Loading...
PC MINS 19990106CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Approved 02/09/99 The meeting was called to order at 7.08 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Cartwright led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark Absent. None. Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas and City Attorney Lynch Chairman Clark thanked the Commission and Staff for all of their hard work and effort during the past year while serving as Chairman. Mr. Clark introduced the new Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 1999, Mr Jon Cartwright Chairman Cartwright also complemented the Commission as well as Staff for their support during former Chairman Clark's term Chairman Cartwright was thankful and pleased to assume the duties of Chairman and looked forward to working with a professional and experienced Commission and Staff. At this time, Chairman Cartwright opened nominations for the Vice Chairman of the Commission Commissioner Clark nominated Commissioner Lyon for Vice Chairman The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed by acclamation, (7-0) With no objections from the Commission, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. Chairman Cartwright introduced the new Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 1999, Mr Frank Lyon APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Agenda as presented The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and with no objections from the Commission, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright, (7-0) COMMUNICATIONS Staff None. Commission Chairman Cartwright distributed an article from the Los Angeles Times dated December 22, 1998 regarding the Long Point project. Commissioner Slayden asked Staff if a Joint Workshop was scheduled between the Commission and the City Council to discuss this project. Director/Secretary Rojas replied that Staff will be asking the Commission and the City Council to schedule a date either in February or March of 1999 for the Commission and City Council to discuss the Long Point specific plan project. CONSENT CALENDAR None. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Code Amendment No. 42; Citywide. Director/Secretary Rojas gave an overview of where the Commission left off at the Planning Commission Meeting of December 22, 1998 Mr Rojas stated that the Commission reviewed the Ad Hoc Committee's draft version (Draft No 1) and agreed to complete the review of Draft No 1 at tonight's adjourned meeting and then proceed to review the Staff and City Attorney's version (Draft No 2) However, on December 28, 1998 the City Attorney and Staff met with the Chairman (Commissioner Alberio) of the Ad Hoc Committee and Vice Chairman Lyon to clarify Staffs concerns regarding certain portions of the Ad Hoc Committee's draft version dated December 17, 1998 (Draft No 1) It was agreed by the two Ad Hoc Committee members, the Director and the City Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1999 Page 2 Attorney that modifications to streamline the December 17, 1998 version would be made by Vice Chairman Lyon and to distribute the modifications to the Commission for discussion at tonight's meeting The new draft version dated January 5, 1999 was distributed to the Commission earlier that evening. Staff felt that Vice Chairman Lyon's new version addressed the concerns of Staff and the City Attorney and therefore, Staff endorsed the modifications and recommended that the Commission replace the last version of the Ad Hoc Committee's draft (December 17, 1998) with Vice Chairman Lyon's new draft version dated January 5, 1999 Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to continue further discussion and review of Draft No. 1 dated December 17, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and failed (2-5) by a roll -call vote with Commissioners Clark, Paris, Slayden, Vice Chairman Lyon, and Chairman Cartwright dissenting. Vice Chairman Lyon suggested that the Commission consider his explanation of the modifications made to the December 17, 1998 version which were now incorporated into the January 5, 1999 version Vice Chairman Lyon also explained that he wished to respond to the Amateur Radio Club's letter dated January 4, 1999 which outlined 26 concerns with the December 17, 1998 version Commissioner Clark moved to have Vice Chairman Lyon give a summary of the modifications made from the December 17, 1998 to the January 5, 1999 draft versions; provide responses to the Amateur Radio Club's letter outlining 26 concerns, take public testimonies; and, proceed with a page -by -page review and discussion on the revised draft antenna code dated January 5, 1999. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (7-0) by a roll -call vote. Vice Chairman Lyon pointed out that the Ad Hoc Committee worked very hard for months and drafted several versions of an antenna code Vice Chairman Lyon felt that since the work on the draft code had been completed by the Ad Hoc Committee it was now time for Commission review and discussion of the draft ordinance. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to disband the Ad Hoc Committee. