CITY OF La Habra HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairman Wolfe called a meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:45 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Robert Wolfe, Vice Chairman Larry Black, Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Brent Grebbien, Margarita McCoy and Alternate Commissioner Garcia. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineers Craig Melicher and Jeff Kao and City Attorney Sandra Levin.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Ed Borrowe led the flag salute.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF
July 26, 2005
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the agenda had been posted for the meeting of July 26, 2005.
5. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA
Ed Borrowe, Reposado, announced a Citizens Meeting regarding putting the decision on the City Hall/Fire Station to a vote. The meeting will be held in the Multi-Purpose Room on Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 28, 2005
Commissioner Baroldi moved to approve the minutes of June 28, 2005. Seconded by Vice Chairman Black. AYES: 4 NOES: 0 McCoy: ABSTAINED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
7. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2005-05, GRADING MODIFICATION 2005-03 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2004-06 (Patel) 500 Greenview
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the applicant withdrew this application.
PUBLIC HEARING
8. Standards Modification 2004-27 (Hardas) 1500 La Riata Drive
Commissioner Baroldi recused himself as he is utilizing the services of the applicant Gary Eigenhaus.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt stated that this began as a code enforcement when the building inspector noticed the construction of a deck without a permit; in June, 2004 the applicant submitted plans for a deck and a loggia and we had the applicant change it to a bonus room on the plans; there is an open deck above that, a stairway enclosure, a poolhouse and swimming pool; staff has issued a swimming pool permit and it is under construction; part of the illegal construction of the two open decks is that they have been constructed into the required 25-foot side-yard setback, encroaching 15 feet; the second part of the application is a guesthouse (poolhouse) of 1,800 square feet; it has a kitchen and two bedrooms in the guesthouse; the decks and the bonus rooms are allowed under the code except for the portion that encroaches into the setback; the guesthouse/pool house is allowed, but is restricted to 640 square feet; by asking for 1,800 square feet he is asking for much more space than allowed; he is aware that no kitchen is allowed in a guesthouse, however he has asked for a review by the Planning Commission to justify those items; staff is recommending the portion of the bonus room and the deck above it that encroaches into the setback be removed and the poolhouse be reduced in size to 640 square feet and the kitchen removed; she asked for direction; the appropriate Resolution will be prepared for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Wolfe asked if there are any questions of staff.
Commissioner McCoy asked the City Attorney what the appropriate response is to an applicant who has violated the code and wants to violate it some more.
City Attorney Levin answered that a Standards Modification is before the Commission tonight, so the only action is for you to approve or deny the Standards Modification; you could ask staff to report to you on any code enforcement activities; if the application is approved they will go ahead with construction; if it is denied it is a code enforcement issue as to what to do with the existing structure.
Commissioner Grebbien asked what portion of the encroaching section was pre-existing and what part has recently been built.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered that she does not have that information; there is no permit for anything in their building permit package for previous work on the site.
Commissioner McCoy noted that the first floor and the second floor are reversed on the plans; stated that this is supposed to be a balanced cut and fill and there is no grading plan.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that the balanced cut and fill was for the poolhouse and the decks and it looks pretty balanced; the pool area is under a separate permit and she does not remember what the permit shows; the cut was removed from the site.
Commissioner McCoy asked what the proposed grading listed as 29,225 cubic yards is for under background information.
Deputy City Engineer Kao stated that this is the total of all of the developments on the lot.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt clarified that this is the total grading on the lot.
Chairman Wolfe opened the meeting to Public Comment.
LD Hardas, applicant, apologized for his failure to obtain permits; he is here to make it right; none of the neighbors object to the deck where it is; this structure is not a pool house; it is a temple for worship for family and friends; it will contain statues that are part of the worship; they need a room to change into special clothes and a place to fix special foods that we will eat during our worship; we do not require the kitchen there, but need room for the statues, approximately 640-700 square feet; they could take out some of the division walls and just use curtains to separate the room; they need the extra room for people to sit during their worship.
Chairman Wolfe asked why the building is not labeled as a house of worship on the plans.
Mr. Hardas stated that at the time he was not involved as much with the plans and it was probably just convenient to call it a poolhouse as it was by the pool; he stated that they do not want anyone living or sleeping there.
Chairman Wolfe stated that according to the plans it looks like an ordinary pool house; are you taking out the kitchen, cabana, barbecue and fireplace to make it a big hall for worship.
