighborhoods. Others, through their operations, can have adverse affects on the community: parking issues, excessive vehicle trips, deliveries, off-hours impacts, etc. The key issue is to balance the needs and benefits to the individual versus the community/neighborhood impacts. He said that a two tiered system of review is proposed, which would be covered by Alyce Nelson and Suzanne Wassmer. Alyce Nelson referred to the memo at the end of the packet, EXH 3 (Home Occupations -Key Changes and Questions). Alyce noted that two categories were being proposed in addition to the existing Exempt category. The table summarizes key issues/parameters and how they would be treated under each category. The proposal seeks to relate minor home occupations to uses with • limited business activity and major home occupations to those with major business activity. A minor home occupation would be a Type I Administrative permit. A major home occupation would be a Type II Conditional Use permit. Planning Commission August 9, 2007 Page 4 of 10 . She walked through the table beginning with Number of Employees. The current code allows 3 employees in addition to those that live in the residence. The proposal would reduce this to None for Exempt; one for Minor and two for Major. Both total number of trips and type of trips are considered. Under Minor, two options are considered, one with special provision for instructors and the second relating to compatibility of the neighborhood. For Major Home Occupations (H/O's), up to 8 clients between the hours of 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM would be allowed. Alyce also walked through the specific recommendations relating to Parking, Signage, Exterior Modifications, Outside storage, Office-only activities, and Permit/administration enforcement. Alyce also briefly explained the (other) Changes to Exemptions, following the table. Suzanne Wassmer then referred Commissioners to EXH. S ,the memo entitled Child Care Facilities and Home Occupations within the City of Port Townsend, page 3. This table shows the number of known home occupation businesses by type from 1999 to 2007. She described the process that staff and applicants follow for business licenses and home occupation permits. She described a recent example of a piano teacher, and the questions that must be answered if the business is in the home. In reviewing the Business License application, staff determines if a Home Occupation permit is also required. At present the cost is $162.50, a one time fee. Staff reminds builders, for example, of restrictions related to truck/equipment parking and storage at their homes. Suzanne also reviewed two cases (LUP06-025 AND LUP06-1 OS) where Home Occupations were denied; both are described in the memo. There was further discussion about public notice, how these cases might fair under the proposed changes, and whether they may have been permitted as either Minor or Major H/Os. Bill LeMaster asked if the new code would allow the denied insurance business (LUP06-025) to take the process to the next level. Rick Sepler said that, yes, they could have done that. Under the Conditional Use process, there would be notice to the neighbors and a forum to evaluate fairly. He noted that for the case of LUP06-025, they applicant was actually building a store front, not remodeling for a home occupation business. Mr. LeMaster stated that in his understanding, the applicant had intended to rebuild their office in the existing dilapidated garage, transforming an eyesore into an attractive structure in the process. Staff recalled that the garage remodel plan would not work, so the plan had changed to build a separate structure, in effect, next to the neighbor's property line. Rick Sepler noted that the eventual process should allow for input from the neighborhood on the projected impact. Chair Lizut interjected with an inquiry as to how much specific discussion was appropriate for these items in this meeting. Rick Sepler said that staff was looking for guidance with regard to the proposals and on any further research that might be needed. There was a brief discussion about LUP06-1 OS. This prompted questions about the requirement that at least one person engaged in the operation must reside on the premises. Staff noted that a wording change may be needed for that requirement. Mr. Sepler said the business needs to be secondary and accessory to the home use. A specific example that occurred in County jurisdiction was mentioned. Ms. King wondered whether having an employee live at the business location, even though the primary owner or principal did not, would be permitted. Mr. Sepler said that would be permitted, because there would be no difference in impact. Ms. King • noted that she did not think that was necessarily consistent with the intention. It was agreed that the code should be clarified to reflect whatever was eventually decided about that. Planning Commission August 9, 2007 Page S of 10 Suzanne then reviewed the permit costs for Type I and Type II Home Occupation permits, and . the question of whether newspaper notice should continue to be required for Type II. She noted