The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReg 2004-11-01 Item 5 - Public Hearing - Ordinance Modifying Standards for Cargo Containers in Zones and Amend Appeal Process �11LA CO UNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS o r» itiars ITEM No. Mayor's review rsr 'e Q Prepared [Vreetin Date p Ara Council reuzem Q <v�' 06/ 28/04 Council /04 I SL 1 1 ak 'f_ 11/01/04 SL A Q0.— 'a, 1 1 1 ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 04-092 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 06/28/2004 AGENDA ITEM TITLE An ordinance modifiying the City's standards for cargo containers in zones and amending the appeal process regarding placement of cargo containers. CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor ID Adm Svcs /1 DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R Police PWI SPONSOR'S The proposed Ordinance would modify TMC 18.50.060(C)(1) and allow cargon containers SUMMARY to be 40 feet instead of the current length restriction of 30 feet. The Ordinance would also amend TMC 18.104.010 allowing the Hearing Examiner to have authority regaring appeals of a Directors Decision regarding the placement of cargo containers. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: July 22, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Approval as submitted CoivIMIrrlE Approval as submitted COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED- AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $NA $NA $NA Fund Source: NA Comments: NA MTG. DATE 1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 4/15/02 Council adopted Ordinance Number 1989 6/14/04 1 COW sent the proposed changes to the Planning Commission for their review. MTG. DATE J ATTACHMENTS 3/23 /04 1 Memo from Steve Lancaster to CAP 6/15/04 1 Minutes from Community and Parks Committee 6/15/04 1 Memo from Steve Lancaster to COW 11/01/04 1 Memo from Steve Lancaster to City Council New Ordinance regarding Cargo Containers Minutes from COW meeting Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting City 01 Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Deflelopment Steve Lancaster, Director MEMO TO: City Council Steve Lancaster, Director DCD ~\N" FROM: RE: Amendments to Cargo Container regulations DATE: October 26, 2004 Issue At the June 28, 2004 meeting, I informed Council of the following issues regarding cargo containers. I. The maximum length restriction of30-feet is too restrictive. There were some pre- existing cargo containers in the City that are 40 feet in length. These cargo containers meet the screening requirements and setback requirements in TMC 18.50.060, however staff cannot issue a permit for the container to be permitted, since the container does not meet the required length restriction. Staff has also become.awarethat the predominant length of most cargo containers is 40 feet. Originally, when theCity was drafting Ordinance 1989, the original recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission was to have the maximum length of the cargo containers be 40 feet. 2. Ordinance 1989 also does not clearly specify which hearing body would hear the appeal of the Director' s Decision regarding placing of a cargo container. Following your June 28 discussion of these issues, the Committee ofthe Whole referred this issue to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Recommendation The proposed ordinance would: 1. Increase the maximum length. of cargo containers and shipping containers used as accessory structures within certain zones to 40 feet. 2. Clarify that the Hearing Examiner should hear appeals of decisions from the Director regarding the placement of cargo containers. UJVU JuuiiL(;~1lL~r Duui~v<tru,")UtL~ ttl vv WI UKWLLd., VVd.:i/WLgWIL YO 100 . ntulL~; L. UU-'+J l-JU/ U . rd.X; L- UU-</-J 1 -JUU:J Additional Infonnation At the June 28, 2004 meeting, council also asked staff to prepare a brief overview of existing cargo containers within the City.. . Attached to this memo you will find photos of cargo containers within the City that staff is aware of. Some of these cargo containers were not part of the City's original. inventory, conducted prior to adoption of Ordinance 1989. These containers may have been missed when staff conducted the inventory, but it is likely that these containers have been located in the City in violation of City Code. Planning Staff, Code Enforcement, and the City Attorney's Office is currently working to bring these cargo containers in line with City Code, which may involve ordering the property owners to remove the containers. RF A03-347 Location: Zoning: Date of Photo: Taken by: - 15603 42nd A'Venue. LDR. August 13" 2004 Brandon J. Miles, Assistant Planner -~ ~ -- .. - \ f?~~~~c~: ~'.~~<; ,;~.t.l..~~1 '.'.-.-.-_t'__._'-._~.'-_'.;"~_.