Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010804 Ag Min . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - December 16, 2003 V. New Business A. Election of Officers B. W orkplan for 2004 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action Etc........... VI. Unfinished Business A. (what....ifanything) 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VII. Upcoming Meetings: VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment January 8, 2004 . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Richard Berg, Alice King, Jeff Kelety and George Randels; Jim Irvin was excused. Also present were BCD Senior Planner Judy Surber and BCD Director Jeff Randall. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Kelety made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Randels seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Randels made a motion to approve the minutes of December 16,2003, as corrected; Mr. Berg seconded. All were in favor. V. PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none VI. NEW BUSINESS A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair for 2004 = Mr. Berg: Mr. Kelety nominated Ms. Thayer who declined the nomination. Ms. Hersey then nominated Mr. Berg. Mr. Randels called for acclamation of Mr. Berg and Mr. Berg was elected unanimously. Ms. Thayer turned the meeting over to newly elected Chair Berg who called for election of a Vice Chairperson. Vice Chair for 2004 = Ms. King: Ms. Thayer nominated Ms. King. Mr. Kelety seconded the nomination. Mr. Randels moved that nominations be closed; Ms. Hersey seconded. Ms. King was elected unanimously. B. WORKPLAN FOR 2004 -- First touch Ms. Surber, made the Staff Presentation distributing projected completion time lines for both the Shorelines Master Plan Update and the 2003 - 2004 Comp Plan Update. She pointed out that a product coming out of the City Council's upcoming retreat may affect projections for 2004 and discussed things known at this time that will be coming before the Planning Commission: Shorelines Master Plan Update. Is in draft form until they sign the contract with the Department of Ecology that is anticipated sometime next week. Approximately 15 consultants have responded; and when a consultant has been selected they may also have input into the schedule and its tasks. The City has been granted $200,000 funding through June 2005 to complete the update. Ms. Surber has been working with the Shorelines Advisory Group and will continue in 2004. The Planning Commission role will be very limited; they may not see any of the product until 2005. By State statute the Shorelines Master Plan must be adopted by the City Council by the end of2005. She noted it is critical to assign someone before the first the Shorelines meeting February 19,2004, to represent and report to the Planning Commission. 2003: 2004 Comp Plan Update. City funding is $15,000 to complete the update mandated by the Growth Management Act. They are all quite pleased with the way the Comp Plan is working, and the goal now is implementatioh. Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2004 / Page 1 · Ms. Surber discussed various tasks: I. Task I. Completion was hoped for by April 2003. The City did not receive the approved population projections from the County Commissioners until late August 2003 which reflected that growth projections, high under the original Comp Plan, and projections for the new horizon date of 2024, remain pretty much the same. Projection for 2024 are approximately 500 less than 2016 under the original plan. · Task II has been condensed. · Task III -- recent workshop for indicators and forthcoming joint workshop. · Task IV. Eric Toews is currently working on the white paper; anticipated completion is the first week in February. · Task VIII, Planning Commission Review & Recommendation. Summer months of2004. The goal is to catch up; Eric Toews will take the lead role. Planning Commission's main role will be the benchmarks indicators report -- one to two meetings in the near future, again approaching summer months of 2004, and periodically throughout. Mr. Kelety asked regarding the deadline of January 9 for adding more categories of indicators. It was determined Ms. Surber would accept input through January 9. Chair Berg accepted volunteers for the following appointments: Shorelines Advisorv Committee -- Ms. Thayer appointed to represent the Planning Commission Mr. Randels moved for unanimous approval. Affordable Housing Task Force -- Ms. Hersey appointed to represent the Planning Commission Ms. Thayer moved for unanimous approval. · Mr. Randall noted the Mayor will soon be making more appointments to the Planning Commission. Posting has been made by the City Clerk and applications have been received. C. COTTAGE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS -- First touch · Mr. Randall explained first touch, that the City Council requires they have more than one occasion to discuss ordinances presented to them before considering adoption. This meeting is an informal way to introduce background to the Commission, listen to citizen input and tell Staff what they want brought to the next workshop. The