that the newspaper notice would add $150 to the fee for a Type II Major Home Occupation permit. Mr. Sepler clarified that the Type I Minor Home Occupation permit does not involve public notice or the fees associated with public notice. Alyse Nelson then reviewed the Key Questions (on page 3 of EXH. 3) for which Planning Commission input is sought. Options are presented in EXH. 2C, page 6. She referred to item 2. Minimum Standards: Minor Home Occupations. Bill LeMaster asked Chair Lizut if he was permitted to ask questions as this point; Chair Lizut agreed. Mr. LeMaster asked how many business licenses for home occupations have been issued in Port Townsend, i.e. how many home businesses are currently licensed? Mr. Sepler said there are 72 licenses according to the matrix. Suzanne noted that many of the home businesses are exempt. Mr. LeMaster asked if all of these have business licenses and file B & O tax reports. There was a brief discussion as to whether or not there was a complete accounting of all such businesses, and acknowledgement that only those that apply for business licenses and/or home occupation permits would be known; there was not a complete count of all the exempt instances immediately available at the meeting. Mr. LeMaster said one concern was who was going to monitor the number of trips, etc. and understanding the limits for vehicle or pedestrian trips. He cited the example of his accountant, who may receive many drop-offs per week, although a portion may not involve a vehicle. He suggested that mixed use neighborhoods/areas might merit different conditions/parameters, so as to promote rather than discourage small businesses. He questioned whether it was possible to structure some correlation between lot sizes/zoning, and uses/activities. Ms. Slabaugh noted the flexibility given by the optional wording under item B on page 6: "Traffic .... shall be compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood". Judy Surber said she thought the wording was too loose. Mr. LeMaster also raised the issues related to the changing character of neighborhoods over time, asking whether a business would be allowed to continue once approved, even if its neighborhood evolved in a way that was no longer compatible with the business. Judy Surber said that it was important to remember that the home business should be secondary to the primary use of the home as residence. Mr. LeMaster conveyed his viewpoint of "what we would like to have in a broader community: sustainability, minimizing the footprint, supporting local economies." "Are these regulations appropriate in every area of the community?" Chair Lizut asked if he was in favor of tying these issues to density; Mr. LeMaster said that was appropriate. Chair Lizut said he agreed that the same restrictions may not apply to a five acre parcel as to a standard uptown lot. Rick Sepler mentioned the County's policy relating to lot size. He said the courts have ruled that adjacent use rights must not be deprived to enable one's rights. That is, if large equipment or outside storage is allowed on a 5 acre lot, "the adjacent property owner (of a 5,000 square foot lot) cannot be deprived of his right to not have that next door." He said the best way to accommodate the goal in question is the conditional use process, on a case by case basis. He said he did not see how the City could legislate a lot size condition in an urban area. Judy Surber raised the point that a larger rural property maybe served by a narrow, unpaved street with adverse impact on nearby properties. • Liesl Slabaugh said she would like to find a way to support the goals for a walkable community that Bill LeMaster had mentioned, while acknowledging how difficult it may be to achieve the proper balances. For example, more pedestrian visits would not adversely impact the neighborhood at all. Planning Commission August 9, 2007 Page 6 of 10 Julian Ray said that he thinks enforcement is a huge factor. He appreciates the additional clarity provided by the new language, but asked how it would be enforced. He also noted that the number of unregistered businesses could be very important. He noted that the fees and regulations must be implementable and effective in actuality, as well as on paper. He added that staff perusal of business license applications may not be adequate to detect and track all instances of home occupations. He called attention to the need to clarify what is meant by vehicle traffic, and for adding specifications about electric cars, non-motorized vehicles etc. He said that "some of the language is neat, but vague". He asked if we are creating a system (for Major Home Occupations) that would impact only a few people/businesses per year or one that applies to significant numbers. Mr. Sepler said that home businesses are a growing trend here and elsewhere. Mr. Fry mentioned that in his former hometown, the town wrestled with the problem of people working at home and with drawing the line between home businesses and incidental use. However, exempt businesses such as consulting and telecommuting do not generate significant neighborhood impact. Mr. Fry asked how artwork