-.t, L03':076 Location: Zoning: Date of Photo: Taken By: 4640 S. 144th Street (Showalter Middle School) LDR' August 13, 2004 Brandon J . Miles, Assistant Planner' RFA04-226 Location: Zoning: Date of Photo: Taken By: 13975 Interurban Avenue S RCM August 13, 2004 Brandon J. Miles, Assistant Planner RF A03-353 Location: Zoning: Date of Photo: Taken By: 17680 West Valley Hwy CILI August 13, 2004 Brandon J. Miles, Assistant Planner RFA04-227 Location: Zoning: Date of Photo: Taken By: 551-581 Strander Blvd TUC August 13, 2004 Brandon J. Miles, Assistant Planner RF A03-345 Location: Zoning: Date of Photo: Taken By: 13310 Interurban Avenue S CILI August 13, 2004 Brandon J. Miles, Assistant Planner NO PHOTO AT THIS TIME RF A03-344 Location: Zoning: Date of Photo Taken By: 1331956 AveS LDR . . >.- . City of 'Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1989 ~9, AS CODIFIED AT.. TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) 8.50.060, INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED' LENGTH OF CARGO CONTAINERS TO 40 FEET; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1768 ~2 (PART), 1796 ~3 (PART), 1847 ~2, .1857 ~7, AND 2005 ~20, AS CODIFIED AT TMC 18.104.010, ALLOWING THE HEARING EXAMINER TO HEAR APPEALS REGARDING PLACEMENT OF. CARGO CONTAINERS, CLASSIFIED AS A TYPE II DECISION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFELll vE DATE. WHEREAS, Tukwila's development regulations may be reviewed and updated as appropriate; and WHEREAS, in 2002 the. City of Tukwila adopted development regulations to regulate the use of cargo containers and shipping containers on residential and certain commercial properties;. and WHEREAS, the City established a maximum length restriction of 30 feet for cargo containers and shipping containers within residential zones and certain commercial zones; and WHEREAS, the City has found that cargo containers and shipping containers tend to be largely available in lengths of 40 feet; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to clarify which hearing body is responsible for hearing appeals on land use actions made by the Director of Community Development regarding the placement of cargo containers; and WHEREAS, appeals regarding decisions of placing cargo containers or shipping containers can appropriately be handled by the City's Hearing Examiner; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code requirements; and WHEREAS, after proper notice, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on July 22~ 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after having received and studied staff analysis and comments.from members of t.~e public, believes that certain amendments to the City~s development regulations are necessary; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHING:!ON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 1989 99~ as codified in TMC Chapter 18.50, "Supplemental Development Standards", is hereby amended to read as follows: Cargo 10/29104 Page 1 of 5 , .,'. 18.50.060 Cargo containers as accessory structures. A. Cargo containers are allowed outright in the LI, HI, MIC/L, MIC/H and TVS zones, subject to building setbacks. B. New containers may be allowed as accessory structures in LDR, MDR, and HDR, for institutional uses and in RC, RCM, TUC and C/LI for. any permitted or conditional use. All new containers are subject to a Type 2 special permission decision and the restrictions in the various zoning districts. C. Criteria for approval are as follows: 1. Only two cargo containers will be allowed per lot, maximum length of 40 feet. 2, The container is located to mnUUllze the visual impact to. adjacent properties, parks, trails and rights-of-way as determined by the Director. 3. The cargo container is sufficiently screened from adjacent properties, parks, trails and rights-of-way, as d<:o::uJ.Lined by the Director. Screening may be a combination of solid fencing, landscaping, or the placement of the cargo containers behLTld.. between Qf within bu.ildings. 4. . If located adjacent to a building, the cargo container must be painted to match the building's color. 5. Cargo containers may not occupy any required off-street parking spaces. 6. Cargo'containers shall meet all setback requirements for the zone. 7. Outdoor cargo containers may not be refrigerated. 8. Outdoor cargo containers may not be stacked. D. Licensed and bonded contractors may use cargo containers in any zone for temporary storage of equipment and/or materials at a construction site during construction that is authorized by a City building permit. Section 2. Ordinance Nos. 1768 ~2 (part), 1796 g3 (part), 1847 g2, 1857 g7, and 2005 620, as codified at TMC 18.104.010, "Permit Application Types and Procedures", are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.104.010 Oassificationof Project Permit Applications A. Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a public meeting andj or a public hearing is required before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided. B. Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have technical expertise as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions. TYPE OF PERMIT Building Permit Utility Permit TYPE 1 DECISIONS I DECISION MAKER I Building Official I Public Works Director Community Development Director Sign Permit, except for those sign permits specifically requiring approval of the Planning Commission or denials of sign permits which are appealable Land Alteration Boundary Line Adjustment, includinR Lot Consolidation Minor Modification to PRD (TMC 18.46.130) Minor modification to BAR approved desiRll (TMC 18.60.030) Any land use permit or approval issued by the City,. unless specifically ca~gorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 . decision by this Chapter I Public Works Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director As specified by Ordinance C. Type 2 decisions. are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, City Council, or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to .the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. . TYPE OF PERMIT Administrative Design Review (TMC 18.60.030) Administrative Planned Residential Development (TMC 17.08.040) Short Plat (TMC 17.08.060) Binding Site Improvement Plan (TMC Chap.17.16) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (TMC Chapter 18.44) Decision regarding Sensitive Areas (except Reasonable Use Excepnon) (TMC 18.45.125) TYPE 2 DECISIONS INITIAL DECISION MAKER Community Development Director Short Plat Committee Short Plat Committee Short Plat Committee Community Development Director Community Development Director APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) Board of Architectural Review Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner State Shoreline Hearings Board Planning Commission Special Permission Parl<ing, and Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC 18.56.060 and .070) Parking standard for use not specified (TMC 18.56.100) Code Interpretation (TMC18.90.010) Special Permission Sign, except "unique sign" (various sections of TMC Title 19) Sign Permit Denial (TMC Chapter 19.12) Sign Area Increase (TMC 19.32.140) Placement of Cargo Container (TMC 18.50.060) Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Community . Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director City Council City Council Hearing Examiner Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission Hearing Examiner D. Type 3 decisions are quasi~judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open~ecord hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court, except for shoreline variances that may be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant toRCW 90.58. TYPE 3 DECISIONS I DECISION MAKER Hearing Examiner TYPE OF PERMIT Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, si~) Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Hearing Examiner E. Type 4 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4decisions may be appealed to the City Council, which will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, which are appealable to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 4 DECISIONS INITIAL DECISION MAKER TYPE OF PERMIT Shoreline Conditional Planning Commission Use Permit (TMC 18.44.050) Reasonable Use Planning Commission Exceptlons under Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.115) Cargo 10/28/04 Page 4 of 5 APPEAL BODY (closed record appeal) State Shorelines Hearings Board City Council . Puplic HearingDesign Review (TMCChapter 18.60, 18.56.040 and Shoreline Master Program) Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMCChapter 18.56.) Conditional Use Permit (TMC Chapter 18.64) Unique Signs (TMC 19.28.010) Boardof Architectural Review City Council Planning Commission City Council PlannL11.g Commission I City Council Planning Commission City Council F. Type 5 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court. TYPE 5 DECISIONS I DECISION MAKER City Council I TYPE OF PERMIT Subdivision - Preliminary Plat (TMC 17.12.020) Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.12.030) Planned Residential Development (PRD), includihg Major Modifications (TMCChapter 18.46) Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) I Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) Shoreline Environment Redesignation (Shoreline Master Program) City Council City Council City Council I City Council City Council Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ata Regular Meeting thereof this day of . 2004. AITEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Office of the City Attorney Cargo 10/28/04 Page 50f5 Minutes, 6/28/04 . Page 3 of9 (. ~ 4) Establishim! certain fire protection standards for the construction of high-rise buildings within the City Finally, Captain Tomaso noted changes to this proposed ordinance and stated they are no more stringent and no more lax than the former (current) ordinance. Calling it mostly housekeeping, he said the proposed ordinance just re..;organizes that which is currently written. . Consensus existed to move item 4 to thisevcning's special meeting agenda. b. Authorize City to continue serving as fiscal agent for the Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team (VNET) forthe period 07-01-04 to 06-30-05 Alan Doerschel, Finance Director, reported the City has budgeted for a full year on this item. The City of Auburn will handle the task beginning July 1,2005. Therefore, when preparing next year's budget, Mr. Doerschel noted only'i1 of the income amount will be reflected. Calling VNET a "very successful operation," Mr. Doerschel reported most of the money accrued to the seizure fund comes from this program. Consensus