Planning Commission is not required to take action at this meeting. Mr. Randall indicated the City adopted the Cottage Housing Ordinance in 2001, another way of providing alternative types of housing -- a policy suggested in the housing section of the Comp Plan. In 2000, City Council directed Staff to pursue investigation of some alternative housing. Staff contacted other cities and was helped to craft an ordinance that was reviewed by a local committee. The ordinance was drafted and was noticed in the paper; the City conducted environmental review, and the Planning Commission and City Council held hearings. The ordinance was modified to some extent and adopted. Since the 2001 adoption, BCD has had no applications for cottage housing projects, although they received some that were somewhat similar. Mr. Randall explained that Tree House is often called a cottage project but is actually a condominium project in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Various types of flexible housing projects are allowed through a PUD in the Port Townsend Municipal Code such as: incorporating certain amount of multi- family housing; cluster housing; cluster parking; making lot sizes smaller; changing setbacks, etc. Currently our code limits PUDs to a minimum 40,000 sf ofland, basically 1 block. Cottage housing was designed to deal with smaller pieces of land than would otherwise qualifY for a PUD, e.g. 1 block of land or less. You could do a cottage project on 3 lots in R-I and R-II. Ms. Liz Berman was the first applicant for a cottage housing project late summer/early fall of 2003. Her property is zoned RI, low density single family, located past the fairgrounds on the way to Seaview Estates on the way out of town, back in the trees. As the cottage housing ordinance is currently drafted, it does not create different density levels in different zones. It basically creates one standard -- 1 dwelling unit per 2,857 sf land, but limits the size of those dwelling units, limits the footprint, requires a certain amount of open space, talks about their orientation to each other, etc. It does distinguish between different zones, stating that the lot coverage cannot exceed the underlying lot coverage of the zone. Mr. Randall distributed Table 17.16.030, Residential Zoning Districts -- Bulk, Dimensional and Density Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2004 / Page 2 · · · Requirements and noted that the maximum lot coverage in R-I is 25%. Under the PTMC lot coverage means that amount of your land that is covered by buildings -- driveways or sidewalks are not covered. Lot coverage in R-II is normally 35%. When the Cottage Ordinance was passed, there was some City Council discussion about the same density for cottages in R-I and R-II. Minimum lot size for R-I is 10,000 sf -- basically, 10,000 sf for 1 house; for R-II it is half -- 5,000 sf for 1 house. The reason for lower density in R-I, when the City conducted its Comp Plan effort in 1996, there were other studies underway about environmental limitations. It was discovered that much of the northwest part of town has highly impervious soils. When that Comp Plan effort was done there wasn't a lot of development out there, for the most part mainly undeveloped. Public Works and the Planning Department together decided if they developed a typical Port Townsend density of 1 house per 5,000 sf, they might have some serious stormwater problems because the water tends to run off rather than go underground. They decided one way to help reduce the environmental impact of build out in those areas was to reduce the density upfront. It wasn't done to protect some sort of rural character that was unique to that part of town, but primarily to deal with the potential environmental impacts of build out. Mr. Randall stated there wasn't much talk about differences in density, but at the time Council adopted the Cottage Housing Ordinance they thought the lot coverage would be the same. (You still can't have more than 25% lot coverage. Don't worry about the density --let's see what happens.) Then they got Liz Berman's project last year. First the site plan was proposed for approximately 1 block ofland, 40,000 sf, maximum density -- 13 cottages, a common building, and some underground parking. When that became public there was a lot of primarily negative reaction in the neighborhood that it did not seem very compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There was a lot of concern about the environmental impacts from stormwater runoff, wetlands, etc. It was determined at that point the project was vested. A lot of comment continued to come in with concerns about that project and future cottage projects in R-I, and it was eventually brought to City Council. The Liz Berman project has since been reduced in density to 8 cottages plus 1 common house. Mr. Randall said it is on its own track. Mr. Randall stated at their December 15 meeting, City Council discussed options for dealing with R-I cottages and voted to remand the ordinance to the Planning Commission for amendment. They have asked for Planning Commission feedback within 120 days. Staff will send a notice to CTED of