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed (6-1) by a roll -call vote with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Vice Chairman Lyon stated that when he made modifications to the December 17, 1998 version (Draft No. 1) to produce the January 5, 1999 draft he incorporated all of the changes as agreed upon at the special meeting between the Director, himself, and Committee Chairman Alberio In addition to those modifications he made some Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 3 0 9 changes of his own for simplification and understandability Vice Chairman Lyon explained that he rewrote the draft antenna code to make it easier to read and be more logical in its approach. He also explained that the 'definitions' were moved to the end of the draft since they would not actually be part of the antenna section, to be consistent with the City's current Development Code Vice Chairman Lyon explained the major changes made to the December 17, 1998 draft version as follows Page 1 Sections A.1, A.3, A.5, and A.7 were eliminated Section A 1 was not necessary and Section A 3 in the last subsection of the paragraph was embodied into the new draft on page 8, in 7.0 (Approval Criteria). Section A 5 was eliminated, and in Section A 7. the words, 'Code Enforcement Division' were deleted since it was objectionable to the Amateur Radio Club Page 3, Two definitions were modified; 'Projected Area' to address the full dimensions antenna assembly elements and components in the calculation of projected area, and the 'Commercial Antenna' section was set aside until the Commission completed the review of the Staff and City Attorney draft version which would then be inserted into the Commission's January 5, 1999 version of the draft antenna code. Panes 4 through 8 The 'Commercial Antenna' section was set aside until the Staff and City Attorney's version was reviewed by the Commission. Page 8 The'Satellite Dish Antenna' section under D 3, the number of categories were reduced from 5 to 3 requiring; 1)no approval, 2) director approval, and, 3) full Planning Commission approval Page 11. An applicability statement was added as a new paragraph that summarized the intent of this particular subsection, which was taken from Draft No. 2 Also in section E.2 'Radio Amateur and Similar Non-commercial Antennas', the categories were redefined and aligned. The previous antenna categories were reduced from 7 to 3 to keep it simple In category E3, the maximum projected area was increased from 6 square feet to 10 square feet only for the portion of the antenna assembly that extended above the highest ridgelme of the house Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1899 Page 4 Page 12, The Section 3 'Antenna Assembly Constraints' were partially rewritten to call for a general limitation applying to all antennas of the E category. Page 13, The Section 4 A was condensed and restated for clarity. In regard to 4 B the language was simplified to the point where the number of antennas over 16 feet high was increased from 3 to 4 Page 15, In Item 3 C, the height limit of 125 feet was eliminated In 3.13, the statement on mock- ups was eliminated. Page 16, In Item 1 A, the consideration of view impairment was extended to 500 feet for all non- exempt antennas, 200 feet for antennas requiring director approval, and 500 feet for antennas requiring Planning Commission approval In Item 3, the criteria for second antenna assemblies was restated and made more specific. Page 18, The 'View Obstruction Clearance Form' was deleted Vice Chairman Lyon briefly summarized a response to the Amateur Radio Club's letter dated January 4, 1999 pertaining to 26 concerns He explained that only 6 of these concerns were noted as resolved satisfactorily, 9 of the concerns were accommodated in the January 5, 1999 draft version, 10 concerns were reviewed and rejected, and 1 concern unresolved by the Ad Hoc Committee Vice Chairman Lyon explained that the 26th concern was inserted into the January 5, 1999 version of the draft antenna code Vice Chairman Lyon briefly read aloud the 26 concerns that were either accepted or rejected by the Ad Hoc Committee as follows No. 1 - refected No 2 - accepted No. 3 - accepted No. 4 - rejected No. 5 - accepted No. 6 - accepted No 7 - unresolved No. 8 - refected No 9 - accepted Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 5 0 9 No 10 - rejected No 11 - accepted No. 12 - rejected No. 13 - accepted No 14 - rejected No 15 - rejected No 16 - accepted No. 17 - accepted No. 18 - accepted No 19 -rejected No 20 -rejected No 21 -accepted No. 22 - accepted No 23 -accepted No. 24 - accepted No. 25 - rejected No 26 - accepted (to be inserted in January 5, 1999 draft) Vice Chairman Lyon requested that public testimony focus on concerns that were rejected by the Ad Hoc Committee rather than the comments that were accepted RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Cartwright called for a brief recess at 8.45 P M until the meeting reconvened at 9.00 P M. Commissioner Clark moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Roe Ramsey, 2629-6 W 235th Street, Torrance, CA, stated that he is a member of several radio clubs and stated his support for Draft No. 2. Dale Hanks, 5225 Middlecrest Road, was pleased with the new version and complemented Vice Chairman Lyon for making a major improvement from the December 17, 1998. Mr. Hanks asked for a clarification on Page 9 in regard to the "projected area" and stated that he interpreted this section as the shadow of the antenna at high noon He believed that Vice Chairman Lyon intended it to be a projection in a horizontal direction. Mr. Hanks pointed out a reference to `view' impairment appears in numerous places in the January 5, 1999 draft version He recalled that there were several discussions between the Amateur Radio Club and the Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 6 Ad Hoc Committee on this issue and it was agreed that the `view' would be defined as stated in proposition `M'. He stated that there was no such reference in this draft and asked for clarification Vice Chairman Lyon responded to Mr Hanks comment regarding the projected area definition and stated that he inserted the word maximum to