Loading...
2017-11-08 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 8, 2017 Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Chair Rubenkonig Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Mike Rosen BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair (excused) Daniel Robles (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Brad Shipley, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2017 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There was no discussion regarding the written report. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Chave reviewed that the Capital Facilities Plan, the Water Comprehensive Plan and a private application for a plan designation change for a specific property. These have all been forwarded to the City Council for action. The remaining 2017 Comprehensive Plan amendments were presented to the Board on September 13th. He referred to Attachment 1, which provides a summary of the minor amendments that are proposed for 2017. They include: • Minor amendments were made to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan to acknowledge the Veteran's Plaza as a park and the Civic Master Plan by reference. • References and descriptions were added to the discussion of the Highway 99 Activity Center to align it with the approved Highway 99 Subarea Plan. • The completion dates for plan actions for certain elements were updated. For example, completion of the Urban Forest Management Plan and the Street Tree Plan was moved to 2018. While both plans are underway, they won't be completed until 2018. • The City has been working to acknowledge a number of level of service standards, and that effort will be completed in 2019 as opposed to the original thinking that it would be done by the end of 2017. Board Member Lovell referred to the proposed change to Goal B.2 in the Highway 99 Corridor Element, which talks about design standards for each of the districts. He asked if this change is related to the Architectural Design Board's request for a joint meeting to discuss how its role can be expanded to focus more on design standards. Mr. Chave said his understanding is that the Architectural Design Board would like to focus on the designs standards in the code, with the goal of providing more guidance to developers. When they see projects, the design work is nearly finished, and it is difficult for them to provide input to improve the design at that late stage, especially if there are no design standards to back them up. Board Member Crank pointed out that, as described in Goal B.3 of the Highway 99 Corridor Element, the Health Care District is located between SW 208th Street and SW 220th Street, and the International District is located between SW 224th Street and SW 238th Street. That means that the area between SW 220th Street and SW 2241h Street is not assigned to either district. Mr. Chave said the descriptions came directly from the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He noted that the Gateway District is located between SW 2341h Street and the SR-104 interchange north of SW 205t' Street, which means it overlaps with the International District. Megan Joplin, Edmonds, said she moved to Edmonds in November of 2016 when she purchased her home on 2401h Street SW. The day she closed, there was a public hearing about the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, but she was not aware of it. She took exception to the proposed amendment to the Introductory Statement in the Highway 99 Corridor Element, which states that there was an extensive public participation process. The information she received said there would be land use changes to Highway 99, but it did not mention zoning changes on outlying streets that connect with Highway 99. The narrative did not identify these additional zoning changes, either. In addition, the map was difficult to read, as the street names were not identified. She learned about the proposed zoning change from a real estate listing for a nearby property. Changing the zoning from multi -family to commercial is detrimental to her neighborhood, her quality of life, her children's quality of life, and the resale value of her home. As currently drafted, her property is near the Gateway District, and the two lots next to her were rezoned to General Commercial (CG). She understands that provisions have been put in place to consider mitigating factors, but the fact remains that the properties can now be developed to a height of 75 feet as opposed to the previous limit of 25 feet. This is upsetting to her, as a homeowner, that buildings of that nature can be put within 300 feet of her home. Mr. Chave said problems with notification may be related to when the change in ownership happened. The Highway 99 Subarea Plan process took place over a 1.5-year time period, and multiple notices were sent out at different times. It is quite possible that Ms. Joplin's property changed ownership after a lot of the public process had happened. At this point, it is not possible to make changes to the Highway 99 Subarea Plan without going through a lengthy planning process. Chair Rubenkonig agreed that Ms. Joplin's concerns cannot be addressed as part of the Board's discussion relative to the 2017 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Chave recalled that, as part of the Development Code changes made to implement the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, all zoning within the subarea was changed to General Commercial (CG), with the understanding that it is a mixed -use designation and not strictly for commercial uses. For example, multi -family residential development is allowed in the CG zone along the corridor, and there are also provisions for step backs, setbacks, etc. that push some of the higher buildings away from the edges of the district. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the Highway 99 Subarea Plan emphasizes that multi -family residential development would be allowed without a commercial component. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that, most likely, there will be more multi -family type development as you move away from the actual frontage on Highway 99. Generally, most developers will want to cluster the commercial portions of mixed -use development where the traffic is as opposed to the backend of the property, which will tend to be more residential oriented. The intent of consolidating the zoning was to remove situations where properties had split zoning of commercial and multi -family residential. Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2017 Page 2 Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that other neighborhoods along the Highway 99 Corridor were also rezoned to CG. Mr. Chave agreed that other properties along the corridor that were located between the single-family residential neighborhoods and the commercial zoned properties were also rezoned to CG. While the zoning is CG, it is intended to be a mixed -use zone. Previously, properties along the corridor were limited to commercial uses only, but the new CG zone is much more focused on a mixture of uses. The intent is to encourage more housing along the corridor as opposed to just 1-story commercial development. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the CG zone was consistently applied along the entire corridor. It is not a deep zone. Mr. Chave said he is not sure of the actual width of the CG zone, but he agreed that it is more shallow than deep. Chair Rubenkonig observed that the Highway 99 Subarea Plan represents a bigger approach to looking at the overall redevelopment of the corridor. The CG zone does still include multi -family residential uses. Mr. Chave said that providing more housing opportunities along the corridor was one of the City Council's goals. The intent as to have more housing along the corridor where there are already improved transit opportunities for people to take advantage of. As more housing is developed and more people move to the area, there could be a shift in the types of businesses along the corridor to serve the residential community better. Chair Rubenkonig said the Highway 99 Subarea Plan is intended to illustrate the City's commitment to making the Highway 99 Corridor a stronger community. Having more people living in the area will benefit everyone, as the corridor has so much to offer. She summarized that the City tries to do an equitable job of notifying the public and allowing them an opportunity to participate in the process, and encouraged Ms. Joplin to approach the City Council with her concerns. Again, Ms. Joplin voiced concern that the public notices related to the Highway 99 Subarea Plan only included a map, and the map did not identify exactly which streets would be changed. She said she is a public servant and has dealt with public notices for the past 10 years. The fact that no street names were included on the map is problematic. Even though her neighbors received notices, most did not understand the proposal to rezone properties right next to their residential homes. Chair Rubenkonig said she is also a proponent of having maps and other illustrations clearly labeled so the community has a clear understanding of what is being proposed. Chair Rubenkonig closed the public portion of the hearing, and returned to the Board for deliberation. Board Member Lovell referred to Table 2.5, which lists the parks and identifies their current condition and capacity. He recalled that at a previous meeting, Ms. Hite indicated that there was erosion at Haines Wharf. He questioned if this would cause the "condition" of the park to be downgraded. Ms. Hite said the erosion is actually occurring at Hickman Park and not Haines Wharf. There is erosion at the end of the trail, and repairs are currently underway. She concluded that the situation is a maintenance issue that would not require that the condition of the park be downgraded. The erosion has not impacted the program elements within the park. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP Mr. Shipley said the purpose of his presentation is to review the results of a survey that was conducted by the Davey Resources Group, the consultant hired by the City to assist with the plan. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Tree Board has been asked to comment relative to the survey results. Mr. Shipley said the Tree Board has not provided comments related to the survey. Mr. Shipley advised that, currently, staff is waiting for the draft plan from the consultant. Once available, staff will review the draft plan and forward comments to the consultant. The plan will then be revised in preparation for presenting it to the Planning Board and City Council. He noted that the plan is three weeks behind schedule, and staff s goal is to have the document reviewed and back to the consultant for revisions so the public process can start in the first quarter of 2018. He reviewed that the initial public outreach included meetings with the Tree Board and Planning Board, press releases, a public Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2017 Page 3 open house and an on-line survey. Future public outreach will include an additional open house, as well as public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the survey refers to the UFMP as a "program," yet the City calls it a plan. He asked what is the correct term. Mr. Shipley clarified that the correct term is Urban Forest Management Plan. Board Member Lovell voiced concern that only 175 citizens responded to the survey, which was available on line for more than three months. When comparing this survey to the survey that was done in conjunction with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, which had 1,350 respondents, the tree survey did not get a lot of attention. While some people feel strongly about trees, it does not appear to be a large number. It is hard to take the survey too serious when there were only 175 respondents. Mr. Shipley agreed that the response was low. It was advertised in the newspaper, as well as a weblink. Public notices were put out via press release, as well, and the survey was available via the City's Facebook page. Aside from sending out notices to each property owner, the City used as many avenues as possible to generate responses. He concluded that the survey responses will be helpful, but they should not be considered definitive. Mr. Shipley reviewed the results as follows: Questions 1 — Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Most people who took the survey felt that trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Question 2 — Trees are known to provide benefits to the environment. Understanding which benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies? Most respondents placed a higher value on the tangible benefits to the environment (improved air quality, protection of water quality, and wildlife habitat) than on the less tangible benefits (energy savings and carbon storage). Question 3 — Trees provide less tangible benefits to society. Understanding