existed to move the item to this evening's special meeting agenda. ~ . .c. Modify the length re~tricti<)n <)fl cargo containers that are used as accessory structures in certain zoning districts and clarify anpeal rights inregard to cargo container nermit applications . . - - - "0 _ Pam Linder reported an update on this issue at a March Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting. It was in 2002 thatthe.City Council approved an ordinance regulating the use of cargo containers within City limits. That ordinance allowed for a one-year grace period for existing containers to be grandfathered if they met certain . location and screen requirements. The regulations allowed the existi~gcontainers in zones where they would not normally be permitted, if an application was submitted by the owneronlby April 15, 2003. Additionally, containers in excess of the allowed 30-foot limit were to be grandfathered if they niet all other development standards and applied for permits. After City staff sent out second notices of violation to property owners, an inventory of the remaining sites was taken. To date, there are five sites on the inyentory where non-permitted cargo containers exist and staff has had no contact with the tenants (renters or property owners). After receiving a list of "Permits applied for.butnot issued," and "No Response From Two Notices," Ms. Linder has driven to each site to personally view the properties. She is not opposed to their remaining on site so long as conditions of the ordinance are met (proper screen and a permit). At issue now is how to bestpro~eed with regard to those from both (above-referenced) lists. Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development, reported most property owners who had cargo containers have complied with the new regulation by submitting permit applications or removing their containers. While enforcing the new regulations, City staff has discovered others are still non- conforming (over 30 feet). Many of those meetIocation and screening requirements, yet no applications have been submitted allowing them to remain. Thus, the issue at hand. After presenting several options to Council on how best to handle the situation, discussion was held. Issues.ofpermitting and the idea of reviewing the length requirements once more were raised. The Planning Commission could review the matter to determine whether or not it's in the best interests of the City to increase the maximum allowable length. . . .httD:! /www.ci.tukwila.wa~tls/clerk/docs04/cow6-28.htm 10/27/2004 Minutes, 6/28/04 .. Page 4 of9 Additionally, Mr. Lancaster noted the need to clarify the appeals process in a newly proposed ordinance for respondents to Notices of Violations. The Hearing Examiner is the most suitable person to hear such appeals. Councilmembers asked staff to prepare and submit a list of those property owners who are in violation in approximately two weeks. Mr. Lancaster agreed to the request. Additionally, 'the Director of Community Development noted a reminder may be in order in the next edition of The Hazelnut. Consensus existed to remand the matter to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and to consider increasing the maximum length of cargo containers to 40 feet. d. A contract with Freedman Tung & Bottomlev for services related to the Tukwila Urban Center Pam Linder noted review of this item at the June 15 Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting. The proposed contract (distributed by Lynn Miranda, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development) allows for additional land use and urban design services (related to the Tukwila Urban Center [TUe] and Transit-Oriented Development [TOD] area) not included in a previous contract with Freedman Tung and Bottomley. The fund source. for the contract is the Tukwila Urban Center federal grant. Lynn Miranda addressed the Council and informed them the contract scope remains the same as in the past, yet includes a new expiration date of June 30,2005. The new contract also provides for additional work sessions with the Council and Planning Commission to review the TUC and TOD draft plans. Councilmember Carter reported no trouble with the proposed contract as it is entirely paid for with grant funds. Said grant has already been received by the City ofTukwila. Cons~nsus existed to move this item to this. evening's special meeting agenda. e. An amendment to Contract 04-015 with Martin Durkan. extending the contract through 12-31-04 CouncilmemberFenton reported review and approval of this item at the June 21, 2004 Finance and Safety Committee meeting. To be paidfor from the general fund/professional services, the six-month cost impact is "up to $27,000.00" ($4,000.00 per month, plus a maximum of $500.00 per month in expenses). Rhonda Berry, City Administrator, explained Mr. Durkan has been able to do what was anticipated and expects to be able to complete the projects by year's end. For those reasons, City administration seeks just a six-month extension to allow the contractor time to secure financial support for critical City projects. Top priority is to seekState funding for the TUC and TOD projects. Consensus existed to move this item to this evening's special meeting agenda. f A Dfofessional services contractwith Ball Janik LLP. in the amount of$9.500 Der month. for federal reDresentation and lobbvine services related to securine federal authorization and aDDrolJriation for kev protects identified bv the Citv ofTukwila Councilmember Fenton reported review and approval of this item at the June 21, 2004 Finance and Safety Committee meeting. Reflected in the contractisa $1,000.00 per month increase. Since performing services without an actual contract between January 2004 and this date, the rate is retroactive http://w.ww.ci.tll).