indicate the greatest cross section of area in any perspective Mr John Freeman 6850 Faircove Drive, stated that he was not in support of the January 5, 1999 draft version and asked the Commission if they intended to forward all three drafts of the antenna code to the City Council for their review and discussion Chairman Cartwright explained to Mr Freeman the Commission's procedure for reviewing the draft versions that evening. The Commission agreed to use the January 5, 1999 version as a base line for discussion. The version compiled by Staff and the City Attorney (Draft No. 2) has been incorporated to some degree into this draft and would be discussed by the Commission. Chairman Cartwright pointed out that the letter from the Amateur Radio Club was included in the staff report and that the 26 concerns that were either accepted or rejected by the Ad Hoc Committee would also be discussed by the Commission Lastly, Chairman Cartwright reiterated that the Ad Hoc Committee was disbanded since they had produced a final version of the draft antenna code Mr Herb Clarkson, 6424 Seabyrn Drive, supported Draft No. 2. He stated that Draft No. 2 was clean-cut and simple. Mr. Clarkson stated that he received the January 5, 1999 version the evening before and had little time to review the draft code. He objected to two issues in the January 5, 1999 draft which involved 'protected area' definition and 'not allowing small antennas on a structure'. Mr Tom VeQors, P.O. box 2181, received the January 5, 1999 draft version that evening He complemented Vice Chairman Lyon for a job well done, with the exception of two objections which included the 'projected area' concept 500 foot notification request for staff level approval In regard to Draft No 3, Mr. Vegors requested language modification to the statement that' ..any second antenna requires Planning Commission approval' Mr. Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he had inadequate time to review the January 5, 1999 draft version He concurred with the comments of the previous speaker and stated that he too objected to the 'notification process'. Mr. Abrams felt that the draft antenna code should be considered very thoroughly by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 7 Mr. Abrams stated that he did not support the three draft versions being reviewed and discussed that evening He strongly believed that they all contained no clear set criteria for approving antennas. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Commissioner Alberio moved to discontinue review and discussion of Draft Nos. 2 and 3 and accept the January 5, 1999 draft version with a recommendation of approval to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion Commissioner Clark felt that draft Nos 2 and 3 should be reviewed and considered by the Commission. Commissioner Paris concurred with Commissioner Clark's comments. Vice Chairman Lyon felt it was appropriate to go through the process completely and fairly to discuss Draft Nos 2 and 3 and address the 26 concerns from the Amateur Radio Club Vice Chairman Lyon explained the major changes made to the December 17, 1998 draft version as follows - Page 1 Sections A 1, A.3, A.5, and A.7 were eliminated Section A 1 was not necessary and Section A 3 in the last subsection of the paragraph was embodied into the new draft on page 8, in 7.0 (Approval Criteria) Section A 5 was eliminated, and in Section A.7. the words, 'Code Enforcement Division' were deleted since it was objectionable to the Amateur Radio Club. Para a 3, Two definitions were modified, 'Projected Area' to address a full dimension antenna assembly and all components in the calculation of projected area, and the 'Commercial Antenna' section was set aside until the Commission completed the review of the Staff and City Attorney draft version which would then be inserted into the Commission's January 5, 1999 version of the draft antenna code. Pages 4 through 8 The'Commercial Antenna' section was set aside until the Staff and City Attorney's version was reviewed by the Commission Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 8 Page 8 The'Satellite Dish Antenna' section under D 3, the number of categories were reduced from 5 to 3 requiring, 1)no approval, 2) director approval, and, 3) full Planning Commission approval. Page 11 An applicability statement was added as a new paragraph that summarized the intent of this particular subsection, which was taken from Draft No 2 Also in section E.2 'Radio Amateur and Similar Non-commercial Antennas', the categories were redefined and aligned The previous antenna categories were reduced from 7 to 3 to keep it simple. In category E3, the maximum projected area was increased from 6 square feet to 10 square feet only for the portion of the antenna assembly that extended above the highest ridgeline of the house Page 12, The Section 3 'Antenna Assembly Constraints' were partially rewritten to call for a general limitation applying to all antennas of the E category. Pale 13, The Section 4 A was condensed and restated for clarity. In regard to 4. B the language was simplified to the point where the number of antennas over 16 feet high was increased from 3 to 4 Page 15, In Item 3 C, the height limit of 125 feet was eliminated. In 3 D, the statement on mock- ups was eliminated. Page 16, In Item 1 A, the consideration of view impairment was extended to 500 feet for all non- exempt antennas, 200 feet for antennas requiring director approval, and 500 feet for antennas requiring Planning Commission approval. In Item 3, the criteria for second antenna assemblies was restated and made more specific Page 18, The 'View Obstruction Clearance Form' was deleted Vice