HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/14/1994MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 14, 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:.
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Meyer, Vice Chairman Plunk,
Commissioners Grothe and Li.
Commissioner Flamenbaum arrived at 7:16 p.m.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Interim City
Attorney Michael Montgomery, and Recording
Secretary Liz Myers
Absent: None
j MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
�I CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of January 24, 1994
VC/Plunk questioned the accuracy of parts of the minutes of
January 24, 1994. However, after discussion it was determined
that the minutes as presented is correct.
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and carried
unanimously to approve the minutes of January 24, 1994, as
presented.
OLD BUSINESS: - None
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Planned Sign Program No. 94-1
AP/Searcy reported, per the Sign Ordinance, all freestanding
signs require approval by the Planning Commission. The
applicant is requesting approval of a freestanding sign 6 ft.
in height and 72 sq. ft. in size to advertise a wholesale
„- nursery located on Golden Springs Drive, adjacent to the SR 60
freeway, between Banning Way and the Brea Canyon Road off -
ramp. He stated that the sign is to be constructed with 1/2"
plywood supported by 2" X 4" frame on 4" X 4" posts, and is
proposed as an unilluminated sign displaying the business name
and phone number. It is recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the freestanding sign at the location and
February 14, 1994 page 2
i 911m1111 ,
size requested by the applicant.
C/Grothe noted that the owner of the lot had originally,
requested to rent it out for storage of plants for a wholesale
nursery. However, it now appears that the parcel may be used'
as a retail nursery, and should therefore be conditioned to
improve the site for retail use.
AP/Searcy stated that one of the conditions of approval for
their original request was, should the wholesale nursery
develop into a retail nursery, the property would have to be',
developed with the proper improvements for such an
establishment. The Engineering Department has also
conditioned the project requiring an additional grading plan
addressing -any intensification of the property. He stated
that, at this time, both a wholesale and a retail nursery arel
approved as a right of zone, not requiring special permits. I
VC/Plunk suggested that staff point out to ,the applicant thele
proper spelling of "wholesale", and that the approval of thel
application be conditioned with the proper spelling of the;
word.
Chair/Meyer expressed concern that the application isj
presented before the Planning Commission as a Planned Sign,
Program when it appears to be more of a temporary sign, whose;
appearance will deteriorate due to weathering. He pointed out
that a professionally prepared sign, of a permanent nature,
would be a major improvement to this facility. He then'
inquired if there are existing non -conforming signs along the
freeway currently on the site.
AP/Searcy stated that there is currently areal estate sign on
the site along the freeway. Any other sign that was on the
site has already been addressed and removed.
Chair/Meyer opened the meeting and invited those wishing to
speak to come forward.
Chair/Meyer noted that the applicant is not present to address
the Planning Commission.
Gary Neely express concern that the Sign Ordinance may
prohibit freeway oriented signage. He then pointed out that
the businesses surrounding the Colima Road/Brea Canyon Road
commercial area, which are all serviced by the Brea Canyon
off -ramp, is in need of a freeway oriented sign for its
economic developmental welfare. He suggested that the City
consider allowing an electronic freeway oriented sign, that
could be paid for by the businesses, to be located on the far
western corner of the nursery property along SR 60 freeway to
,_I,I . I ,,�r „ In ",W ,_�,�, AI,. f ,��� 1:� �' .r;' i„ "' V„ .11 , c „eM 4 A,
February 14, 1994 Page 3
help advertise the commercial area. He stated that he concurs
the sign proposed by the applicant could be constructed more
aesthetically. However, some consideration should be given to
his financial situation.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed
the meeting and returned the matter back to the Commission for
consideration.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to VC/Plunk's inquiry regarding
condition (d) of the resolution, explained that the General
Plan extension of time allows for Planning Commission
deliberation and approval, if deemed appropriate, for this
kind of sign. He pointed out that, regardless of the ultimate
land use, there will undoubtedly be a freestanding sign at
this location, but perhaps using different building materials.