Mr. Hardas stated that a hall for worship with just a curtained area for clothes changing will be fine.
Chairman Wolfe asked how many statues there would be and the changing room size.
Mr. Hardas answered that there would be eight statues with bases around them and the changing room will be about 300 square feet.
Commissioner McCoy asked why he needs 1,800 feet for the building.
Mr. Hardas explained that they need about 700 for the statues, 300 for the changing room and the rest is needed for people to sit while they worship.
Chairman Wolfe asked if he would still have the barbecue and the pool equipment.
Mr. Hardas replied that the pool equipment would still be needed but not the barbecue.
Commissioner McCoy asked if we are running into problems with the current legislation on houses of worship.
City Attorney Levin answered that it is covered by a Federal Act called RULPA, which restricts the way a local government can treat religious uses and the types of restrictions you can impose on religious uses; if there are particular needs associated with religious use that would call for a standards modification that you could give to another kind of use, I would encourage you to do this; that does not mean that the Municipal Code becomes useless; the generally applicable rules stand, such as no kitchen.
Chairman Wolfe asked if the two bathrooms and two separate changing rooms are still staying there.
Mr. Hardas explained that they would stay; the studio room would be the menŐs changing room and the other changing room will be for the women.
Commissioner McCoy asked why the bathrooms are needed.
Mr. Hardas noted that the worship would be 3-4 hours long and the bathrooms would be necessary; it is too far to walk back to the house.
Chairman Wolfe asked if the north facade with the French doors would remain the same.
Mr. Hardas replied that it would.
Vice Chairman Black asked how often people would come to worship and how many.
Mr. Hardas stated that his mother would worship every day; family will come once or twice a year; friends could be every 60 or 90 days; he stated that those gathering would be 12-15.
Vice Chairman Black asked how this might affect the neighbors.
Mr. Hardas stated that there would be no music, no bright lights; this is for meditation and prayers.
He asked how long Mr. HardasŐ mother would worship each day.
Mr. Hardas answered 4-5 hours.
Chairman Wolfe asked if the children would use the worship house when they are using the pool.
Mr. Hardas explained that they would use the bathrooms and changing room, but in those clothes they would not enter the worship room.
Commissioner Grebbien asked what the square footage would be for the worship space only.
Mr. Hardas answered that they pretty much need what they are asking for.
Commissioner Grebbien asked if the worship could be done in an outdoor area.
Mr. Hardas noted that it would not be possible.
Commissioner McCoy asked if one of the large rooms in their house could be used for their worship.
Mr. Hardas explained that with his religion you can not live in the house where you worship.
Gary Eigenhaus, consultant - stated he was there to answer the CommissionŐs questions.
Chairman Wolfe asked if the figures of 1970 square feet on the first floor plan for the new deck is the total or the figure exclusive of the encroaching portion.
Gary Eigenhaus noted that it is the total figure.
Chairman Wolfe asked if there is a residence on the north side off the property.
Gary Eigenhaus answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Wolfe asked if that neighbor was here tonight.
Mr. Eigenhaus answered that Mr. Hardas had received a letter from them and there is a large tree that hides the decks from them.
Chairman Wolfe stated that the bonus room is noted as 1859 square feet. Is that the total?
Mr. Eigenhaus answered that it is.
Chairman Wolfe asked if Mr. Eigenhaus knew that this was not going to be a pool house, but a worship house.
Mr. Eigenhaus stated that he had not been told that; he had been dealing with the applicantŐs wife; he was not the architect, but he felt free to fill in what looked logical.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia asked if in the restroom area of the worship house, the little square is a sauna.
Mr. Eigenhaus answered that it originally was.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia asked if the pool equipment could be in a separate location rather than attached.
Mr. Eigenhaus commented that it does not have to be attached; the barbecue area has come out and taking the pool equipment away would take off approximately 200-300 square feet from the 1,800 square feet of the worship house; the fireplace was just there for atmosphere.
Chairman Wolfe closed the Public Comment and brought the meeting back to the Commission for discussion.
Chairman Wolfe stated that he would like to see plans for the worship house as it will be after they take out items that can be taken away.
Vice Chairman Black stated that he agrees; they must provide correct plans with better definition.
Commissioner McCoy agreed that better plans are needed; that she would approve the worship house if it can be built closer to what our ordinances allow; she would rather stay within our ordinances.