displayed in the yard of artists would be categorized. Mr. Ray thought this should not be restricted in the same way as outside storage. There was general agreement that language should be clarified in several ways to achieve balance between support of the home businesses and protection of neighbors and neighborhoods. Alyse Nelson emphasized that the reason Home Occupations came up was because of the lack of public notice. She pointed out that it may help to think of the requirements for Exempt, Minor and Major. She said the Minor category is basically tightened up, so as to push more businesses into the Major category. Where should the lines between Exempt & Minor and Minor and • Major fall, with regard to trips and types of trips? Rick Sepler explained how the proposed limits for trips had been developed based on the national average per residence. He said he was hearing that possibly the Commissioners did not want Major Home Occupation businesses at all, and that conditions for Minor ones needed to be slightly redefined. The question of when a notice is required was discussed. Mr. LeMaster suggested that public notice should be required for all that are not Exempt. Staff pointed out the expense and additional resources that would be needed. The parameters for who would need to be notified and the options for charging fees linked to actual cost of notification were also discussed further. Staff reminded that setting fees is the province of City Council, and that whatever is done, the fees must be standard, not adjusted on a case by case basis. Rick Sepler suggested a hybrid approach: Exempt, Minor (Type II) with notice, with administrative discretion to move the Minor to a conditional use permit with hearing (Type III), if warranted, i.e. if many or significant issues arise. There was agreement that this should be considered further. Liesl Slabaugh supported omitting the newspaper notice, and using only the posted sign and mailing methods. Commissioners agreed that the most significant factors are those that have the impact to the neighborhood character: traffic, parking, noise, clutter, outside storage, hours of operation. Several schemes for categorizing the applications were discussed. Realizing the difficulty of developing an exact set of specifications, Chair Lizut suggested giving more discretion to staff. Mr. Sepler reviewed how the clear cut instances would flow versus how the questionable ones could be handled. There was some confusion as to how the proposed table of criteria would be applied, if the hybrid approach was chosen. Judy Surber posed several questions about how high to set the bar in determining if a business could qualify as a Home Occupation. She asked, for • example, about on the street parking for employees. Planning Commission August 9, 2007 Page 7 of 10 Chair Lizut suggested that staff develop a decision tree chart, offline. He said that if it results in a complex 15-step process, it is clearly unworkable. However, if it can be honed to three or four key questions/decisions, that may be a practical way to categorize the applications. Mr. Emery added the factor of considering whether the potential location is on a major arterial or a back street. Staff said they would rework the proposal based on the guidance received before returning to consider this further. CHILD CARE Mr. Sepler noted that child care is a social necessity, not an optional issue. He pointed out that, unlike in Home Occupations, there is limited discretion, with the RCW definition as the guideline. In reviewing the child care provisions, staff had determined that the City code is no longer consistent with the state guidelines, which have changed. He said that because the state has changed how they categorize things, the definitions no longer match. Additionally, the ability to have child care downtown (C-III) should be reconsidered; it is currently not permitted there. Alyse Nelson walked through the memo on Child Care (EXH 4). Family Day Care Homes -These are permitted outright in all residential, commercial and mixed use zoning districts. As regulated by the State, the family day care provider must reside in the home. One key point is that the State RCWs and WACs do not say explicitly that these must be • permitted in mixed use districts. She said the issue may not arise often because outdoor play structures must be provided, and this would be somewhat more difficult to find or accommodate in mixed use area dwellings, such as condominiums. The State does not have parking requirements. One question is whether the City should require Family Day Care Homes to have parking beyond what is required for the home. Newly proposed is a Mini Day Care Center. This means a center with less than 12 children not within a residence, or a center with 13 or more children operated within a home. Staff is seeking feedback as to whether this intermediate level category would be desirable. A key question is whether such facilities should require a conditional use permit. Child Day Care Centers -Currently, the code is inconsistent. They are prohibited in R-I and R- II. A CUP is required in R-III, R-IV, C-I and all