{wila.\Va~t1s/clyrk/docs04/cow6-28.htm 10/27/2004 Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 26,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING - 7:05 P.M. 7(/ Va. LOCATION: L04~041 City Staff . Revisions to 18.50.060 (C) (1), changing the length restriction of cargo containers being used as accessory structures in the LDR, MDR, HDR, RC, RCM, TUC, and C/Llfrom 30 feet to 40 feet. Clarifying the appeal rights for submitted applications. City Wide CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: Brandon Miles gave the presentation for staff~ In April 2002 City Council adopted ordinance 19.89, which regulated the use of cargo containers in every zone except the low industrial zones. The applicant met all requirements, except a maximum length 30 ft. restriction. Staff detennined that the 30 ft. restriction could not be met, because there are pre-existing cargo containers that are 40 ft.. The proposed project went before Community Parks and Affairs and Committee of the Whole. Their recommendation was to forward it to the Planning Cuuuuission for consideration to increase the length restriction to 40 feet. When the original order was passed there was no appeal provisions regarding who would hear the appeal if an application were denied or a condition were appealed. To clarify the appeal process staff is adding verbiage, which states that the hearing examiner shall hear all appeals. Staff asks that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council that the ordinance be approved. Brandon and Steve answered questions for the Commissioners There were no further comments. The Public Hearing was closed. The Commission deliberated. BILL ARJ.nUR MADE AMOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE PRESENTED BY STAFF FOR CASE NUMBER L04-041.KIRSTINE WHISLER SECONDED ItlE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Chair Malina announced that Commissioner Whisler sent the Mayor a letter resigning from the Planning Commission, effective 7-22-04. Commissioner Whisler said she enjoyed working with everyone and complimented her fellow Commissioners, and stated she has learned a lot. She thanked Steve and his staff for their support. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:20 PM Submitted by:Wynetta Bivens Administrative Secretary Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING - 7:05 P.M. ~/vn. LOCATION: L04-041 City Staff Revisions to 18.50.060 (C) (I), changing the length restriction of cargo containers being used as accessory structures in the LDR, MDR, HDR, RC, RCM, TUC, and CILI from 30 feet to 40 feet. Clarifying the appeal rights for submitted applications. City Wide CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: Brandon Miles gave the presentation for staff. In April 2002 City Council adopted ordinance 19.89, which regulated the use of cargo containers in every zone except the low industrial zones. The applicant met all requirements, except a maximum length 30 ft. restriction. Staff detennined that the 30 ft. restriction could not be met, because there are pre-existing cargo containers that are 40 ft.. The proposed project went before Community Parks and Affairs and Committee of the Whole. Their recommendation was to forward it to the Planning Commission for consideration to increase the length restriction to 40 feet. When the original order was passed there was no appeal provisions regarding who would hear the appeal if an application were denied ora condition were appealed. To clarify the appeal process staff is adding verbiage, which states that the hearing examiner shall hear all appeals. Staff asks that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council that the ordinance be approved. Brandon and Steve answered questions for the Cuuuuissioners There were no further comments. The Public Hearing was closed. The Commission deliberated. BILL ARnllJR MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE TtlE DRAFT ORDINANCE PRESENTED BY STAFF FOR CASE NUMBER L04-041. KIRSTINE WHISLER SECONDED TtlE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Chair Malina announced that Commissioner Whisler sent the Mayor a letter resigning from the Planning Commission, effective 7 -22-04. Commissioner Whisler said she enjoyed working with everyone and complimented her fellow Commissioners,. and stated she has learned a lot. She thanked Steve and his staff for their support. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:20 PM Submitted by:Wynetta Bivens Administrative Secretary