HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/91MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
-OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Held ThurSday, October 3, 1991, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501
Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California.
1. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
Present:
JIM MARINO, Chairperson
STEVE ANDERSON, Vice 'Chairperson
TERI BJORN
DAVID COHN
STEVE MESSNER
DARREN POWERS
KATE ROSENLIEB
Absent: C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate
ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present:
STAFF: .present:
LAURA MARINO, Deputy City
Attorney
FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public
Works Director
CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director
JACK HARDISTY~ Planning Director
MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner
JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner
MIKE LEE, Associate Planner
LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
No one made any public statements at this time.
Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda.
Minutes, PC, 10/3/91
Page 2
3.1)
3.2)
WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TRACT 5186
Staff report was given.
Bob Wilson was present representing Cuesta Engineering. He said they are in
agreement with the conditions of approval.
Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner
Anderson to approve wall and landscaping plans for Tentative Tract 5186 subject
to conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A". Motion carried..Commissioner
Rosenlieb was absent.
REVISED wALL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR POLO GROUNDS
DEVELOPMENT
Commissioner Anderson abstained on items 3.2 and 3.3 due to a possible conflict
of interest in that he is providing services for an adjoining land owner.
Chairman Marino abstained due to a possible conflict of interest because he is
employed, by the applicant.
Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner
that Commissioner Rosenlieb chair this item. Motion carried.
'Staff report was given.
Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner
to approve ~he request to change the color of the wall from white to grey for the
Polo Grounds development. Motion carried. Commissioners Marino and
Anderson were absent.
Minutes, PC; 10/3/9!
3.3)
REVISED WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR-SEVEN OAKS
Page 3
.DEVELOPMENT (SECTIONS 6 & 7, T.30S., R.27E.
Commissioner Anderson abstained.
Staff report was given.
Roger McIntosh was present to speak in favor.
Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers
to approve the request_ to change the color of the wall from tan to white/off-white
for the Seven Oaks_' Development. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson .was
absent.
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 2-91
Staff report was given..'
Jack Vodrey, Federal Sign Company, was present to speak in favor. He said they
agree with staff's recommendation with the exception of the letters on the parapet
of the main identification which is being recommended to be reduced from 80
feet to 62.4 feet. The criteria they were working with allows lettering not to
exceed 60 percent of the lineal frontage of the building or 100 feet length.
Technically they could have a sign which is 130 feet and are asking for 80 feet.'
He felt in looking at the pl0t plan it appears the building is of different
projections rather than one continuous elevation. He asked that the letters be
approved as designed, because if the letter size is reduced it would not be ·
readable.
Mr. 'Bidwell said the restr, iction .would not apply.to the south elevatiom There is
an unbroken elevation there.- The skyline ordinance is being applied to the north
elevation where a sign of the same size is being proposed. The purpose and
intent of the ordinance is to measure the elevation at the point where the sign is
constructed. At the north elevation, the building is in a cross system so that there
is a projecting element which breaks up the 212 feet. The elevation is not 212
feet wide but something considerably less.
In response to a ·questio:n by Chairman Marino, Mrl Vodrey requested that the
letters be uniform. 'In response to a question by Commissioner Cobh, Mr. Vodrey
said there are 3'logos on the building which are 8-1/2 feet by 8-1/2 feet.
Minutes, PC, 10/3/91
Page 4
4. - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 2-91
In response to a queStion by Commissioner-Anderson, Mr. Bidwell-said staff is
-recommending that the commission follow the skyline ordinance for the signs
placed on the upper part of the structure. On the north elevation staff's
recommendation is that it not exceed 60 percent of the length. The sign
requested on the south side 'complies with the skyline criteria.
In response to a question by Commissioner Cohnl Mr. Bidwell said staff is not
opposed to the 8-1/2 foot logos.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner
Powers to refer this item.to the Sign Ordinance Committee for further review; the
item to be brought back to the next regular meeting of October 17, 1991.
In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Vodrey said they would
concur with the motion.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9696
Staff report was given.
Public portion of the heating was opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Teri G01dner was present representing M. K. Blake Estate Company, owner of
the'property directly north of subject property. She stated she submitted a letter,
which is on file. She said her client's concern is that adequate parking does not
.-exist for this parcel map and whether the owner intends to share in the parking
easement located directlyto the east of the property, to which they do not have a
-right. They are not opposed to this project, however they want to raise the issue
that the parking may be a problem, unless the applicant intends to provide on-site
only parking.