Commissioner Grebbien also agreed and noted that many elements of the pool house are not needed; we really need something smaller in scale; asked to clarify that the whole item tonight is what has to be considered.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt confirmed this and noted that they should discuss all of the issues and direct the applicant to make the changes you wish for.
Commissioner Grebbien commented that he would like to be sure that that the deck, structural work and engineering are proper.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that this would happen at the building permit stage after the planning approval; they will prepare structural plans for a Plan Check and a soils report will be made.
Chairman Wolfe commented that the decks are already there; stated that his philosophy on the worship house was that if it did not affect the neighbors in any way he was more likely to be for it; he stated that he does not feel comfortable approving plans that are completely different than what they talked about tonight.
City Attorney Levin stated that the code requires that churches require a CUP; she stated that it would be useful when this does come back to have information about how many people it would accommodate so we can make a determination of whether this is a building of the type that requires a CUP that would have conditions as to the number of people; request that information as well.
Chairman Wolfe suggested that the applicant answer all of the questions regarding occupancy, how often, who and when and any questions that staff might have.
Vice Chairman Black asked what would be done with whatever is encroaching into the setback and any remediation planned.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt commented that staff is recommending that the portion of the deck and bonus room that is encroaching into the side yard setback be removed from the setback; that would require modified plans showing the removal of that and how they will accomplish it at the building permit stage; your direction to the applicant can be either to leave it in the setback or to take it out and provide the plans to do that.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia asked if there had been any indication during the review process that this was to be a worship house.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that there was not; she stated that her review would have been the same even if she had known.
Vice Chairman Black asked how the rest of the Commission feels about the 640 square feet allowed for an accessory building; he stated that due to the size of the lot and the placement of the structure he was not all that much concerned.
Commissioner McCoy stated that she was not that relaxed about the issue; she commented that guesthouses and second units have become such a mired issue in our City because an accessory building of this size could certainly be used as a place to live; she commented that we have committed to not allowing that.
Vice Chairman Black commented that we also need to think of what could be done later should the applicant sell the house.
Chairman Wolfe stated that if there is a CUP on this it would require conditions.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that the CUP goes with the property along with whatever conditions are on the CUP.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained to Commissioner McCoy that if this item is continued the whole item is continued.
Commissioner McCoy noted that when she was there, skill saws were going on something.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt commented that we need to impress on the applicant that there should be no construction except on the pool.
Chairman Wolfe offered a motion that they continue Standards Modification 2004-27 to our next scheduled regular meeting of August 23, 2005. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Black. Vote 5 – 0
Commissioner McCoy asked if we should give Mr. Hardas some direction of what we require.
Chairman Wolfe noted that Mr. Hardas needs to talk to staff to see if he will need a CUP and if there is a way to decrease the size of the worship house.
Commissioner Grebbien suggested that somehow it not look like a pool house; he stated that he was more concerned about the size of it than the encroachment into the setback; he noted that the worship house is new construction and he would like to see it come closer to conformity with our codes and goals.
Chairman Wolfe suggested that Mr. Hardas show the neighbors the new plans that we asked for and then have them write letters showing that they approve the project; stated that he was not for approving the setback encroachment just because it had already been built.
Commissioner Baroldi returned to the dais.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
9. Planning/Building Department Report
Chairman Wolfe received and filed this report.
10. Photometric Plan for Hacienda Golf Club Parking Lot
Chairman Wolfe recused himself as he is a member of the Hacienda Golf Club.
Vice Chairman Black asked for the staff report.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt reported that the City of La Habra Heights is unique in its zoning ordinance since it doesnŐt reflect issues that would relate to commercial development in any way; the Golf Club is reconstructing its Clubhouse and redesigning its parking lot; there were only two light poles on the lot originally also wall-mounted lights on the building lighting the parking lot; no one ever determined if the lights shining out were excessive; we received no complaints on the lighting for the parking lot; what we are concerned about is the installation of a number of new poles, which originally were 20 feet in height; we asked the applicant to reduce the height and number of the poles, and to consider alternative lighting in terms of using high-pressure or low-pressure sodium lights; the low-pressure sodium lighting has the least impact on the dark sky policy; the high-pressure sodium lighting creates a better security environment for the parking lot; the Golf Club does have to consider liability for the safety of their patrons; they have provided a schematic of the parking lot lighting; staff is looking for consistency with the dark sky policy so there will not be a glare on the surface of the parking lot or cause a reflection on the dark sky; they have used shielding that appears to decrease the spillover on the south side of the parking lot and the north side is heavily landscaped; stated that the numbers you see are candlepower; we tried to keep them as low as possible; the staff recommends that you receive and file the report.