manufacturing districts. They are permitted in mixed use districts, C-II, C-Il(H), and C-III zones. By providing a mini day care provision, a minor CUP would be allowed in the residential districts where child care facilities are not currently allowed. Changes proposed include adding provisions for when located in a commercial area, distinct from criteria for residential areas. Preschools -These facilities are currently grouped with child day care centers in the use tables. There are no State rules. Staff is seeking guidance on whether they should be covered in the text of the Day Care Facilities chapter. There was discussion about the need for the new intermediate category, Mini Day Care Centers. Suzanne Wassmer referred to pages 1 and 2 of EXH. 5, which describes instances of permitted child care facilities in the City. She said there are very few applications for permits for Child Care. She described the situation with Neighborhood Schoolhouse and the apparent unmet needs for accommodating more children and for infant care. If the City were to prohibit this service in P/arming Commission August 9, 2007 Page 8 of 10 an R-II zone, the proprietor would not be able to open her business. She also described a withdrawn application for ahome-based Montessori school from 2004. Family home based day care centers are exempt from the Home Occupation category. Rick Sepler said the rationale is that a family day care center inside a home in compliance with State regulations has an acceptable level of impact. Some communities also have dispersion requirements. He noted that if they are too big, they may have more impact than a single family home, and therefore should be moved to a more appropriate area. Julian Ray restated that it can be more costly to upgrade infrastructure or accommodate traffic and parking impacts than to move to a commercial area. He agreed with Bill LeMaster's earlier comment that certain businesses simply do not work in certain locations. Suzanne Wassmer also called attention to Firefly Academy, which is downtown. It was permitted when it opened, but would not qualify today. Alyse Nelson said the recommendation is that these type facilities should be allowed in the C-III zone, and there needs to be separate criteria for commercial and residential areas. Mr. Emery noted that this suggests the need for revising the code to make it consistent with the Adult Store Ordinance provisions/restrictions on maintaining adequate physical distance between adult stores and schools/day care centers. There was additional discussion acknowledging the growing need for child care in commercial areas. It was agreed that the category of the mini day care should be pursued. Staff agreed to draft new language based on the direction that had been provided. VIII. NEW BUSINESS Election of Vice Chair Chair Lizut raised the issue of how to best provide for Chair/Vice Chair transition, since this was his last meeting with the Planning Commission. He noted that Liesl Slabaugh, Vice Chair, had agreed to step in as interim Chair until her term expires at the end of 2007, but wished to verify the proper procedure, per the bylaws. Rick Sepler said that the bylaws provide that the Vice Chair becomes Chair in the event the Chair resigns or is unavailable. An election of a new Vice Chair would be in order. Chair Lizut opened the floor for nominations or volunteers for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Steve Emery and Julian Ray volunteered. Commission members voted by written ballot. Outgoing Chair Lizut counted the ballots and announced that Steve Emery had been elected as the new Vice Chair. b. Appointment of Uptown Strategies Committee Member Rick Sepler said that the City Council will decide the composition of the committee on September 20. A Planning Commission representative is needed to replace Roger Lizut. The committee is expected to meet four times over two months, possibly not beginninguntil January. Meetings will likely be held on Wednesday evenings from 6:15 to 7:30 PM and be facilitated by John Owens from Makers Architecture. Bill LeMaster agreed to represent the Planning • Commission on the Uptown Strategies Committee. Planning Commission August 9, 2007 Page 9 of 10 IX. UPCOMING MEETINGS: • August 23, 2407 -There was a brief discussion about a possible agenda, as well as the option of canceling this meeting. Commissioners agreed that the meeting would be held if staff could prepare the Home Occupation revisions in time for that meeting, or cancelled if not. There was also agreement that receiving the packets a week in advance was not necessary for that meeting. Judy Surber noted that it is easier to do multiple hearinglmeeting notices at one time. Arrangements for the September meetings somewhat depend on completing the Home Occupation and other proposed code change discussions. X. COMMUNICATIONS: None XI. ADJOURNMENT: Julian Ray moved and Steve Emery seconded that the meeting be adjournedl: Chair Lizut adjourned the meeting at 9:37 PM. ~~ ~ • Liesl Slabaugh, Chair, for Roger Lizut (Former Chair) ~L~.~ Gai Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission August 9, 2007 Page 10 of 10