potential ordinance adoption that starts their 60-day time review, and they will also run the SEP A process on potential changes to the cottage ordinance that will probably cover the same issues as the Commission's. A workshop was scheduled for the January 29 Planning Commission meeting with a public hearing probably the first meeting of February. Mr. Randall asked for suggestions of material for Staff to provide for consideration at the January 29 meeting. A member of the audience asked if they have information about what the current density is in R-I. Mr. Randall indicated the current allowed density in R-I is 1 dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet. Chair Berg reported he had testified at the City Council against an interim ordinance, mainly because he did not believe an emergency ordinance is the proper way to conduct City business. He said he plans to be open- minded. He called for public comment before Mr. Randall continues with the second part of his presentation. PUBLIC COMMENT -- cottage housing code amendments Participants were allowed to comment for 3 minutes. It was noted that public testimony would be accepted at the upcoming Planning Commission public hearing Patty Maroni, 5330 Hendricks Street Has lived next to the proposed cottage property for 16 years. Hers was the only house on the whole side of the street, but gradually other people have move in, half acre to an acre; everyone gets along. She said it is a nightmare to have 9 houses proposed next door to her on 1 acre; it is totally inappropriate. The roads aren't accommodating this, and the drainage is terrible. Her garage floods every time it rains. There are endangered species living there. The architect's proposal had trees all over. She said if you put all those houses on 1 acre, there would not be one tree or shrub left; it is totally inappropriate. Mr. Randall pointed out that the Planning Commission is not ruling on Liz Berman's project. He thought it is helpful to talk about it as what you can expect in R-I under the current rules, but the Commission has no authority over that project and is only considering the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2004/ Page 3 · · · Marla Streater, 871 51st Street Was concerned about this changing the zoning with that much density, and about the drainage issues. She was trying to figure out the purpose of the cottage ordinance; she had thought it was somehow supposed to address affordable housing and said it doesn't in any way. She thought property values around such a development are going to go down if it is in a place that is already a rural area. She does not live right next to this project but is very much concerned for Port Townsend people who live here and everybody through the Planning Department to people who are developing, that things be clarified, that there be some additions to the ordinance that would limit the density and the proximity. She felt Mr. Randall had pretty much covered their concerns. Susan Miller, 80 Gull Shadow Lane She said currently R-I zoning allows 8 houses in one block and cottage housing would allow 14 in that same block; the addition to 14 is pretty huge. She thought the City took a lot of care in 1996, and 1997 with the zoning code, with a Comp Plan that made these zones R-I and R-II; R-II twice the density ofR-I, the underlying reasons being the poor drainage in R-I. It didn't make a lot of sense to her to experiment in R-I. She thought the cottage ordinance is in effect and is being tried in this one instance, but after that one experiment it should be limited to R-II, see how it works and not try to experiment with the poor drainage in R-I. Dorothy Hensey--1302 31 st Street She lives next door to Liz Berman's project and would like to see cottage housing not allowed in R-I anymore because of the density. When she purchased property in 2000, she thoroughly researched the zoning for R- I and what it meant. There were not any houses to the front or side of her house, and she wanted to know what to expect before she purchased something. Reading through the zoning she found she should potentially have four full-sized houses on Liz's side, and another set across the street which was limited by wetlands. She looked into it very thoroughly, specifically because she did not want to live in a high density area, but an area that was more rural in nature. R-I zoning was as close as she could get in town. She spent her entire life savings to purchase her home; her husband had recently passed away and she invested everything so she would have a home where she could provide for her children. She was shocked to wake up one morning and find this project was coming in next door and to fmd it was cottage housing overlayed on top of all the zonings; it was not what she thinking could possibly happen and was trying to avoid. She did not think it should be in R-I zoning. She said that, however, if they didn't find it in their hearts to take it out ofR-1 totally, to consider conditional use that would require public comment hearing for any project proposed in that zoning to address such issues to see if it would fit with the neighborhood. She also