Therefore, staff concluded that the application would be
conpatible with the future General Plan.
VC/Plunk concurred that the sign should be constructed of
better building material.
C/Grothe questioned why this application is being presented as
a Planned Sign Program rather than as a temporary sign
approval.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the Sign Code, under the section
Planned Sign Program, requires the Planning Commission review
a single freestanding sign.
C/Flamenbaum questioned how the temporary sign for the Calvary
Church located at the intersection of Golden Springs/Grand
Avenue was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission.
AP/Searcy explained that the temporary sign was approved as
part of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for that project.
The sign was conditioned to be maintained and removed at such
time when the permanent monument sign on Grand Avenue was
constructed.
Chair/Meyer stated that he feels the application is
inappropriate for a design review.. He suggested that the
application be denied, or be continued, allowing the applicant
to design a more aesthetically pleasing small freestanding
sign. A sign is a small investment for advertising a
business.
Moved by C/Flamenbaum to deny Resolution No. XX for the
Planned Sign Program No. 94-1.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that, since the Resolution of Denial
has not been presented before the Commission, the Planning
IVII
IT I IIIIIII'II VII Is
February 14, 1994 Page 4
�I'IIN
Commission may choose to direct staff to prepare a Resolution
of Denial with appropriate findings of fact for the next)
meeting.
Amending his motion, C/Flamenbaum moved and C/Grothe seconded
to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for Planned
Sign Program No. 94-1 for the next meeting.
Chair/Meyer inquired if the Planning Commission desired to
discuss the motion.
VC/Plunk suggested that it may be more appropriate to allows,
the applicant a certain amount of time to design a morel
suitable sign.
C/Flamenbaum pointed out that since the applicant is not
present at the meeting, the Commission is not able to receive
his acquiescence to construct a more appropriate sign. He'i
noted that since the sign is located at the entryway to the
City, it should be better designed.
Chair/Meyer stated that the applicant has an opportunity to
attend the next meeting to discuss viable alternatives. Staff'
is being asked to prepare a resolution of denial. Therefore,
the Resolution of Denial and the Resolution of Approval will
be presented to the Planning Commission.
ICA/Montgomery advised the Planning Commission that they could,
either table the application, continue the application, or
deny the application without prejudice, thus allowing the
applicant an opportunity to re -address the issue. Referring
to VC/Plunk's request to condition the project to properly,
spell "wholesale", 'he pointed out that the Commission does not
have the authority to control the"spelling on a sign.
C/Li suggested that the sign should be considered as temporary,
because it appears that the land use itself is temporary.
AP/Searcy stated that though the land use is considered an
interim land use, the use could theoretically last 20 to 30
years.
C/Grothe pointed out that the tenant has zero investment into!
the property, and there is no guarantee that the sign will bei
maintained.
C/Li pointed out that the application can be conditioned toy
include a maintenance clause. He expressed concern that thel
Commission may not be considering the applicant's financial
ability when discussing this application.
C/Flamenbaum reiterated that the resolution cannot be amended
�V, 11 kds F.N`•�°pi„,' 4�V-'v„ Ss , Ri Wilroh,.x, R�.u.l..»iar�rsr�;v��+.�itiJ�i.�,.w,w:" .unM as w.ax rnau
February 14, 1994 Page 5
to include additional conditions without the applicant's
consent. The applicant will have the opportunity to address
the issues at the next meeting.
Chair/Meyer pointed out that the application is not a
temporary sign but a sign package presented in the same format
as all other signs in other commercial areas in the City. He
stated that signs represent a significant investment in
advertising for businesses. The City has an obligation to
ensure that all businesses in the community comply with the
same standards.
The Planning Commission voted upon the motion made by
C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Grothe to direct staff to
prepare a Resolution of Denial for Planned Sign Program No.
94-1 for the next meeting.