Vice Chairman Black asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner McCoy asked if the numbers of candlepower are for high-pressure sodium.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered affirmatively; noted that the Golf Club would be putting in the high-pressure sodium due to concern for safety in the parking lot; she suggested to the Club that they place some kind of timer on the system for automatic turnoff at night.
Vice Chairman Black noted that there are 12 poles, is that down from before?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that she thought it had been 16 poles.
Vice Chairman Black asked if staff had any questions as to the capability of these lights, and he asked if they are directional or flood.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered that they are floodlights and the shielding makes sure they flood down.
Commissioner Grebbien asked if there was a calculation of the total illumination of the plan with the high-pressure sodium in comparison with the old lighting.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that we do not know for sure as there was never any study done of the original lighting; we know that we didnŐt have trouble finding our car after dark, but we donŐt know how it was at the far ends of the parking lot.
Commissioner Grebbien asked if there is a comparison of wattage.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that the architect might know.
Vice Chairman Black opened Public Comment.
Dave Kendall, Architect - stated that he does not know what the wattage was on the previous lighting; that this is their fourth plan for the parking lot; the present lights cannot shine up more than horizontal and we will have shields on the north side of the property so the light will not shine out on East Road. East Road is about 17 feet above the north side of the parking lot; we are very concerned about liability in the parking lot.
Commissioner Grebbien asked what will be the minimum illumination you are trying for.
Mr. Kendall answered that 1 foot-candle minimum is usually the goal for safety and liability; we donŐt quite reach a minimum of 1 foot-candle all over the parking lot, but we have what we think is reasonable.
Commissioner Grebbien asked if there is any way to slightly change any of the lights.
Mr. Kendall explained that you canŐt adjust individual lights, only change the lamps in the fixture; we have the maximum lamp now; he stated that the Golf Club would agree to a timer on the lights.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia asked if 1 foot-candle is what is used in shopping centers.
Mr. Kendall stated 1 foot-candle minimum is general and sometimes 2 foot-candles.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia stated that since there is no illumination in the City you might even need less than 1 foot-candle; he noted that the illumination listed on the schematic is very erratic; he stated that the average at the northern edge is almost 5 foot-candles and at the entrance it drops to almost ½ a foot-candle; suggested that they might drop the wattage of the lamps and pull a couple of the poles along the edge into the center; stated that he is seeing a lot of hot colors along the edge of the roadway.
Mr. Kendall noted that they now have a 30-foot setback from East Road to make the parking lot smaller.
Alternate Garcia stated that he can see 3 poles that can be eliminated and one of those pulled into the center.
Mr. Randall stated that a photometric plan would have to show whether that is possible or not. He stated that what they are trying for is the minimum lighting that is useable not the bright spots.
Commissioner Grebbien explained that this is a much better plan than what they had before.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that he agreed with Commissioner Grebbien.
Commissioner Baroldi stated he would offer a motion to receive and file.
Vice Chairman Black asked if the lights could at some point start giving out a hum.
Mr. Randall stated that this was a technical question that he does not have an answer to.
Alternate Commissioner Garcia stated that he was concerned with the uneven lighting and that the architect should take another look at it.
Commissioner McCoy stated that if no one complained about the old lighting this should be fine; there are not many houses near the parking lot.
Commissioner Baroldi agreed that there were not many houses to consider and the illumination is a lot less than it was.
Vice Chairman Black agreed with the last two comments. He stated that his primary concern had been the light spilling over the northern side.
Commissioner Baroldi again offered a motion to receive and file. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McCoy. Vote 5 – 0
Vice Chairman Black asked for a break at 9:25.
Chairman Wolfe reconvened the meeting at 9:35.
Chairman Wolfe stated that he had neglected to consider the Items from the Planning Commission and he will consider it now.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioner McCoy asked for an update on 707 Dorothea. She asked when their time is up.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that she believed the time was up in September; we have not received the Engineering/Grading plans but we are expecting them momentarily.
Commissioner McCoy asked if it is at your discretion whether you extend their time for another year.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that she would have to look up the wording of the Conditions of Approval.
Ms. Levin stated that she believed there was a code provision on this as well and she would have to look this up; it may require Planning Commission or City Council to extend the time.
