[0:02] You are watching La Porte County Channel 97
[0:04] . Shortly, the
[0:06] Long Beach Advisory Planning Committee meeting to be held on October 5th will be
[0:09] broadcast. You can find more information about this meeting
[0:13] at www.accesslaportecounty.org
[0:15] .
[0:20] hello.
[0:25] Welcome to the Advisory Planning Committee meeting on October 5, 2026
[0:27] . The meeting
[0:31] starts at 7:02 PM. Everyone, please
[0:37] stand up to pledge allegiance to the national flag.
[0:40] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
[0:42] Republic it represents,
[0:44] one nation under God,
[0:46] indivisible nation, where
[0:48] liberty and justice are for all people
[0:52] .
[0:55] thank you. Diana,
[1:00] please confirm attendance.
[1:02] Tender Bartlett. McColins.
[1:06] I am participating via Zoom
[1:07] .
[1:09] Diana Holt. I am here
[1:11] . Matt Carstenson. Here it is
[1:13] .
[1:13] Stephanie Foreman.
[1:14] Here it is. Anita
[1:16] Remi Zis.
[1:17] attendance.
[1:19] Tomboy O'Bitch
[1:22] Hello, Tom.
[1:25] He froze. It's
[1:26] frozen.
[1:27] But he is here. It
[1:28] looks good.
[1:30] Tom, you aren't moving an inch.
[1:33] Ah, it's muted now, too.
[1:35] Attorney Chris Will Robbie
[1:37] is present. The microphone is
[1:39] off.
[1:40] i know. Tom, the microphone is off, but I
[1:42] know you are here
[1:44] . He's
[1:45] not moving an inch again. yes. It
[1:48] still looks good.
[1:51] Well, I hope everyone has seen the minutes from August 17, 2026
[1:56] . I
[1:59] will propose a motion to approve the minutes.
[2:01] second. To
[2:02] everyone who agrees. You
[2:04] must agree. I apologize for the call-out vote
[2:06] . Diana, would you like to vote by name
[2:08] ? yes
[2:10] . Matt Collins. yes
[2:12] .
[2:13] Diana Holt, yes. Matt Cass
[2:16] Trend. yes
[2:17] .
[2:17] Seth Putt Num. yes. Anita Lu
[2:20] Beach. yes.
[2:21] Tom Lubich. wait a minute. Russell
[2:26] Perry doesn't exist. There are
[2:30] plenty. Yes,
[2:32] that is correct. Hmm, I do
[2:33] n't have any.
[2:38] Changing the use of the community center park
[2:40] is not a new agenda. This is
[2:41] something that has already been discussed before. yes
[2:43] .
[2:44] There are no new agenda items. The
[2:46] existing agenda includes
[2:48] an update to the comprehensive plan. Um...
[2:52] so, we need to check if everyone has reviewed the content
[2:59] . I tried to organize some opinions
[3:10] based on what was discussed regarding the previous plan, but I was
[3:16] unable to finish the last few pages. I'm
[3:27] not sure if the others have finished. It
[3:33] seems like Tom had a few opinions. Seth, do you happen to have any particular
[3:36] thoughts?
[3:39] Would you like me to contact you by email? Our finance manager informed us that we have entered into a
[3:43] $14,500 contract with McKenna, so we
[3:50] need to reach an agreement regarding what they have done for us
[3:52] . I sent a
[4:01] note to Jim McManus regarding that amount
[4:02] . Jim will
[4:08] not be in the office on Monday and Tuesday, so I would
[4:13] like to check with him what is needed to finalize the comprehensive plan.
[4:17] And the second thing was to
[4:18] complete the map.
[4:22] Joey picked a small area at the bottom of the map that he
[4:23] said did not belong to Long Beach
[4:25] .
[4:32] I sent that photo to Jim. I
[4:35] also think that the map we gave them
[4:37] seems old
[4:38] . The
[4:42] local commercial district around the Hacienda was
[4:43] not marked. It was
[4:46] marked as a residential area,
[4:48] not a commercial area. Joey
[4:50] , Chris, and I came to the conclusion that the
[4:52] map is an old map and
[4:53] not an accurate map
[4:55] . It
[4:59] seems to be a map created in 2016. Yes,
[5:00] in that case, that map is probably correct
[5:01] .