Chairman Lyon briefly summarized a response to the Amateur Radio Club's letter dated January 4, 1999 pertaining to 26 concerns He explained that only 6 of these concerns were noted as resolved satisfactorily, 9 of the concerns were accommodated in the January 5, 1999 draft version, 10 concerns were reviewed and refected, and 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1999 Page 9 0 0 concern unresolved by the Ad Hoc Committee Vice Chairman Lyon explained that the 26th concern was inserted into the January 5, 1999 version of the draft antenna code Vice Chairman Lyon briefly read aloud the 26 concerns that were either accepted or rejected by the Ad Hoc Committee as follows, No. 1 - rejected No 2 - accepted No 3 - accepted No 4 - rejected No 5 - accepted No. 6 - accepted No 7 - unresolved No. 8 - rejected No 9 - accepted No 10 - rejected No 11 - accepted No. 12 - rejected No 13 - accepted No 14 - rejected No. 15 - rejected No 16 - accepted No. 17 - accepted No 18 - accepted No. 19 - rejected No 20 - rejected No 21 - accepted No 22 - accepted No. 23 - accepted No 24 - accepted No. 25 - rejected No 26 - accepted (to be inserted in January 5, 1999 draft) Vice Chairman Lyon requested that public testimony focus on concerns that were rejected by the Ad Hoc Committee rather than the comments that were accepted RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Cartwright called for a brief recess at 8*45 P M until the meeting reconvened at 9.00 P M Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 10 C Commissioner Clark moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Roe Ramsey, 2629-6 W 235th Street, Torrance, CA, stated that he is a member of several radio clubs and stated his support for Draft No 2 Dale Hanks, 5225 Middlecrest Road, was pleased with the new version and complemented Vice Chairman Lyon for making a major improvement from the December 17, 1998 Mr Hanks asked for a clarification on Page 9 in regard to the "protected area" and stated that he interpreted this section as the shadow of the antenna at high noon. He believed that Vice Chairman Lyon intended it to be a projection in a horizontal direction. Mr. Hanks pointed out a reference to 'view' impairment appears in numerous places in the January 5, 1999 draft version. He recalled that there were several discussions between the Amateur Radio Club and the Ad Hoc Committee on this issue and it was agreed that the 'view' would be defined as stated in proposition 'M' He stated that there was no such reference in this draft and asked for clarification Vice Chairman Lyon responded to Mr. Hanks comment regarding the projected area definition and stated that he inserted the word maximum to indicate the greatest cross section of area in any perspective. Mr. John Freeman 6850 Faircove Drive, stated that he was not in support of the January 5, 1999 draft version and asked the Commission if they intended to forward all three drafts of the antenna code to the City Council for their review and discussion Chairman Cartwright explained to Mr Freeman the Commission's procedure for reviewing the draft versions that evening. The Commission agreed to use the January 5, 1999 version as a base line for discussion The version compiled by Staff and the City Attorney (Draft No 2) has been incorporated to some degree into this draft and would be discussed by the Commission Chairman Cartwright pointed out that the letter from the Amateur Radio Club was included in the staff report and that the 26 concerns that were either accepted or rejected by the Ad Hoc Committee would also be discussed by the Commission Lastly, Chairman Cartwright reiterated that the Ad Hoc Committee was disbanded since they had produced a final version of the draft antenna code Mr. Herb Clarkson 6424 Seabyrn Drive, supported Draft No 2 He stated that Draft No. 2 was clean-cut and simple. Mr. Clarkson stated that he received the January 5, 1999 version the evening before and had little time to review the draft code. He Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 11 0 objected to two issues in the January 5, 1999 draft which involved 'projected area' definition and `not allowing small antennas on a structure' Mr. Tom Vegors, P 0 box 2181, received the January 5, 1999 draft version that evening. He complemented Vice Chairman Lyon for a job well done, with the exception of two objections which included the 'projected area' concept 500 foot notification request for staff level approval In regard to Draft No 3, Mr Vegors requested language modification to the statement that' any second antenna requires Planning Commission approval' Mr. Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he had inadequate time to review the January 5, 1999 draft version. He concurred with the comments of the previous speaker and stated that he too objected to the 'notification process' Mr Abrams felt that the draft antenna code should be considered very thoroughly by the Commission Mr Abrams stated that he did not support the three draft versions being reviewed and discussed that evening He strongly believed that they all contained no clear set criteria for approving antennas Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Commissioner Alberio moved to discontinue review and discussion of Draft Nos. 2 and 3 and accept the January 5, 1999 draft version with a recommendation of approval to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion. Commissioner Clark felt that draft Nos 2 and 3 should be reviewed and considered by the Commission. Commissioner Paris concurred with Commissioner Clark's comments Vice Chairman Lyon felt it was appropriate to go through the process completely and fairly to discuss Draft Nos 2 and 3 and address the 26 concerns from the Amateur Radio Club Commissioner Slayden also concurred that Draft Nos 2 and 3 be reviewed and discussed by the Commission Commissioner Vannorsdall had no comments Commissioner Alberio withdrew his motion. Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 12 It was the consensus of the Commission to complete the discussion and review of the January 5, 1999 draft by 11:00 p.m. that evening and continue this item to the meeting of January 12, 1999 for public input and further consideration by the Commission. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright, (7-0). The Commission discussed the January 5, 1999 draft version as follows Page 1 Section A 4, Commissioner Slayden requested deleting 'on City streets ' Vice Chairman Lyon pointed out in Section 'D' no antennas less than 16 feet in height were regulated The Commission concurred with Section A.4, page 1 as written Page 2 Chairman Cartwright was concerned with Section C 2 c and pointed out that in Draft No. 2 it indicated that such satellite dish antennas required only director approval. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested a clarification to the language to read as, ' in the case of commercial satellite dish antenna, applicants are required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit ', pursuant to this section The Commission concurred with the modification of language in Section C.2.c, page 2. Page 3 The Commission concurred with the language as written on page 3 Page 4 In Section D 3 b, Chairman Cartwright asked Staff and the City attorney if the language was broad. Staff replied that they did not have a problem with the language. The Commission concurred with the language as written in Section D 3 b on page 4. Page 5 In Section D.4.b i, Commissioner Clark commented on the language in regard to 'projected area' and suggested alternative language based on public testimony The Commission concurred to consider this issue for further review and discussion based on public input received at the meeting of January 12, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 13 Page 6 The Commission concurred with the language as written on page 6 Page 7 Commissioner Clark suggested that language in Section D.7.b i (view) be consistent with that in Section D 3 b City Attorney Lynch suggested that a cross reference to the appropriate section of the Development Code be added to Section D 7 b i The Commission concurred to modify the language on page 7 Page 8 Vice Chairman Lyon requested that the words, 'or and `County' be inserted in Section D 11 after the word `City' because many existing antennas had existed longer than the City and were constructed under County regulations. Page 9 In the definition section, Commissioner Clark pointed out the definition of `projected area' and felt that the concept should not be used. Chairman Cartwright suggested that this issue be discussed in further detail with input from the public at the January 12, 1999 meeting City Attorney Lynch requested that Item No 4 under 'General Requirements on page 1 be inserted in Section D.4 a under `Exempt Antennas' and on page 5 the language be modified in D 4 a i to read as, ` roof mounted antennas that are not visible from in front of the house .. At this time the Commission discussed the 10 comments refected by the Ad Hoc Committee in regard to the 26 concerns indicated on the letter from the Amateur Radio Club. Concern No 1 - The Commission had agreed to further discuss this issue at the January 12, 1999 meeting. Concern No. 4 - Vice Chairman Lyon stated that the Ad Hoc committee addressed this concern and then read aloud what was written in the January 5, 1999 draft version The Commission concurred with the Ad Hoc Committee's various recommendations for refection Concern Nos 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, & 25 Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1999 Page 14 The commission concurred with the Ad Hoc committee's various recommendations for rejection. Although Draft No 2 was not discussed and reviewed among the Commission, Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any significant differences left between Draft No 2 and the January 5, 1999 draft version Staff replied that the major difference was the concept on 'projected area', which Staff would prefer not be included Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any major changes to the 'Commercial Antenna' section in the Staff/City Attorney Draft No 2 version Staff replied that there were only two minor changes in Draft No 2 which included the addition of A.1 d Vice chairman Lyon requested to add another condition to A.2 a. ii to read as, ' prevent damage to the surrounding resources in the event of a structural failure ' Staff stated that there was one more change in the commercial antenna section in A.2.e, that the word 'may' was added to this paragraph. City attorney Lynch informed the Commission of another change on page 2, No 9 a which reads, ' unless the use is located in a commercial zoning district.' City Attorney Lynch requested that this statement be added back into Draft No 2 The Commission agreed PUBLIC HEARINGS None. NEW BUSINESS None. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff - None. Commission Planning Commission Minutes January 6,1999 Page 15 Commissioner Clark announced that he would not be available for the January 12, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) ADJOURNMENT At 14:55 P.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, January 12, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Room at Hesse Park. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 1999 Page 16