which of these benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Most of the respondents placed more value on beauty/aesthetics, as well as shade for trails and sidewalks and less value on shaded parking and retail areas. Question 4 — Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds' public trees. About 60 people provided additional comments, which are listed separately at the end of the Staff Report. Question 5 — What is your current awareness of the City's urban forest program? While most respondents indicated they had read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest, many indicated they were not aware that the City had an urban forest program. Question 6 — Trees can grow to obstruct streets and sidewalks. How often to you encounter this issue with trees in the public rights -of -way? Most of the respondents indicated they have encountered trees that obstruct the right-of-way, but most indicated that it only occurred occasionally. Question 7 — Trees can become damaged or develop structural weakness over time. These issues may be risks for injury to persons or property. How often do you encounter this issue with public trees? Nearly half indicated that they never encounter these issues, and about 40% indicated they encounter the issues several times a year. Question 8 — Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees? About 43% of the respondents indicated they encounter these situations several times a year, but about 43% also said they never encounter these problems. Question 9 — In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds' public trees. The majority of the respondents indicated they agree or strongly agree with the City's current level of maintenance. Question 10 — What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? Respondents indicated a strong desire for the City to take care of hazardous trees, and they were in favor of holistic plant care approach. However, some respondents indicated a desire for the trees to remain natural. Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2017 Page 4 Question 11 — Edmonds needs more public trees. Most people agreed or strongly agreed that Edmonds needs more public trccs. Question 12 — Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Most respondents indicated a desire for more public trees in parks, open spaces and streetscapes. They also indicated a preference for more trees in the downtown and along trails and bike paths. Question 13 — What types of education and public outreach would you like to see offered by the urban forestry program? Most respondents indicated a strong desire for more interpretive trails and displays, more website resources, and more guided tree/nature walks. Question 14 — Please use this space for additional comments about the care of public trees. Question 15 — What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? While some respondents indicated concern about trees blocking view, most were more concerned about healthy mature trees being removed during development and about the loss of wildlife habitat and tree canopy. Question 16 — What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Most respondents indicated that trees near their properties were both beautiful and healthy. About 30% voiced concern that the trees blocked views and about 25% indicated they wanted more trees near their properties. Question 17 — When private properties are developed or improved, trees on the property can be impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction? Most respondents indicated a desire for the City to require property owners to preserve trees on private parcels where reasonably possible. However, about 28% felt the issue was complicated and more information was needed. Question 18 — In your opinion, what are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on private property? Most respondents indicated that education and outreach was the best approach. Question 19 — Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private property. Question 20 — Which gender do you identify with? About 60% of the respondents indicated they were female. Question 21— Which age group are you representing? About 62% of the respondents indicated they were 55 or older, and only about 5% of the respondents were under 35. Question 22 — Where do you live in Edmonds? About 41 % of the respondents live in the downtownibowl area. Question 23 — What is your relationship with Edmonds urban forest. Most people indicated they were residents of Edmonds, and most also said they appreciate public trees. Question 24 — Please provide any additional comments or feedback? Board Member Rosen asked if the consultant provided an analysis of the survey results. Ms. Hite answered that the analysis would be incorporated into the recommended Urban Forest Management Plan. Staff is currently working with the consultant to clean up the draft plan and prepare it for presentation and public hearings. The survey results will be incorporated into the document before it is presented to the Planning Board. Board Member Rosen encouraged the consultant to do crosstabs to show the relationship between the survey questions. He also asked if the survey results would be weighted given the profile of the majority of the survey participants. Ms. Hite agreed that crosstabs and consideration of respondent profiles are both important. Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2017 Page 5 Chair Rubenkonig asked if the survey was pitched to the public as being tree neutral. Ms. Hite said it is often difficult to capture a diverse audience for online surveys. In addition to the survey results, the consultant has also received feedback from a public open house. Another open house will also be held after the draft plan is available for review. Board Member Rosen said this is something that crosstabs would help expose. Board Member Lovell referred to the list of comments provided in response to Question 4, which seem to better reflect the current trend in public opinion related to trees. He said he hopes that more of these types of comments come out as the public process continues. The statistics provided in the survey do not give a clear picture of what should be included in the plan. Chair Rubenkonig commented that the responses to Question 15, indicating that people were most concern about healthy trees being removed during development and about the loss of wildlife habitat and tree canopy is consistent with what she has heard from the community that people treasure