Mr. Hardisty said development of these parcels would be subject to site plan
review and parking to serve the developments would be a requirement.
Randy Bergquist represented the applicant. He stated they are aware of the lack
of parking, and that the owner has been notified. They have no problems with
conditions-in the staff report.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Minutes, PC, 10/3/91
Page 5
6.1)
6.2)
6.3)
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9696
In response to a question by-Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Bergquist said he has
received a copy of the amended conditions dated'September 19, 1991.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by COmmissioner
Anderson to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set
forth .in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9696
subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the inclusion of the
memo. of October 2, 1991, which replaces Page 5 of 6 of Exhibit "A". Motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5362
The applicant submitted a letter requesting continuance on this item to the
October 17, 1991 meeting.
Staff report was Waived.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Terry Kyner was present representing the applicant. He stated they wanted a
continuance on this item due to design concerns.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner
Powers to continue this item to the next regular meeting of October 17, 1991.-
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5397
This item was Withdrawn by the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT 5545-OPTIONAL DESIGN'
Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained due to a possible conflict of interest in that
the applicant is her employer.
Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a possible conflict of interest in that his
company has provided services to the applicant in the last year for an adjoining
property owner.
Staff report was given:
?
Minutes, PC, 10/3/91
Page 6
6.3)
PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT 5545-OPTIONAL DESIGN
Public portion of-the hearing was opened.
Chris Sutter, resident of Via Vista Street, spoke saying he felt this proposal would
decrease property values and felt it would be detrimental to the safety of the
area.
Edward Mooney, resident of Via Vista Street, spoke saying he is in opposition
and is concerned about the lot size, and did not feel it should be reduced, because
of density, family and access issues.' He stated a petition had been submitted to
the Planning-Department with approximately 300 signatures of persons concerned
that this request is to build more homes than are allowed not for affordability, but
for a higher profit margin.
Lloyd Wakely, homeowner of Sunset Canyon Drive, spoke saying he finds great
offense in the statement that the applicant has constraints on his property and the
increase of amenities on th e property. He felt Mr. Metier was not concerned
about the area. Mr. wakely was concerned about access and traffic.
Rob Lambert said he owns a home directly to the west of the subdivision. He
asked about the recommendation for 55 foot wide lot frontages. Chairman
Marino Said in the past there have been many requests for'reduction to 55 feet,
therefore it has become policy to grant it'to 55 feet. Mr. Lambert asl~ed that 60
foot lot frontages be required.
Bruce Barnhard, homeowner on Via Vista, said he is in favor of the development,
however not under the existing design phase. He commented on the petition,
saying they went beyond the 300 foot required, radius when obtaining signatures.
He said he is concerned about the size of the lots. He felt the only: physical
constraint is mental, and is Self-induced by the applicant. The site could be made
into 1 lot or 94 lots. It is the responsibility of the people to enforce the
minimums.
Jim Young, resident of Via Vista, appreciated the fact .that the City has standards
for lot sizes. He said he does not want the feeling of overcrowdedness. -
Jim Redstone was present representing Metco Development. The anticipated
development will include stucco walls instead of wooden fences between dwelling
units, and paralleling all internal streets. Ground level air conditioning units will
be installed, enhanced front yard landscaping with consistency of design, tile
roofs, and higher quality interior fixturing. There will also be an additional 7.5
feet Of landscaping along Mountain Vista Drive. In order for the developer to
Minutes, PC, 10/3/91
6.3) PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT 5545-OPTIONAL DESIGN
Page 7
provide the 'enhanced amenities they need the approval of this optional design
subdivision, which Would ,allow the development of some lots with as low as 52
foot frontages. It will allow some lots to contain a minimum of 5,668 square feet
when others exceed the 6~000 square foot minimum. They are also requesting 52
foot wide roadways be allowed, with a 40 foot pavement section which is the same
right-of-way width on Via Vista. He said they feel justified in asking for this
-optional .design subdivision because under the provisions they would be allowed to
-provide a more appropriate design and improvement standards for this property.
This property has unique physical constraints which limits flexibility needed to
provide a diverse street and lot layout normally available in a more standard
subdivision. It is unique in that the house plans are prepared, market tested 'and
have historical record of success in the area. It-is the developer's proposal to fit
the lot sizes to the house plans. The project is consistent with the 2010 Plan. He
submitted a list of changes to conditions they are requesting.