[5:02] And to add to that, in my
[5:04] opinion, and since Meg kindly
[5:05] sent their resolution
[5:07] , I think it would be good to share it with everyone
[5:09] . In my opinion,
[5:15] they
[5:16] drew up a comprehensive plan and there were discussions and intentions to eliminate the commercial district and
[5:18] turn it into a residential area
[5:20] , but
[5:23] the map did not go through the
[5:25] zoning process to be officially adopted
[5:27] . So,
[5:29] I think there is still an
[5:31] opportunity to decide which direction to go
[5:32] . Seth, please correct me
[5:34] if I'm wrong
[5:36] . However, the current atmosphere suggests that they are
[5:38] not shutting down the business
[5:39] but maintaining it as is,
[5:41] right?
[5:42] you're right. yes. So,
[5:48] the business will be maintained, but
[5:50] disruptions resulting from the zone change will be applied
[5:52] .
[5:52] Right? Then, is there any
[5:55] material I need to send to McKenna
[5:56] ? Is there anything we
[6:02] need to discuss regarding the map I need to help with
[6:04] ? I think it is now
[6:10] time for me to discuss this together
[6:12] .
[6:13] When talking with McKenna, I think it would be better to proceed with that part
[6:15] more efficiently
[6:17] , or convey the necessary details first
[6:19] , and then
[6:25] quickly check with Seth the direction we have been heading so far
[6:27] . Seth
[6:31] did a lot of the editing work and things like that. This issue is
[6:34] becoming increasingly important. This is
[6:38] especially true if you want to finish this work within this year
[6:39] . This is because there are matters that need to be coordinated, including holding state-level public hearings related to housing development efforts
[6:45] . It is
[6:48] very important to proceed with this process
[6:50] . As we discussed in a
[6:53] brief meeting with Seth and Joey
[6:54] ,
[6:57] park site consolidation
[6:59] is the easiest part of the entire process. This is
[7:02] because you only need to convey the relevant information to the county
[7:03] . However, actually
[7:06] amending the ordinance to establish the zone
[7:08] and proceeding with all the procedures is
[7:10] simpler than you might think.
[7:13] great.
[7:18] In addition to the details regarding the fees, I will
[7:20] send another email to Jim suggesting that we have a brief discussion via Zoom video conference
[7:23] . You can
[7:26] do it with Jim and Seth, or Jim can do it alone
[7:27] . Yes, it's fine
[7:29] . You may bring
[7:30] Cessna and Jim along
[7:32] . I think it is important to use the
[7:34] village's funds wisely for all of us
[7:37] . Right?
[7:40] And while timing is important
[7:42] , it is also a time when these things need to be coordinated
[7:44] . For example,
[7:51] like the case where it was adopted in 2016 and then adopted again in 2017, but the map originally intended was not officially adopted. We have to make sure that does
[7:52] n't happen this time
[7:53] , right? yes.
[7:58] May I let you know once it is confirmed and ask if you can participate? Yes, it's fine.
[8:01] Or, if you include me in the email
[8:02] , I think we
[8:03] can coordinate things like the counter
[8:04] . yes. great.
[8:05] This Friday. yes. yes
[8:07] . yes. It's a nice birthday. Yes,
[8:10] I think so.
[8:11] No, it's fine. No, it's fine
[8:13] . Um, yes. great. So I
[8:21] sent an email to the group saying, "Please
[8:23] review the materials I sent,
[8:26] compare them with your notes or materials,
[8:28] finalize your thoughts, and
[8:30] set a deadline." I'm going to say that
[8:34] .
[8:34] Also, please feel free to share your opinions
[8:36] or wrap things up
[8:38] . Okay, I'll
[8:41] set it to 7 days. Because
[8:43] there is a regular meeting in two weeks.
[8:46] The deadline for submitting opinions
[8:47] is the 7th. Otherwise, that
[8:50] 's a shame. And please keep in mind that
[8:54] if a public hearing needs to be held in the future, a
[8:55] minimum of 10 days and a newspaper publication period are
[8:57] required
[8:58] . About 14 days should give you enough
[9:05] time to coordinate the schedule with the newspaper.
[9:08] So, it seems it will be difficult to hold a public hearing in October
[9:09] .
[9:12] But November might be possible
[9:14] . If you aim for November, you will be
[9:21] prepared for the possibility that something might happen or that the public hearing needs to be postponed
[9:23] . Until December. Hmm
[9:28] , but I think it would be best for the City Council to make a decision in December so that they
[9:31] can review all opinions, whether for or against
[9:35] .