The Motion CARRIED 3-2 as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Flamenbaum, and Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Li and VC/Plunk
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
VC/Plunk asked staff to point out to the applicant that the
word "whole sale" may be misspelled.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
3. Zoning Code Amendment No. 93-3 - Property Maintenance
Ordinance
CDD/DeStefano reported that, pursuant to the Planning
Commission's direction at the last meeting, staff has revised
the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance by incorporating the
changes specified at the meetings of December 13, 1993 and
January 24, 1994. The changes made to the draft Property
Maintenance Ordinance are highlighted by either red line for
any additions made, or strikeout for any deletions made. He
stated that the City Attorney has also been provided with the
last draft of the Abatement Procedures, which was produced by
the City Council sub -committee, for his review. It is
recommended that the Planning Commission review the draft
documents, make appropriate changes and forward the Property
Maintenance Ordinance to the City Council.
C/Flamenbaum, noting that Chapter 99 is an item of discussion
on the City Council's agenda for their meeting tomorrow night,
inquired if the Planning Commission should continue with their
review of the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance at this
time.
February 14, 1994 Page 6
VC/Plunk pointed out that the recommendation to the City,
Council was to approve Chapter 99 as an interim measure until'
the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance was prepared in final
form.
Chair/Meyer noted that the City Council sub -committee desired,
to create a Property Maintenance Ordinance that went beyond
the provisions of Chapter 99 of the Building Code and the!
Uniform Housing Code. Since the Planning Commission has
expended much effort in developing the Ordinance to this
point, the process should continue.
VC/Plunk, noting that there have not been any changes made to
the draft Abatement Procedures, inquired if the City Attorney'
has had the opportunity to review the document and respond';
accordingly.
ICA/Montgomery stated that, though he received a copy of the
draft Abatement Procedures with various comments and
suggestions made, he felt it would not be appropriate to,
attempt to predict policy prior to public comment and prior to
discussion by the Commission of the issues not yet addressed,,
such as mediation, or the notification procedure to deny tax
benefits to any rental property not appropriately maintained.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited those
wishing to speak to come forward.
Don Gravdahl, residing at 23398 Minnequa, submitted a drawing
of his property illustrating the location of his motor home to
the Planning Commission. Referring to Motor Vehicle Parking)
on page 7, he expressed concern that the ordinance requires
motor homes parked on the side yard, abutting the street, to,
be screened. He noted that many motor homes parked on the'
side yard hangs out the front yard set back, and since a six,
foot high wall cannot be placed in the front yard set back toy
"screen" his motor home, the word "screened" should be
eliminated. He then suggested that item B, under Motor
Vehicle Parking, on page 8, be amended to indicate vehicles
with a 10,000 pound gross vehicle weight (GVW), since many'
pickups posted 6,000 GVW do not take into account additional
weight from added bodies, tools, etc. He also suggested that,
the definition of "Blighting Conditions" be removed from the
document, particularly since much of the definition does not
apply to the City, such as references to coastal environment.I
Bob Zirbes, residing at 2141 Tierra Loma, made the following
comments: remove the definition of "blighting", on page 3,
particularly since it is not mentioned anywhere else in the,
document; revise the definition of "driveway", on page 5, to
amend (a) to read, "That portion of the road right-of-way
where motor vehicles enter or leave the highway onto private
'dII i JY. ih'i:,�
, Al l.[&111, 1111,i..Ilk [,n "—,_.I —_,— N..—»-,— e»,. —.
February 14, 1994 Page 7
property; there should be a diagram to reference the
definition of "Yard", on page 5; and delete "to prevent public
health hazards" from the last sentence of Landscape
Maintenance, on page 9. He then suggested that there should
be administrative procedures, included in the ordinance, for
the Code Enforcement officers to follow for their
investigation and handling of complaints, with the
understanding that the Abatement Procedures are for the
violator who refuses to comply. He also suggested that since
the ordinance does not include a definition of "nuisance",
then the Abatement Procedures should replace "nuisance" with
"violation of Ordinance No. XX."
Oscar Law, referring to page 7, suggested that the Ordinance
allow the grandfathering of all existing recreational
vehicles.
Red Calkins concurred that the definition of "Blighting
conditions" should be deleted. He also concurred with Mr.