said streets in their area are not set up for all this housing, and it is going to be quite an issue. BCD says they can't require Ms. Berman to pay all of this, but she said Ms. Berman is bringing in all these people, starting with 14 but now 8 potential families. She stated that you cannot say it will be all seniors or single people as they have been told; the biggest building can be 1200 sf; her first house in which she had three kids and dogs was about that. Michael Dawson, 1361 51 st Street The zoning may be based on what the soil type is, but it seems it is the main thing that shapes development in the town and determines what the character is going to be if you know what Port Townsend will be 10 - 20 years from now. As a landowner in RI, you have the expectation that it is single family, one house per 100 x 100 foot lot. If a developer can come in and put possibly as many as 14 units in that same block, rather than 4 or less, it is very different. He does not think the percentage oflot coverage is sufficient, and that it doesn't belong in R-I. He feels cottage developments have a lot of great things going for them, that the idea of clustering and requiring pedestrian access only to units is great, but he suggested those things are more natural closer to more developed areas where there is going to be a lot more pedestrian use and more easy access to places. He thought for a number of reasons this does not belong in RI, and there is real concern about how many cottage developments can go near each other. He cited Laurel Heights with fourplexes. He indicated the best way to make money is where the land is cheaper like R-I and put in a lot of these. He thought it would be a real mistake to let that be a boon for developers but penalize the land owner with property values. He did not think the character of that kind of development would fit with other things going on in that neighborhood, and it is poor planning. He would like to see a lot of thought and real protections for the character of our town. He thought encouraging cottage development in other areas first that are already more dense, would be a great start to see how things go. Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2004 / Page 4 . . . John Marr, 1213 54th Street Did not understand how this whole thing got this far. He lives just up the hill from this and knows everything that happens in his yard is going to run down that way. When he built, they were on one block. He realizes he could put two more houses on his block and probably be legal and take care of his six daughters; but it is a fairly sensitive area. It is one of the last green ways to the beach other than Fort Worden. He said it is a nice area and thinks R-I is known as a sensitive area. Cottage housing is a very poor thing to put into an R-I zone; Planning should be able to experiment in another place. He thought it was very careless. He did not know how it got this far, and how it got vested. He said 8 years ago Liz Berman went to court with them; it was very clear what she was allowed to do and how much she was supposed to do in road improvement. This housing ordinance basically superseded everything that was agreed for R-I. He did not know how it got into R-I. He said it should be reconsidered significantly since the houses on 49th Street are under water; there are four that have water up to up to the back doors. He thought one 96-year old woman had the City redo her foundation and if the City was ready to do people's foundations, it better stop here. You better consider it here now that R-I is not the place to put this kind of density. There are others that have had it up to their back door. He thinks Mike is going to be underwater. This is a really sensitive area. He said they cannot even put in a street, and, if he is not mistaken, Hendricks Street is substandard on half of the street. He said he did not want to concentrate on Liz Berman, but you have to put a stop or put some standards to this cottage ordinance. He did not think R-I is the place to do the experiment. Heidi Mattern, 911- 53rd Street Agreed with her neighbors. She has seen the Langly Cottage Project on Whidbey Island. It is only blocks from the downtown area, so people who live there can walk, etc. She likes the idea, and the idea of looking at housing from all different angles, clustering, pedestrian passages, etc., but agreed with her neighbors that R-I is not the place to try it. She thought they should try it in R-II and see how it goes. People have been talking about this particular development. To get there you are going to be driving along 49th toward Seaview and turn right on Hendricks. She said that whole corner is a real dangerous entry/exit, and that area has all sorts of issues, traffic and drainage issues, that may be missed if a lot of these cottage developments are allowed. Ms. Streater asked if it is the time to submit petitions or wait for more signatures. Chair Berg asked to wait until they have all their signatures. Mr. Randall suggested bringing the petitions to the BCD addressed to the Planning Commission, and they would become part of the record. Chair Berg thought it good to have