[9:40] If the goal is to adopt it in 2026.
[9:42] great. Then, we will hold the public hearing
[9:49] at the APC meeting in November
[9:50] . And the City Council will
[9:53] review it at the December meeting
[9:54] . Because we will
[9:56] finalize everything at the regular meeting in October.
[9:58] great. I think it is
[10:00] very reasonable, too.
[10:01] And if additional details are needed, we
[10:03] could do that, but
[10:05] for now, let's try it this way
[10:06] . Tom, are you alright, Meg?
[10:09] Yes, it's fine. By doing this, you can have a
[10:13] little flexibility in scheduling
[10:15] . I do not
[10:17] want to be too lenient, but
[10:19] the City Council holds its
[10:21] regular meeting on the second Monday of every year as per custom
[10:22] .
[10:25] Therefore, there are a few options in case something happens or if we have to
[10:27] continue the meeting until December
[10:30] . There are a few
[10:32] options. And
[10:34] through this, Seth and I have the opportunity to
[10:36] organize what he did into the form of an ordinance
[10:38] . Then it will
[10:44] become material that can be submitted to the city council.
[10:45] great.
[10:47] We think so. Anita
[10:48] ? all
[10:49] right.
[10:54] Is two deliberations required for the City Council to approve this ordinance, or is it
[10:56] required only once?
[10:59] This is a bit different. Generally, as you
[11:05] know, once an ordinance is passed, it
[11:08] undergoes two rounds of deliberation and may be put on hold; however,
[11:10] due to the nature of your work, the
[11:12] procedures and public hearings are
[11:14] handled at your level. For example
[11:19] , let's assume that a recommendation is submitted to the city council and
[11:21] the council
[11:22] votes to accept it
[11:24] . If
[11:27] you propose
[11:30] several changes along with positive recommendations and the
[11:31] City Council
[11:33] adopts them as is, they will take effect immediately and
[11:37] be finalized after undergoing procedures such as public announcement.
[11:39] Simply put, multiple
[11:43] deliberations are not required. As I
[11:44] said before, the core of that theory is that
[11:48] you are playing an important role regarding announcements
[11:50] . thank you
[11:52] . great.
[11:56] Then, let's move on to Clause 154.202
[11:59] . I asked Seth to take
[12:01] charge of the discussion on this part
[12:03] .
[12:04] And Chris, we have
[12:06] talked about this topic before, but I do
[12:09] n't remember the exact answer.
[12:11] So, before getting to the main point
[12:12] , I would like to ask whether changes in use for public/quasi-public purposes
[12:17] and community centers/parks are
[12:24] included in the comprehensive plan or
[12:26] in the zoning code
[12:28] .
[12:29] Considering the timing and progress
[12:30] , it
[12:32] seems that all of this should be discussed together.
[12:34] Therefore, it would be best to finalize this part at the next meeting so that it can be
[12:40] processed promptly
[12:43] . The
[12:47] basic framework, such as building setback distances, has already been
[12:48] established. I think the
[12:51] deadline is getting closer
[12:53] . It will all
[12:54] proceed together. Yes,
[12:56] I agree as well. However, I
[12:58] think the comprehensive plan will
[13:02] likely create some kind of semi-public space... Or in the ordinance
[13:04] … In other words, should we add a clause regarding "quasi-public space" to the ordinance
[13:07] ? And
[13:12] should I specify the separation distance requirements for that?
[13:12] I have that data
[13:13] .
[13:14] You have one too, right?
[13:15] Yes, then we can reflect that in the ordinance
[13:17] . great. Then
[13:19] my work will be a bit easier
[13:21] . It's really good.
[13:28] So, aside from
[13:29] a few points of discussion Tom raised with me via email today
[13:31] , I
[13:33] think what we currently have is
[13:35] basically the
[13:37] finalized ordinance, or its amendment
[13:39] . The
[13:44] main difference from the last time is the inclusion of
[13:45] setback distance requirements for local commercial districts
[13:47] , and the details are
[13:49] shown in the chart.
[13:51] The bottom one. Hmm, and then I
[13:56] included a comprehensive phrase,
[13:58] but I'll have to look it up again.