Gravdahl's suggestion to change the GVW to 10,000 pounds.
Gary Neely inquired if the Commission will be addressing his
suggestion regarding freeway oriented signs.
Chair/Meyer explained that the appropriate time for .the
Commission to respond to comments made on issues not relating
to matters on the agenda is during Commission Comments, at the
end of the meeting.
Gary Neely expressed his opinion that the draft Property
Maintenance Ordinance should be completely thrown out.
However, assuming that it is to remain, he made the following
comments: delete the definition of "Blighting conditions" on
page 3; redefine "Driveway" on page 5; expand the definition
of "Yard", on page 5, to include consideration of flag lots;
define a "pedestrian access way" as indicated on page 7, item
A; define "debris" as indicated on page 6, item A; clarify the
concept "side yard" versus "side yard that abuts the street;
expand the definition of "aesthetically similar" as indicated
on page 10; include Diagram A in the document regarding the
definition of "yard"; and delete the reference regarding
maintaining irrigation systems, indicated on page 9 since it
is not the City's business.
Al Rumpella, residing at 23958 Golden Springs, referring to
the draft 'Abatement Procedures, he made the following
comments: item 3, under Hearing Notice, page 2, should be
amended to indicate "certified mail"; replace "Code
Enforcement Official" as indicated on page 2, under Extension
of Time To Perform Work, with "Hearing Officer" since the
hearing officer is the decision maker as indicated in item (C)
Order of Abatement; delete the mention that the hearing shall
February 14, 1994 Page 8
be noticed, as indicated on page 6, under Account of Abatement
Costs item (A), because it is not appropriate to disclose the
violator and the violation; delete item (B), under Right ofd
Entry, on page 8, and replace it with the District Attorneys
definition as outlined in the letter dated June 28, 1993; ands
rewrite the first sentence, under Continuing violations, page'
8, to read "It shall not constitute a new and separate!,
offense...". Referring to the Ordinance, 'Mr. Rumpella made'',
the following comments: delete "Blighting conditions" on'page,
3; allow 30 days to fix minor repairs, as indicated on page 6,
item B; for consistency, delete the word "weeds" from item B,
'under Storage, page 7; delete mention of "screening", underl
Motor Vehicle Parking item A; delete "two such vehicles",
indicated in item b, under Motor Vehicle Parking, on page 8,'
because some homes have three car garages and bigger families;
and delete mention _of the "irrigation system" indicated under
Landscape Maintenance, on page 9.
Oscar Law, referring to the Abatement Procedures, suggested
that a registered owner be notified by certified mail that the
property be maintained within a reasonable period of time, or'
the City will take care and add the cost to the property tax
bill.
N�f
There being no one else in the audience wishing to speak,
Chair/Meyer closed the public hearing and returned the matter]
back to the Planning Commission for consideration, followed byl
a recess.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m
RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
I
The Planning Commission discussed if the Property Maintenance,'
Ordinance would amend the Building Code or the Zoning
Ordinance.
ICA/Montgomery stated that, at this time, the Property
Maintenance Ordinance can be placed in the Building Code.
Chair/Meyer stated that, as another option, after adoption of
the General Plan, the Property Maintenance Ordinance could be
used as a potential amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, since
it refers to zoning aspects.
The Planning Commission concurred to review the draft Property
Maintenance. Ordinance page by page. The following is a',
summarization of the changes as concurred by the Planning'
F d;a
Commission:
Section 22.54.010,
�•r_n�G 1
i
�:'y -«_.€�,�al 'k��k.�"�C,��7 b���.��,�.:ks
e...ah JWdh.,. [.I;, AW1.1— , — ..,.,_,--1 1-1 _i i- , «- r , - --
February 14, 1994 Page 9
page 2 - Rewrite the first part of Purpose and Intent,, to
read, "The lack of property maintenance contributes
to the deterioration of residential, commercial and
industrial properties including structures,
landscaping and improvements thereon,... Such a
deterioration may lead to an overall decline...
further, deteriorating conditions of property
contribute to the creation of conditions..."
page 3 - The Planning Commission concurred that the issue
regarding financial abilities will be addressed
during the Abatement Proceedings.
page 3 - Rewrite the last sentence, under Purpose and
Intent, to read, 11 .... while concurrently providing
a useful property maintenance enforcement tool to
be utilized when notification of responsible
parties have failed to prevent or eliminate the
conditions described herein."