some sense of the opinion ofR-1 residents that are not neighbors of this project. Ms. Thayer thought drainage in that corridor was more of an issue to discuss. Mr. Berg was personally interested if there were names on the petitions that were not from the area right around the Berman development. Ms. Maroni said for the past 3 years she has requested stop signs and lots of things to control the traffic going down from Cook to 49th where Hendricks comes in. It is a blind curve; people go way too fast, and you have to pull way into the middle of the road before you can even get out there. She thought the City might have a problem after her complaints and requests for stop signs that haven't been addressed in 3 years, a 4- W ay Stop. There will be twice as many hazards in that one area, increasing the risk for a terrible accident. Ms. Thayer reminded they are going to address the cottage ordinance, not the specific application from Liz Berman. She suggested that the next time the audience's comments be concentrated on the cottage ordinance. Ms. Miller said she is not a neighbor, but a realtor who sells property in this area and feels responsible to those people and also for living in an area that takes great responsibility. She thought the Comp Plan, and zoning that came out in 1997, was really responsible. She liked that kind of authority behind the property she sells. She was concerned because she thought that was a really responsible plan, and thinks the Cottage Ordinance in RI is not responsible. Chair Berg closed public comment at 8: 15 p.m. following comments from all wishing to participate. PCOM Discussion: Ms. Thayer thought this discussion should only be for information they need. Mr. Randall concurred. Ms. Hersey spoke of the drainage issue and asked to have information about recommendations for cottage housing in R-I, impacts of drainage from other property. Mr. Randall will include information on infrastructure; Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2004 / Page 5 . . . mapping of roads and sewer; transportation. Ms. Hersey asked regarding SEP A review. Mr. Randall replied the SEP A threshold up to nine is exempt; it is required if ten or more are proposed, or if a project is in an environmentally sensitive area. He thought they would also talk about public notice of cottage housing. Ms. Hersey referred to Laurel Heights and said the fourplexes were related to affordable housing, but cottage housing never was; it was a style or living type of style. Mr. Randall concurred indicating it was not intended to be affordable housing in terms of cost of the houses per income but to give an option for smaller houses. Ms. Thayer stated that the Cottage Housing Ordinance came before the Planning Commission and then to City Council. As to how this could happen -- they do the best they can. Some things they don't anticipate and have to come back and revisit. She asked that they please not blame them but look at them as hard workers, that they are here to work hard for the community. Mr. Kelety said he personally heard their outrage and devastation in going from one density to another without seeing it coming; that comes through loud and clear. It was concluded to hear Mr. Randall's remaining comments on the next issue and hold off commenting on the merits of this ordinance. Mr. Randall indicated they would schedule another workshop on the ordinance before a public hearing. ISSUE II -- Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission from Jean Walat, December 31,2003 Mr. Randall stated that part of the interim ordinance drafted and brought to Council on December 15 was to deal with some other issues that were not of great public concern. Staffs found they had some glaring inconsistencies in the zoning code and are trying to fix the code before a project appears and they have a major problem that the code never meant to happen. · R-III properties. Single family attached homes (duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes) in our zoning code are listed as single family dwellings permitted in R-I, R-II, R-III zones if there is enough land to satisfY underlying densities. For example -- R-II, single family detached (a house), 5,000 sf; two-unit attached house (duplex), double to 10,000 sf; increased to 20,000 sf for a fourplex. That made sense for platted lots in town, but the problem is unplatted land, particularly R-III, that allows a little higher density. (See Maximum Housing Density and Minimum Lot Size on Table 17.16.030.) On a minimum lot size of 3,000 sf in R-III, you build a house. With a 21,000 sfR-III unplatted lot, it could be multi-family with maximum housing density, 24 bedrooms, or 16 units whichever is greater per 40,000 sf of lot area. Multi-family housing under our code is 5 dwelling units or more in a single structure, e.g. apartments or condominiums; a fourplex is single-family housing. Sample Problem: 2 duplexes; 1 triplex; 1 fourplex on a 21,000 sflot (meets 24 bedroom, 16 units), 5 proposed on one lot. The code does not specify single-family attached houses on their own lots, do a binding site plan, a subdivision or a short plat. Mr. Randall feels the code meant