[14:05] Number 154. Well, instead of number 051,
[14:10] as you know, things such as private garages, warehouses
[14:13] or storage buildings, private swimming pools,
[14:16] high decks, court arches, latticework, awnings, canopies, flagpoles,
[14:18] open
[14:20] terraces, open kitchens or
[14:23] cooking equipment, and fireplaces are
[14:25] allowed. And there is a
[14:28] list, and I
[14:29] added item number 11 to it, which is
[14:35] other similar subordinate buildings,
[14:36] structures, uses, or improvements that are customarily or reasonably incidental to the primary use
[14:38] . This gives the building committee an
[14:42] unusual amount of discretion, but it is
[14:49] impossible to create a perfect list that covers everything present and future. Therefore, I
[14:54] think it is reasonable to include this item. yes
[14:55] .
[14:58] Well,
[15:04] there is one change compared to what I distributed to you on Saturday: I have modified the part in Clause 154.054 that
[15:15] goes directly from B to D.
[15:17] So
[15:20] now it is in the order of A, B, C, D, E, F, G. It is
[15:24] a bit
[15:27] awkward, isn't it?
[15:28] However, other than that, we have incorporated all the
[15:30] opinions raised in the last few meetings
[15:31] . I
[15:41] would appreciate it if you could review this again over the next few weeks and let me know if you have any final comments
[15:42] . We will discuss and reflect this at the final meeting
[15:44] . The
[15:48] 154.051 that Tom mentioned, oh, right.
[16:02] It is Article 154. This provision
[16:10] allows for the operation of a very small-scale childcare business from home. As you know,
[16:17] Part 3 states that no one other than residents may
[16:21] provide childcare services
[16:24] . I think,
[16:31] and my intention, was to encourage mothers or others to provide paid after-school activities and childcare on a small scale, although this may become somewhat meaningless
[16:33] due to the current social structure of Long Beach
[16:45] . That is why I imposed a few
[16:52] restrictions. I am not sure if there are enough children in Long Beach to
[16:56] run childcare services, but
[17:00] if this provision is
[17:01] maintained, I think it is somewhat problematic to prohibit responsible
[17:03] people, perhaps licensed
[17:05] ones, from caring for children
[17:09] . However, I
[17:14] will leave the discussion on this part to you. That
[17:18] is exactly the point Thomas raised. If you want to allow people to run childcare businesses, let them
[17:21] run them.
[17:22] Because it doesn't make sense to attach the condition that only people living there can
[17:24] take care of the children
[17:27] .
[17:27] No.
[17:30] So, Tom, that was a good point
[17:32] . Did I understand your opinion
[17:34] correctly? yes
[17:35] . yes.
[17:39] Meg, is Meg still here?
[17:41] Yes, here it is. Meg,
[17:44] what do you happen to think about that
[17:46] ?
[17:46] Hmm, I read that earlier, and it was
[17:48] n't positive.
[17:51] Honestly, I didn't focus that much on that part
[17:53] , but I
[17:55] have a question. I might already
[17:59] know this, but
[18:00] procedurally, does it go
[18:02] directly to the City Council after passing through the Architectural Committee
[18:04] ? Or are you
[18:07] going back to the Architectural Committee
[18:09] ?
[18:10] Yes, yes, yes, we submitted this issue
[18:13] to the Architectural Committee, and
[18:15] the committee has
[18:16] already provided feedback and
[18:18] requested opinions, and we have received some feedback
[18:20] . In terms of procedural aspects
[18:23] ... if they are
[18:24] not participating, they are not involved in this work
[18:26] , but we are
[18:30] incorporating all the opinions they provided into this draft
[18:31] . However, the
[18:36] answer to the question of whether they have the final approval authority is 'no'.
[18:37] Yes, I was just curious. I'm
[18:41] not sure if I missed that part a few months ago.
[18:42] Yes, and if they
[18:44] wish to participate, they can attend public hearings just like those who have been
[18:47] observing the process and have been discussing the building committee so far, and they can also
[18:56] participate if an agenda item is submitted at the city council level. All
[18:58] documents
[18:59] were delivered to them. I
[19:03] mean the Building Committee, APC.
[19:05] Yes, I will let you know that if you want to send this content back
[19:07] to them to offer your opinion, you should do so right
[19:08] now
[19:09] . You
[19:10] must submit your opinion within 2 weeks
[19:11] .
[19:12] Yes, it's fine. I asked to
[19:14] check if I understood correctly
[19:15] . thank you
[19:16] . all right.
[19:18] So, what I'm saying is that the plan
[19:19] will proceed in this way?