Section 22.54.020
page 3 - Delete "Blighting conditions" in it's entirety.
As suggested by ICA/Montgomery, the Planning
Commission concurred to replace the definition of
"Blight" with the definition of "Nuisance" as
defined by State law.
Section 22.54.030
page 5 - Rewrite the definition of driveway (a) to read,
"That portion of the road right-of-way where motor
vehicles enter or leave the highway onto private
property." Rewrite item (b) to read, "A private
roadway providing access to a street or highway and
off street parking facilities."
Section 22.54.040
page 5 - Include Diagram A to reference the definition of.
yards.
Include a definition of flag lots in the definition
of Yards.
Section 22.54.060
page 6 - Amend the last sentence of item (b) to read "...,
that such emergency or minor repair shall be
concluded within ten (10) consecutive days of the
commencement thereof or a maximum of thirty (30)
— ��li i II�1�uI�I�fIi I l�f I � I III Illlli f��; 14,IIId I
February 14, 1994 Page 10
days as approved by the Hearing Officer. This
change will allow an opportunity for an individual
to explain -any special circumstances.
Section 22.54.070
page 7 - Delete the entire section, A and B, in it's
entirety because section 22.54.050, on page 6,
defines the storage of front yard/side yard,
abutting a street. Therefore the definition of
storage side yard not abutting a street is not,
needed. The purpose of the Ordinance is to keep'
things off of the front yard, not the side yard. 11
Section 22.54.080
page 7 - Delete the statement, "if screened from public,
view". Delete the phrase "including the City's
Planning and Zoning Code" because it is redundant.1
page 8 - Include a definition of commercial vehicle as,
stated in the Vehicle Code. Per the advise of
ICA/Montgomery that it may be easier for the City,
to enforce the posted GVW for parked vehicles
because the weight of a parked vehicle can't be
determined without a court order, the Planning,
commission concurred to amend item B to indicate
the minimum use of the gross unladen weight ofl
three tons and a maximum of 10,000 pounds actual'
weight.
page 8 - Include a definition of commercial vehicles to'
address Item B to ensure that not more than two;
commercially -used vehicles are parked or stored on
any single-family lot 'or parcel. The Planning,
Commission concurred that existing recreational,
vehicles and commercial vehicles will not be exempt',
from the provisions.
Section 22.54.090
page 8 - Rewrite the first sentence to read, "All buildings,
structures and paved areas within any lot or parcel,
designated as single-family shall be kept and
maintained in a manner not to constitute a public)
nuisance."
Section 22.54.100 '
page 9 - Rewrite the entire section to read, "All landscaped
areas within any lot or parcel designated as
u,4, k,uLL - _ �.. .. _ _ _. Y- _ --,. _- M 1_-_..__--.. __ --__ _.-
February 14, 1994 Page 11
single-family shall be kept and maintained in a
manner so as not to constitute a nuisance.
Landscaped areas shall be kept in a manner so as
not to constitute a nuisance. Foliage in
landscaped areas shall be mowed, groomed, trimmed,
pruned and watered as to keep the same in a healthy
growing condition. Irrigation systems shall be
kept in good working condition not to constitute a
threat to public health or safety."
Section 22.54.110
page 10 - Delete examples 1 through 5 from Section A, and
rewrite the first sentence to read, "All fences and
walls upon any lot or parcel designated as single-
family shall be kept and maintained in a manner so
as not to create a public nuisance." Rewrite
Section B to indicate that the fences and walls
must comply with Building Code provisions so as not
to impose a risk to health and safety.