Andy Mills stated he is on the Board of Directors of Westbrook Chapel, the
sellers of subject property. He gave a history of the property. He said Metco is
purchasing the property from them. He said he felt Mr. Metier would provide a
good project to the area.
Ken Metler was Present to speak in favor. He said they wish to build homes with
a low maintenance smaller lot to target the retired home buyer, within an
affordable price range. The ramifications of this project are that each unit within
the remaining lots within the project would have to absorb $2,400 in additional
costs. This will result in a lesser quality end project because they would have to
provide wood fencing instead of stucco walls and wrought iron gates facing the
street, with shingle roofs instead of tile and minimum landscaping. He said
regarding the petition Submitted that only 24 of the property owners signing live
within 300 feet of the project and only 3 are next to the project. He said their
sincere desire is to produce a quality project which will be an enhancement for
the .community.
Public portion of the-hearing was closed.
Regarding Condition #V-C eliminating the street connection to White Lane, Mr.
Kloepper said after review staff prefers that a .street connect to White Lane. The
existing.design has 2 streets in close proximity on Mountain Vista; the first street
south of .White Lane 'does not meet the standards for street separation, however
they have come to the conclusion that it would be better to have the connection
to White Lane in order that those buying within the tract will have convenient
access. Therefore the Public Works Department would oppose the elimination of
Minutes,. PC, 10/3/91
Page 8
6.3) ~ PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT 5545-OPTIONAL DESIGN
Condition V~C. Regarding Condition #V-B, requiring the width of the local
streets to be 60 feet he said this does not conform to standards. If the
Commission elects to approve this request it would be a departure from prior
approvals in that'staff recommends approval of short, straight cul-de-sacs on a
regular basis. When considering whether they are short it is taken into
consideration-whether they have a straight extension away-from the cul-de-sac.
The ordinance requires as part of the optional design request concurrence with
the City Engineer for apProval and they do not concur that there is any reason'
there should be an-optional design subdivision on subject property. Every_piece
of land in the city. has physical constraints and barriers and 'they see nothing
unusual about the amenities being proposed, or existing conditions.
Mr. Redstone said the problem with the street connection is that there is access
to a very busy street, causing traffic to turn right. It encourages traffic to
Mountain Vista which is what they are trying to avoid.
Commissioner Cohn said at this stage there are some significant issues raised and
felt the most appropriate way to deal with this development would be to refer it
to committee: Mr. Redstone said he would be amenable to this suggestion.
Mr. Hardisty said Specific. concurrence must be obtained from the applicant fOr
continuance on this item since the deadline for approval is October 9, 1991. Mr.
Redstone asked if this could be continued to the regular meeting of October 17,
1991.
Commissioner Powers said there are concerns from the neighborhood, and staff is
not in favor of the proposal, and there are also some general plan issues that
should be looked at.~ Hesaid he would like to get a committee recommendation
on this iteTM before voting on it.
Minutes, PC,. 10/3/91 Page 9
6.3)
PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT 5545-OPTIONAL DESIGN
Commissioner Bjorn questioned the need for City Engineer approval of an
optional design. Mr. Kloepper cited the Section of Code. Mr. Hard!sty stated
without the City Engineer's concurrence, if the optional design were approved by
the Commission it would result in a denial which would be subject to appeal to
the City Council. In Response to a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr.
Kloepper said they are recommending approval of the tract with conditions of
approx, al. He said the City Engineer and Public Works Department feel very
strongly about the issue of 60-foot street width in this situation. Commissioner
Bjorn said she would like to see this item go to the committee because it is a
difficult piece Of property to design, and may possibly need some type of different
zoning perhaps a P.U.D. in order to guarantee some of the design issues. She felt
the subdivision committee Would be appropriate.
Commissioner Messner said he felt it would be appropriate to 'refer this item to
the subdivision committee. He asked why 52 foot streets would be less desirable
from the City'-s standpoint. Mr. Kloepper said the standards have evolved over
the years and they would object to the long, narrow right-of-way because of
appearance and because Mr..Redstone has indicated they would put a 40-foot
street in a 52-foot-right-of-way which results in no parkway and no availability
behind the sidewalk for utility locations. Basically if the Commission approves
this Optional design subdivision it will effectively adopt new standards. Regarding
Page ~8 of 11, Condition #2 of Parks Department conditions Commissioner
-Messner asked if this tract would be burdened with the maintenance-of the street-
scaping along Mountain Vista Drive. Mr. Kloepper said it was his understanding
that this would be Part of the assessment district and spread over the whole
district. It may be considered to include the P.G.&E. easement within the lots
and moving the wall out t° be in a more normal location.