Commissioner McCoy noted that she would like to see it brought back to the Planning Commission rather than offering any extension.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that she would prepare a status report on 707 Dorothea for the next meeting and possibly the grading plan would be in by then.
Chairman Wolfe asked Ms. Massa-Lavitt to let the applicant know that we donŐt like to get requests for extensions at the last minute.
STUDY SESSION
11. DRAFT ZONING CODE REVISIONS
Marc Blodgett reported that the project team met this afternoon and went through the comments made by the public and the Commission; we prepared a response to each of the points raised; the work that remains includes the definitions; they will be ready in a few weeks; we have another Article that deals with specific provisions of the zoning ordinances implementation along with the implementation of the Municipal Code which are procedural in nature; he stated that Article 4 deals with Animal Control rather than Animal Keeping.
Chairman Wolfe commented that we will still have more Public Comment tonight after the staff report.
Mayor Douglas noted that during the Public Comment last night we learned that the equestrian residents believe that to them the equestrian lifestyle is the Community Character of La Habra Heights; that is the reason they came here; all we have here is homes and to each person the character may be different; the General Plan is essentially to preserve Community Character; there are many elements to Community Character, backed by the General Plan, and to fairly take care of the Community Character we need Development Standards in order to guarantee the rights to all of the Community Character elements; we try to keep the Development Standards very conservative; the lots are odd shaped and were developed over time under three different zoning codes; this develops what we call legal non-conforming. We need Development Standards to protect the neighborsŐ rights and the rights of the equestrians and large home builders; we also have Performance Standards when unique situations call for Standards Modifications.
City Attorney Levin commented that other Articles that will be coming back to you include contents of applications, procedures for processing review and appeal of Standards Modifications and CUPs; some of the questions last night will come to you in later Articles and we will deal with them at that time; the audience should be able to get copies of the draft copies of the Animal Control area so they can ask questions and make comments on that; stated that we will comply with CEQA, however we are not sure what will happen about the EIR; spoke regarding Animal Keeping (Chapter 10); she stated that the County Zoning Code is not binding in La Habra Heights, so we are free to set distance codes that you want; we do not know of any County Health and Safety Code that would apply; the setbacks are policy decisions, they can run from the lot line, habitable structures, or from the closest permissible structure; you have a choice whether to include the habitable structure on site; there are general setbacks listed on page 7-33 (front yards and other setbacks); the number of animals is also a policy matter; you need to consider whether you require a certain size of lot to allow animals on it and the number of animals allowed for a certain number of square feet; she noted that there are more and more stringent requirements that are being imposed by State agencies and regional agencies on contaminant issues and waste; you are going to have to control the animal waste; there are ways to do that without limiting the number of animals on the site; most cities use a combination of limiting the number of animals and how the animals are maintained and how the waste is taken care of; there has to be some type of balancing.
Ms. Levin noted that she is here as the City Attorney and not to give any individual advice.
Ms. Levin noted that Grandfathering has to do with legal non-conforming uses or structures; legal non-conforming means that at some time in the past the structure was lawful and permitted; it became inconsistent with the code at some time and at that point it became legal non-conforming; if this code is adopted there are a lot of things that will now become legal non-conforming; the City canŐt take away persons property so those structures are allowed to exist as long as they do not pose a health or safety violation or issue; the question is what can be done to them without triggering full compliance with the current code; the chapter on the subject is Chapter 7.5; there are many different ideas in cities on what can be done; in La Habra Heights you can modify a legal non-conforming structure with a Standards Modification so long as you can establish that you have made reasonable efforts to minimize the non-conformities and their impacts; just because an owner has animals on his property does not mean that the next owner can have animals on the property; the new owner would not inherit the right to the same number of animals; they would have to comply to the new code in that matter; the new owner would get the benefit of the structures already there; she then defined a Second Unit as another dwelling on the property besides the main dwelling with a kitchen; we continued this code in place knowing that the State, County and region are all in the process of revising housing requirements and housing numbers within the next 18 months to 2 years and then we will probably have to change our code at that time; we will continue the existing rule now and when they decide the rules they want us to have we will revise our ordinances accordingly; if we change it now, we will probably have to change it again at a later date; the prohibition of second units does not require the demolition of the units as they are mostly legal non-conforming; for illegal second units, there are ways of dealing with them; we would proceed in a case by case basis with enforcement; Gates 7-9, 3; Current code prohibits the gates but there is one that is legal non-conforming; Off road motor vehicle uses prohibition – 7-9; this is a policy issue and should be decided in compliance with the General Plan; 7-39 G; Remedies for protection of view from landscaping; there are remedies built into the conditions of projects, and also administrative citations and potential for nuisance action; there could be legal non-conforming with this also; 7-47; Building Codes need to be remedied; these would be health and safety violations that need to be remedied; 7-65; Views and 7-79; Findings for approval of a basic Standards Modification and for particular Standards Modifications to add on some more specifics that are found in the following chapters; they are always added to the basic Standards as needed; there are three basic findings that deal with Views, 2, 3, & 4 Standards as needed; the definitions will help to understand this; it includes Protected View, Scenic View and if a scenic view is blocked by a structure it should be screened.