C/Flamenbaum requested staff to address parking of trailer
I homes in motor home parks in regards to section 22.54.150, on
page 12, item A.
Staff noted that most of the provision is preempted by State
law in the mobile home parks.
The Planning Commission directed staff to ensure that the
Multi -family section comply with the rest of the document.
C/Flamenbaum, referring to Commercial Standards, inquired how
a local automotive -repair shop will maintain the scrap yard in
a neat and organized manner.
The Planning Commission concurred on the,following changes:
Section 22.54.210
page 16 - A fully screened storage yard, in the back, is
exempt.
section 22.54.230
page 17 - This section does not apply to single-family
residences, and it should be tailored to the
present section, as well as address public
nuisances.
Section 22.54.250
page 18 - It should address public nuisances.
Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Flamenbaum and carried
unanimously to direct staff to prepare resolutions of approval
for the next meeting, making all the appropriate changes to
the documents.
Gary Neely pointed out that the Planning Commission did not,
address- the following items: definition of debris as'
indicated on page 6, storage in the front yard; a clear
definition of "abutting the street"; definition of what "a
pedestrian access way shall be maintained on one side yard"I
means, as indicated on page 8; and define "periodically
resurfaced or resealed", as indicated on page 20, the last
sentence before industrial standards.
s,..
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. Conditional Use Permit.No. 94-1
February 14, 1994 Page 12
Section
22.54.260
page
19 - Add a provision that private property open to the
public must be maintained in a safe and sanitary
manner.
The
Planning Commission concurred that the following issues
should
be addressed in the Abatement Procedures:
o
Provide for areliminar informal notice such as a'
p Y
warning notice.
o
Provide for a mediation process.
0
Provide a certified mail provision for notification.
o
Provide'stern enforcement for health and safety issues.'
o
Provide a slow type of enforcement procedure for common,
problems such as unmowed lawns, vehicles under repair,,,
and boats stored in the yard, to include personal notice,
a letter, and then offering mediation before citing the
person.
o
The appeal process should proceed from the Planning
Commission on to the City Council.
o
The mediation process and abatement process should
include consideration of economic problems or other
constraints at a hearing before a zoning administrator,
Community Development Director, or appropriate'
individual.
o
The City Manager, or his designee, is the ultimate
responsible administrative personnel, thus eliminating,
mention of the Code Enforcement official.
o
Provide for heavy fines to address commercial/ industrial!
owners.
o
The initial hearing is applicable for residential as well
as for commercial owners.
Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Flamenbaum and carried
unanimously to direct staff to prepare resolutions of approval
for the next meeting, making all the appropriate changes to
the documents.
Gary Neely pointed out that the Planning Commission did not,
address- the following items: definition of debris as'
indicated on page 6, storage in the front yard; a clear
definition of "abutting the street"; definition of what "a
pedestrian access way shall be maintained on one side yard"I
means, as indicated on page 8; and define "periodically
resurfaced or resealed", as indicated on page 20, the last
sentence before industrial standards.
s,..
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. Conditional Use Permit.No. 94-1
February 14, 1994 Page 13
CDD/DeStefano reported that it is recommended that the
Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing for
Conditional Use Permit No. 94-1 to the meeting of March 14,
1994.
Chair/Meyer opened the public hearing and invited those
wishing to speak to come forward.
There being no one in the audience wishing to speak,
Chair/Meyer returned the matter back to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Flamenbaum and carried
unanimously to continue the public hearing to the meeting of
March 14, 1994.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
CDD/DeStefano made the following statements: the General Plan
revision process is successfully moving forward; and all of
the City's Commission positions come up for reappointment
i
consideration tomorrow at the City Council meeting.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the Planning Commission
_ communicate to the City Council economic development team to
discuss the possibility with the businesses in the Brea
Canyon/Colima Springs commercial area to have one single off
site sign for identification purposes, as suggested by Mr.
Neely. He then suggested a revisit of the Sign Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
Respecti e ,
mes DeStef-no
Secretary
Attes�f. /
I
id Meyer
Chairman