Mr. Messner felt the reduction in lot size is something that can be worked with.
Chairman Marino said he agreed with Commissioner Cohn that this item should
go to committee.
Commissioner Bjorn-said she met with the applicant on this matter and intended
that some representatives from the neighborhood be present at the committee
meeting.
Mr. Kloepper said he agreed with the item change on Page 3 of 11, Item'IV-A.
Minutes, PC, '10/3/91
Page 10
63)~ 'PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT 5545-OPTIONAL DESIGN
Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Messner to
refer this item to the Subdivision and Public Services Committee and continue
this item to the regular meeting of October 17, 1991. Commissioner Cohn said
since he is on the committee and has some time constraints he would like to set
the meeting at this hearing. Committee meeting was set for October 7, 1991 at
5:30 p.m. in the basement conference room of the annex building. Motion
carried. Commissioner Rosenlieb was absent.
PUBLIC HEARING -- AMENDING THE ZONING'BOUNDARIES FROM
AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING, MINIMUM LOT AREA NOT LESS
THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET) TO AN M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING) OR
MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN THE
ARVIN-EDISON CANAL, SOUTH."H" STREET AND STATE HIGHWAY 99.
(Negative Declaration on 'file)
Mr. Hardisty infOrmed the Commission this item was withdrawn by the applicant,
and that the applicant had applied for a zone change for Commercial at the
corner of Berkshire and South "H", and multi-family behind that with higher
density multi-family along the Highway. He submitted a traffic study reflecting
the new application. Mr. Hardisty recommended the. application for the zone
change be 'considered simultaneously with a General Plan Amendment at the
December cycle. He said he felt the Commission should not consider the single
property only in the general plan amendment because it will leave a residual
inconsistency on the south.end. In response to a question by Commissioner
Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said he will meet with the property owners to discuss
potential future land uses for subject land before this comes back before the
Commission.
Steve DelPapa represented Josephine DelPapa, owner of the property on the
corner of South "H" and Hosking. Regarding the application for zone change and
general plan amendment he said they intend to apply along with Mr. Guimarra.
Staff was directed by the Commission to bring this item back before the
Commission along with a Change to the General Plan at the December 19, 1991,
Planning Commission meeting.
Minutes, PC, 10/3/91
8.1' _
a&b) PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING UPON ANNEXATION #5207 AND
Page 11
CALLOWAY NO. 4 ANNEXATION
staff report was given.
Commissioner Powers abstained due to a possible conflict of interest in that the
property has been an income source to his company within the last year.
-Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in- favor.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb,'sec0nded by Commissioner
Messner to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report
APPROVING the Negative Declaration and APPROVING Zoning Upon
Annexation No. 5207 consisting of a change of zoning from County E(1)RS
(Estate-1 acre Residential Suburban), C-2 PD (General Commercial- Precise
Development Combining District) and M-1 PD (Light.Industrial - Precise
Development Combining District) to the City zoning of C-2 (Commercial) zones
and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: -Commissioners Anderson,'Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Roseniieb, Marino
. NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Powers
Motion Was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded'by Commissioner
Messner to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report
APPROVING the proposed Calloway No. 4 Annexation and recommend same to
City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
CommiSsioners Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Rosenlieb, Marino
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Powers
Minutes, PC} 10/3/91
8.2
a&b) PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING UPON ANNEXATION #5223 AND
Page 12
PANAMA NO.-10 ANNEXATION
Staff report was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Messner smd this area was the possible recipient of block grants
asking if this project would be approved in time to be a part of that. Mr.
Gauthier said this would be annexed too late to be considered for block grant
funding for this year.
In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said the
County used census and demographic information to determine the eligibility of
block grant funds.
Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by CommiSsioner Anderson
to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff rePort, APPROVING the
negative declaration and APPROVING Zoning Upon Annexation No. 5223 to
the. City zoning of C-1 (Limited Commercial),. C-2 (Commercial) and R-1 (One
Family 'Dwelling) zones and recommend same to City Council.