Mayor Douglas noted that the new code allows more that can be modified; he listed what can not be modified; home height, slope density formula for stating minimum parcel size for new parcels, sub-division standards canŐt be modified, light and noise canŐt be modified; Nuisances also have to be considered when you are planning; he noted on the Land Use Matrix, Page 7-13 we do have the equestrian trail as primary and accessory permitted uses in all cases; Page 7-21; A policy once in place is not modifiable; G 1-4 – Other outdoor lighting standards; This is taken from General Land Use Policy that says Dark Skies are a goal of the City.
Page 7-25, 2; Signs no longer required have to be removed; 7.9.50 2 – forces them to go away;
Item 11 on real estate signs (only one allowed) this is a policy question; you can not have it in the right-of-way.
Item 11 – City Attorney Levin explained that if you allow one type of sign in the right-of-way you must allow all types; this would not be desirable; Item 12 – This concerns being able to put up political signs and to allow non-commercial signs for a reasonable time.
Commissioner McCoy commented that the section states that it does not apply to political signs.
City Attorney Levin stated that sentence was left over from a prior version and needs to be taken out.
Chairman Wolfe asked if the regulation on import is addressed somewhere.
Mayor Douglas directed attention to pages 7-57, 58, 59, 60, 61, you will find the restrictions on retaining walls, and gradable area are no longer controlled by average slope but by the absolute graded limits in exhibit 7-13, all of the restrictions summarized in table 7-11 and the measurements in the following figures.
Chairman Wolfe suggested that they suspend the staff report and go to the Public Comment.
CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
Jessica Winship, Cypress, stated that she was biased in favor of the animal community; spoke of her concern that the Committee that formed the ordinances had only one resident on it; animal community blindsided by the draft ordinance; nobody from the Committee reached out to anyone in the community for their opinions; she proposed that the equine community and animal community write up what they object to and what they would like to have and present it to the Planning Commission before their next meeting so they have time to look at it.
Chairman Wolfe stated that he would welcome that; asked for reasons for what they say.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that it would probably be helpful to them if they knew why some of the restrictions are being considered.
Mayor Douglas asked if they are going to look at other animals too.
Ms. Winship noted that they should have the 4-H in on this too.
Mike McCoy, Suncrest Ct., praised the Planning Commission; noted that they need to know what is in Article 8 as it is referred to in Article 7; revisions on codes; a lot of the revisions are on the restrictive side; rather change in the opposite direction.
The meeting stopped at 10:49 to change tape. The meeting was resumed at 10:55.
Michael Bagwell spoke of the importance of receiving the definitions.
Faith Grimm spoke on sizes of property and space needed for animals and their keeping; how much the 50 foot setback takes from the useable space.
Chairman Wolfe continued the Public Comment and turned the meeting back to the Commission.
Chairman Wolfe stated that he was not available on August 13, 2005 for a meeting.
City Attorney Levin explained that since it will be a Study Session we should be able to continue the meeting to a date certain and not have to notice it. She commented that Article 8 and the Definitions are due to be ready by August 4th. There should be at least 1 more Study Session and then 2 Hearings on your code amendment before you make your recommendations to the City Council.
The Commission agreed to have the next meeting on August 9, 2005 from 7:00 – 10:00 p.m.
Chairman Wolfe offered a motion to continue the Study Session to Tuesday, August 9, 2005. Vice Chairman Black seconded the motion. Vote 5 - 0.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Baroldi moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. to the meeting of August 9, 2005. Seconded by Chairman Wolfe. Vote 5-0
Robert Wolfe, Chairman
ATTEST:
Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Community Development Director