PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

September 29,2011

CITY OF WOODLAND HILLS

MINUTES OF A REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

September 29, 2011

Chairman Wayne Frandsen welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of time, place, and agenda were posted at the City Information Bulletin Board located at 200 South Woodland Hills Drive and at the CityCenter. Those present for the Planning Commission Meeting were Chairman Wayne Frandsen, Commissioners Doug Pinder, Rick Griffiths, Alternate Commissioner David Pratt, Planning Commission Secretary Sheryl DeHart. Commissioners Keith Crandall, and Stan Houghton were excused. CommissionerRick Griffiths led the pledge and Commissioner Doug Pinderoffered the invocation.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

May 26, 2011: Chairman Frandsen introduced David Pratt who is the new Alternate Planning Commissioner. Chairman Frandsen explained that the Alternate steps in when needed. The Alternate is a part of the Planning Commission but will not vote.

Chairman Frandsen noted some changes with the minutes. He took some time to go over the changes. The changes were noted. Chairman Frandsen moved to approve the minutes of the May 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting as per the commissions corrections. Motion passed unanimously.

BUSINESS AND DISCUSSION ISSUE

City Council request for the Planning Commission to review City Code Title One Chapter 4 Section 101 of the Woodland Hills City Code.

Chairman Frandsen stated that there are two City Ordinances that The City Council wants the wording changed to facilitate the citizens in the City. He opened the meeting up for discussion.

Chairman Frandsen explained that the City Council requests that the Planning Commission review the Ordinance and recommend changes and additions as described below to rewrite a more accurate and precise definition of what constitutes a “firearm”. The City Council also asked about the possible removal of the verbiagesof blowgun, wrist rocket, etc. The City Council also ask for an appropriate language that would allow for individuals to obtain a permit that would, with specified adequate safety precautions in place, allow individuals to discharge a bow on their property for target practice.

Commissioner Pinder stated that he talked to Commissioner Stan Houghton who said that there is a good definition that the school systems use. Commissioner Pinder thought that the schools definition would be something that they should check into. Chairman Frandsen asked Commissioner Pinder if he could obtain a copy of that definition that the schools use. He also stated that he thought it was a good idea to use something that the school and government use than to write our own. .

Commissioner Griffiths asked for some discussion on what constitutes a firearm. Chairman Frandsen stated that heput together some information on this subject. Alternate Commissioner Pratt questioned the word weapon. There was some discussion on how the word weapon is used. Commissioner Pinder questioned why the City needs this clarification made. Chairman Frandsen stated that it is confusing to home owners who want to go into their yards to have target practice. At this point the home owners have to come before the City Council to get a license to shoot a bow and arrow, wrist rocket etc. for target practice in his yard. If the projectile goes outside of the boundaries, would a license be necessary?Chairman Frandsen stated that he thinks the way the City looks at this is that the arrows or projectiles are confined before they will approve of a citizen doing that. Commissioner Pinder asked what other cities do with their definitions. There was some discussion about keeping the projectiles within their lot space.He asked Alternate Commissioner Pratt to research other city ordinances to see how they have addressed this matter. Commissioner Pinder offered to look into that also.

On the firearms ordinance the Planning Commission will get additional information from schools, other cities, etc. to see how they have defined the word firearms in their rules and ordinances. The Planning Commission will also look into how we might separate firearms from the rest of the” weaponary”listed to put them into a separate class and better address them in the ordinance.

City Council request for the Planning Commission to review Chapter 117.05 of the Woodland Hills Zoning Ordinance.

Chairman Frandsen stated that the City Council requests that the Planning Commission look at the City Ordinance. The Council would like the ordinance to contain language regarding political signs. The Council requests that the Planning Commission look at the City Ordinance and recommend additional wording. Specifically, although the City Council’s intention is for political signs in the city to be unrestricted as to size and placement on private property, the City Council is looking to the Planning Commission to craft language in the ordinance that will clarify that political signs are unrestricted except that such signs are prohibited in the City right-of-way and on any other City-owned property.

Chairman Frandsen stated that after some discussion, there was a unanimous feeling that political signs needed to be restricted in size and that the language in the existing ordinance of the sign having a maximum size of 6 square feet would be good to use. This same size is used in other parts of the City sign ordinance as well. Politics being what it is at times we could see instances of extremely large signs placed throughout the City, each candidate trying to outdo another with the size of their signs. This would be a distraction to the City environment and take away from some of the beauty of the community if we let signs be as big as they wanted them to be.

Chairman Frandsen stated that there was another issue that came up that the Commission was not asked to address, but where all Planning Commission Members expressed similar concerns, this was the density of signs around the City. Currently there is nothing to prevent any number of political signs at any one location. A person could put 10 of the same signs on their property all for the same candidate. Again this takes away from the beauty of the City with the potential for signs to be placed in such groupings. Our thoughts were to allow a maximum of one sign for any one candidate on one lot at a time. So a person could support 5 different candidates for the City, state or local office and have a sign for each of them displayed on their lot, but not two for the same person. Further, another item the City did not ask us to address but came up in our discussions was the length of time a sign or signs are allowed to be displayed. We feel that the current time period of 45 days before an election and 5 days after is a good time period.

Chairman Frandsen stated that with the added issue of addressing the density of political signs and adjusting the right of way placement issue, the Planning Commission felt that the current ordinance is a good one and should be kept regarding political signage.

The Planning Commission felt that if the City drops any size requirement and further allows excessive signs to be displayed on ones property, it will detract from the “look” of the City and take away from the type of environment that we are trying to keep in the City. The Planning Commission will draft such language at the next Planning Commission Meeting for the City Council to review.

.MISCELLANIOUS;

MOTION TO ADJOURN: Commissioner Pinder moved to adjorn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.The motion was seconded by Chairman Frandsen. Motion passed unanimously.

Submitted by Sheryl DeHart, secretary

cc: Jody Stones

1

APPROVED