AyEs: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers,
Rosenlieb, Marino
NOES: None
Motion was-made by. Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson
to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report and APPROVING
Negative Declaration, and APPROVING the proposed Panama No.' 10
Annexation and recommend same to City Council.
AYES:
Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers,
Rosenlieb, Marino
NOES: None
Minutes, PC, 10/3/91
Page 13
9. PUBLIC HEARING --AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 AND MODIFICATION
· TO cHAPTER 17.64V. REGARDING THE INCORPORATION OF
PREZONING PROCEDURES, CHANGES TO PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES CONSISTENT WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW; AND REPEALING CHAPTER 17.68
(ZONING UPON ANNEXATION)
Staff-report_was given.
Chairman ~Marino said he did not have a problem with this being sent to
committee since there is no urgency in acting on it. Commissioner Cohn felt he
wouldlike to vote on this issue. Commissioner Powers expressed concern that
other changes voted on in the past have been brought before the Committee prior
to the hearing.
Motion was made. by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn
to adopt the findings, contained in the staff report and recommend that the City
Council amend the zoning ordinance as proposed.
Commissioner Bjorn said she saw this item as basically a clean up, however if
there is 'something substantive she would want to see it studied by the committee.
Mr. Hardisty said this is primarily a clean up which is why staff did not
recommend that it go before the committee. It also brings the process into
compliance with State law.
Com~nissioner Rosenlieb said she at first was not comfortable with acting on this
item, however after reviewing the document her fears were alleviated.
MotiOn carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers,
Rosenlieb, Marino
NOES: None
Minutes, PC, 10/3/91
10. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT RIVERLAKES
Page 14
RANCH/UNIBELL SPECIFIC PLAN SPA 1-91
Commissioner Anderson abstained on this item due to a possible conflict of
interest in that his company is presently providing services for the applicant.
In response to a.possible conflict of interest on the part of Commissioner Powers,
Ms. Marino said it may be best to disqualify himself.
Staff report was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Michael Dhanens was present representing the applicant.
Public po_rtion of the hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner
Rosenlieb to adopt resolution making findings set forth in the staff report,
approving the requested specific plan amendments changing Riverlakes Ranch
Drive to Main Plaza Drive and Creek Side Drive to Riverlakes Drive as shown on
Exhibit "A". Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:_
Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Rosenlieb
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Anderson, Powers
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Marino
Minutes, pC, 10/3/91
Page 15
11.
GENERAL PLAN-CONSISTENCY FINDING - REQUEST FROM-CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFICE
FOR SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF 33 FOOT WIDE ALLEY
12.
13.
IN BLOCK 324
-Staff report was given.
Motion was made by. Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson
pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to find the summary vacation of a
portion of the 33 foot wide alley in block 324 (South of the City of Bakersfield
Police Department Communications Lab) consistent with the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, and report the same to the City Council with the
recommendation that an .easement be reserved for existing public utilities in the.
closing area. Motion carried.
COMMUNICATIONS
A) Written
A Memorandum was submitted to the Commission by the Planning
Director containing a discussion of the map changes procedures of the
2010 General Plan for consideration. Chairman Marino asked that the
General Plan Committee's review be expanded to include this item.
B) Verbal
Mi. Hardisty said the final transcript of Zone Change #5132 had been
inserted into the packets.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
In response to discussion by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty said he had received
a Copy of a letter regarding growth management from the State and he would
order a set. Mr. Hardisty commented on the League of California Cities
conference being held in San Francisco, saying typically it is not attended by
Commissioners.
'Commissioner Rosenlieb felt that the general issue and specific issue dealt with
on the last agenda should be handled by the general plan committee prior to the
next general plan cycle. Commissioner Anderson asked for an update to the
revision of the Sign Ordinance relating to Industrial zones, to which Mr. Hardisty
said there had been no further progress.
Minutes, PC, 10/3/9i
Page 16
,13.
14.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Anderson asked that' another sign ordinance committee meeting be
scheduled in order that staff may give the committee an update regarding the
changes to the ordinance and to have a general discussion of the ordinance. It
was discussed that this could be held some time in November.
Commissioner Powers ask'ed that staff schedule a zoning ordinance committee
meeting because there are two changes to the zoning ordinance regarding parking
lot lighting and revisions to the residential zone presented at the last meeting and
he felt another meeting needed to be held for comments from the committee
members.
ADJOURNMENT
There being n° further business to come before the Commission, meeting was
adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Laurie Davis
Recording Secretary