for multi-family housing to have multi-family design review and says 5 or more dwellings in a structure; the process takes care of it. If multiple structures are proposed, you typically go through a binding site plan or a subdivision. There is nothing in the code that says that, specifically -- multiple duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes without a subdivision, no public notice, no requirement to have their own lots, there own parking. There is nothing to review under; they need to clarifY the code. Mr. Kelety asked for clarification -- 1) many more structures in an area ofland; 2) many more buildings than you had in mind without review. Mr. Randall concurred -- no design standards, no public review, no subdivision, no binding site plan, nothing. It made no sense; setbacks are based on lot lines. How can you apply setbacks that are designed for one house on one lot, to six houses on one lot? There is nothing to measure setbacks or parking standards. Through a PUD or short plat there are ways to review. Mr. Randall clarified for Ms. Hersey that there is a problem with proposing several buildings that are not multi-family that didn't have 5 units in them, several fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes, on one unplatted lot. He explained you are below the radar with under 5 units, and under 10 for SEP A. Proposal: Table 17.16.020 Single- family dwellings (including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes which meet base density. .. Applicable Regulations/ Notes add: ". . . Each single-familv dwelling (which includes duplex. triplex. and fourplex) shall be located on its own lot." Mr. Randall stated that could be clarified to something like "or its own binding site plan, condominium, etc." Binding site plan is going to be the legal way to subdivide. · Housing density and lot size: Possible conflict: 1 house per 3,000 sf in R-III, and a greater density of 16 units for 40,000 sf. They determined the density is correct, that they meant to allow higher density in R-III and the minimum lot size wasn't intended to be a density calculation, but to make the lot smaller. If it is smaller than that, you will have problems. Ms. Thayer concurred that was the original intent. Mr. Randall answered Mr. Kelety that lot coverage is 45% in R-III and does not appear to be a problem. It is mainly clarifYing if you are not doing multi-family you are supposed to have something on its own lot. He Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2004 / Page 6 . answered Ms. Thayer that this will also require public hearing. . Manufactured and mobile home parks (Table 17.16.020) are no longer allowed in R-I and R-II. Comp Plan and zoning code adoption indicated manufactured homes would be treated the same as houses everywhere in town except the historic residential area. They eliminated a chapter that was in the zoning code, Ch. 17.64 PTMC that dealt with manufactured and mobile home parks, but a reference to that chapter was left in the zoning code. Removing that chapter they prohibited new manufactured and mobile home parks grandfather existing ones grandfathered to continue. This is a clarification. Ms. King concluded this might not be the time to address the unitslbedrooms issue she has been concerned about. Mr. Randall explained the City tried to promote multi-family housing and small units and allow people to do little one-bedroom units and not penalize them, but it creates a certain amount of uncertainty. Ms. King thought to say that, to state an intent. Mr. Randall thought they should have discussion of how to apply density to attached single-family housing, duplexes through fourplexes. He indicated the PUD chapter addresses density bonuses. Mr. Randall thought they needed to talk about the City's intent in dealing with these attached single-family houses. He said Mr. Dave Robison said at the City Council meeting that when the City adopted those, there was a missing chapter; it was the City's intent that if you do attached single family houses that you do a binding site plan and that there be some design standards. Mr. Randall will bring materials and samples to a detailed workshop on January 29 where they will be spending most of the time discussing the cottage ordinance page by page, and, if enough time, a little R -III and R- IV. . Materials to be provided Qy BCD January ~ 2004 · Cottage Ordinance · Liz Berman's site plans · Zoning information · Comment letters & petitions · City Council minutes from 12/15/03 · Staff analysis of issues raised · Comparisons of density for cottages versus PUDs (requested by Ms. Hersey) · PUD chapters & samples · Summary of background information for density in R-I · Impact of other people's drainage (requested by Ms. Hersey) · Infrastructure -- mapping roads & sewer; transportation VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS January 29,2004, Planning Commission Workshop, Cottage Housing Ordinance IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Thayer and seconded by Mr. Randels. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. :lM~ Richard Berg, Chair . ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2004 / Page 7