trees and are concerned about the environment. She recalled that, at the open house, most people were concerned about the environment and did not want Edmonds to become a place of solely views. This key area resonates with what she thinks matters to Edmonds residents. Board Member Lovell voiced concern that the survey does not provide a realistic sense of what the City's residents want. The majority of the respondents were retirees in the downtown/bowl area who seemed to focus more on issues such as restricting tree removal for new development and preventing trees from creating obstacles in the sidewalk. However, the consensus of the total residency is probably along the point made by Chair Rubenkonig. Most people are concerned about protecting the environment, maintaining existing trees, etc. Board Member Rosen agreed and said that is why it is important to weight the statistics to make sure no one group is over -represented. He is hoping that crosstabs and clustering will identify these patterns. Board Member Cheung suggested it would have been better if the questions had been presented as part of a larger, more comprehensive survey rather than focusing specifically on trees. This would have allowed them to get responses from a broader audience. The survey missed a huge demographic that might have been captured by a general survey. Ms. Hite explained that the consultant was hired to do a UFMP, so that was the focus of the survey. However, she agreed that a more general survey would likely have captured a more diverse audience. Board Member Crank commented that the survey is what it is. Some people can be really passionate about one topic, but not so interested in another. Looking at the number of people who answered the survey questions, she noted that the responses dropped off after Question 4, which invited people to share comments on the benefits of public trees. It seemed as though the tone of the responses changed after people were invited to share comments. After they wrote their comments, many seemed to check out from the rest of the survey. Board Member Crank agreed with Board Member Cheung that a more general survey would have drawn a larger audience. However, for the purpose of the UFMP, the consultant needed to focus on trees. This adds to the larger issue of letting people know, not only of the UFMP, but also about other City programs they may be interested in. Board Member Rosen commented that there is no context, given the nature of the survey. If the survey had asked people to identify their most important concern, trees might not have even made it in the top 20 responses. The survey asked certain questions and the public responded. However, it is important to recognize that trees might not be their number one concern. It is important to give context to the survey in terms of what is important to the individual who lives, work and play in Edmonds. In terms of representing the community, he commented that there is a lot of self-selection going on in the survey. In the future, he encouraged the City to explore other options for gathering public input, such as panels, to ensure they are getting a valid representation of the community and not self-selection. The nature of surveying has to change and the use of tools like panels will allow the city to avoid the concerns the Board has discussed. Ms. Hite agreed to present the Board's concerns to the consultant for consideration when drafting the plan. She noted the following concerns: • There was only a small number of respondents given that the survey was available online for three months. Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2017 Page 6 How was the survey designed to be tree neutral? Analyze the data with crosstabs to better understand the answers given and how they are connected to the demographics of the people who responded. The demographics of the survey respondents is not a good representation of the citizenry. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES UPDATE Ms. Hite reported on the following items: • Civic Field. The City purchased Civic Field in 2016 and a master plan was approved following a robust public process. Demolition of the grandstand will go out to bid in the next few weeks, and the intent is to move forward with the project in 2018. Some survey and geotech work has been done, and the City is working on scoping for Walker Macey to proceed with design work in 2018. Staff is working to put together funding for implementation of the plan and will share ideas at the next park update. The goal is to begin construction in 2019 or 2020, and the Mayor has set aside $2 million in the 2018 budget for this purpose. • City Park Spray Pad. The spray pad continues to be popular. To address concerns raised by adjacent property owners, additional foliage and trees were planted for noise mitigation. The buffer works well and looks great. • Dayton Street Plaza. This project was completed in 2017, and a ribbon cutting was held in March. • Fishing Pier. As reported at the Board's last meeting, there were some issues with some of the repairs. The contractor is back on site, ejecting epoxy into the center joints to resolve the problems. If successful with the first joint, the approach will be used to fix the remaining joints. • Edmonds Marsh. This is an ongoing project. The adopted master plan for Marina Beach Park calls for correcting flow in and out of the marsh, but the actual project is still three to five years out. The City has hired a consultant to help with grant applications to keep the project moving forward, and the design is nearing 90% completion. Water quality and soils tests have been done, as well as some monitoring of the creek. The estimated cost of construction is between $8 and $10 million. • Critical Areas Report for Edmonds Parks. In response to recent updates to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), the City is now required to complete a Critical Areas Report (CAR) for all parks where maintenance and restoration activities are expected to be conducted within critical areas during the next five years. The City was issued a CAR for the Edmonds Marsh, and it is currently working to obtain a CAR that covers the City's remaining parks where critical areas exist. • Parklet Development. This project is in process and will likely be completed in 2018. • Outdoor Fitness Zones. The City is still awaiting a grant from the Verdant Health Commission to help fund the three proposed fitness zones in City parks. • Meadowdale Playfields. These fields are currently under construction, and it is anticipated completion will occur in January 2018. The City is planning to offer the field for adult softball leagues. • City Storage Building. The original intent was to purchase a pre -fabricated building, but it was no longer available. The new plan is for the City to design its own building in house in 2017. Because the building will exceed the 2,000 square foot threshold, stormwater issues must be addressed. The intent is to construct a raingarden as an educational piece for the citizens. • Community Garden. The City is currently working with Snohomish County to draft an Interlocal Agreement for use of Esperance Park for a community garden. There is plenty of parking, as well as water and electricity available. Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2017 Page 7 The project has been presented to the City Council for initial discussion, and they are very close to finalizing the interlocal agreement. • Veteran's Plaza. The plaza was dedicated with a ribbon cutting ceremony in May, and the drinking fountain and K-9 dog statue have been installed. They are currently working to finish up electrical work. Board Member Lovell asked if the water feature requires electricity, and Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. She noted that the water feature has been successfully operated by using a generator for previous special events at the plaza. • Waterfront Development and Walkway Completion. The City has been working parallel to the Senior Center's efforts to rebuild the center. The City's interest is to pull back the creosote pier from the Sound and introduce a filtration system from the parking lot to the Sound. In addition, the intent is to complete the walkway south of the Senior Center, using a city -owned easement in front of the Ebbtide Condominiums. However, they have run into challenges with the condominium owners and the issue is currently in court. • Student Conservation Association. The City has collaborated with the Student Conservation Association to bring youth work/education program to the City to help in the parks over the summer. This program has been very successful, and this year 12 students participated. The program helps teach young people to be good environmental stewards. • Willow Creek Fish Hatchery. After Trout Unlimited announced it would retire from operating the hatchery, Sound Salmon Solutions, a non-profit organization and regional leader in salmon conservation, agreed to take over its management. The plan it to expand education programming and outreach activities at the site. They have started off with a cooperative relationship with the City, and they have a lot of great ideas and energy. • Urban Forest Management Plan. This project was discussed earlier in the Board's meeting. • Cultural Arts Programs. The City is in the process of completing a study of the Economic Impact of Arts and Culture, which includes a public survey. The results should be ready to present to the Planning Board soon. They are also working to update and create a public art walking tour brochure. They had a very successful season of music throughout the City from the Hazel Miller Plaza to City Park, as well as monthly performances at the library. The City continues to build and sustain the reputation of the Write on the Sound Conference. This year's event attracted people from 15 states and two other countries and sold out in one week. • Signage and Informational Panels. Two informational panels will be in place by the end of the year, one at the end of Bell Street and the other at Yost Park. Recreation. This year, the City decided to take a tennis court at Yost Park off line and convert it into four permanent pickleball courts. There is now one tennis court and four pickleball courts. The permanent tennis court was also striped for four pickleball courts with nets, which enables the City to host tournaments that draw 100 to 125 participants. The pickleball courts have been very popular, as there is a very active pickleball club in Edmonds. Chair Rubenkonig asked if it is possible to compare what is done in Edmonds to other cities of comparable size. She suggested that the City of Edmonds' park programs would likely be near the top. Ms. Hite said the City has a robust parks and recreation program because there is a lot of community support. Other communities may not get this same level of support. The City has made this a priority and provided funding that can be leveraged with grant opportunities to bring more assets to Edmonds. Compared to other cities, Edmonds has a lean staff, but the staff works very hard to provide parks and recreational opportunities to the citizens of Edmonds. Chair Rubenkonig observed that the City is able to serve a large demographic, particularly given the educational opportunities offered at the Frances Anderson Center. Ms. Hite agreed and said she would bring a brochure outlining all the activities offered by the City when she provides her next update. She said she could also provide demographical information on the people who register for the programs. Ms. Hite thanked the Board for its support and encouraged them to forward questions, concerns and comments to her. Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2017 Page 8 REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave advised that the main item on the Board's December 13th meeting is a joint discussion with the Architectural Design Board about roles and responsibilities. The other two items (Housing Strategies Update and Five Corners Feasibility Study) are tentative and will only take a short amount of time. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig reported that staff is in the process of recruiting a student representative. One application has been received, and staff is following up with two other potential candidates. She suggested that she and Board Member Lovell interview the candidate(s) in preparation for the Board making a final decision at their December 13`h meeting. Chair Rubenkonig reminded the Board that they would elect new officers for 2018 at their December 13th meeting. She recalled that, typically, the vice chair has become the chair. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell referred to an updated roster of Planning Board Members, noting that terms expire at the end of 2017 for Board Members Robles and Cloutier. Mr. Chave invited them to contact staff if they desire reappointment. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2017 Page 9