[19:22] What do you think about the childcare issue discussed in relation to marriage? Should I
[19:24] leave this part as is
[19:25] or delete it? No,
[19:26] leave it.
[19:27] Or do you need time to review it
[19:28] ? Do you need time to modify the
[19:30] parts permitted by a licensed person
[19:32] ? Yes,
[19:33] I think it would be better to delete that clause
[19:35] .
[19:36] Yes, that is correct. great.
[19:38] Third deletion. Let's
[19:39] proceed as is. Yes, I
[19:41] agree.
[19:42] Yes, I'm fine too.
[19:44] great. And I would like to briefly mention
[19:50] one of the things Tom mentioned
[19:53] . As he said, it seems there
[19:55] was some confusion regarding Article 154.051
[19:57] . I assume that answers your question, so I will
[20:08] proceed directly to the relevant clause. Ah, it
[20:13] is 154.
[20:14] you're right.
[20:15] great. The purpose clause, that is, the
[20:19] 'purpose' in part A,
[20:23] concerns the distinction between remodeling and actual demolition.
[20:29] The purpose of this provision is to distinguish between substantial demolition
[20:31] (considered new construction) and the
[20:33] remodeling of an existing building
[20:35] . A
[20:41] habitable building or structure that can be maintained under the condition of complying with the limitations of this provision.
[20:43] So he wondered if the expression "that which may continue on the condition of complying with the limitations of this clause
[20:49] " was
[20:50] somewhat
[20:51] confusing.
[20:53] And he
[20:55] found the answer to the question himself. The
[20:57] part I modified is Clause C.
[21:03] Projects deemed as renovations are not required to comply with all provisions of this Chapter solely on the grounds that they are renovations, as long as the existing building or
[21:04] structure meets the standards
[21:09] .
[21:14] Therefore, the question is whether this object sentence is
[21:16] confusing enough to require correction
[21:18] .
[21:22] I think the second part
[21:28] helps clarify the meaning of "continues to be maintained
[21:30] ." yes
[21:31] . So, I think it would be good to modify the purpose sentence and
[21:38] add additional expressions to increase clarity
[21:39] .
[21:45] However, if the others are okay with it
[21:47] , it is fine as it is
[21:49] .
[21:51] I had two thoughts.
[21:53] One point is that the purpose is simply to explain the purpose
[21:55] , and that it is
[21:56] not the decisive one
[21:58] . The second is that I would like to add the phrase "that which may continue to be maintained on
[21:59] the condition that the limitations of this clause are complied with
[22:03] ." These
[22:05] are the limitations of Article 3 of this Agreement.
[22:07] So, you are referring to Article C of this Agreement
[22:08] or a similar clause
[22:10] . Then, please
[22:11] read Article C, and you will see that the
[22:14] relevant provisions apply to projects considered as remodeling
[22:16] . But, I'm not sure
[22:18] .
[22:19] I don't think there will be any problems. In my
[22:21] opinion, it is fine.
[22:23] This version you sent on Saturday does
[22:25] n't have Group C, right?
[22:27] That is what I saw. yes that's
[22:29] right.
[22:30] Group D, just as I thought. all right.
[22:33] But since it's set to ABD,
[22:35] now... yes, now... ah, I
[22:37] understand what you mean.
[22:39] I mean, in Group D. Yes, I understand
[22:42] .
[22:46] All right.
[22:55] I think it will be fine.
[22:57] Chris, is there anyone else?
[23:01] Are we all ready? Yes,
[23:04] please start. great. I
[23:07] think there is still time to discuss and
[23:09] make changes, but if there are any changes
[23:11] ... yes.
[23:13] Then please let me know the changes
[23:14] . When is the next meeting?
[23:16] 7 days from now? How about 7 days
[23:18] ? Well, the next meeting is in two weeks
[23:20] . great. We
[23:23] would appreciate it if you could submit your feedback within 7 days. I
[23:25] agree. Then, if
[23:29] you submit your feedback within 7 days, I will
[23:31] review it promptly and send you the
[23:32] final version 5 days before the next meeting
[23:34] .
[23:36] Then you will be able to secure enough
[23:38] time to indicate corrections if necessary
[23:40] .
[23:41] great. Yes, the deadline for
[23:44] submitting comments on the comprehensive plan update is
[23:46] also set to 7 days
[23:48] . great.
[23:54] Then, let's
[23:56] move on to the change of use for the community center park
[23:57] .
[24:11] There is nothing specific to add, but
[24:13] the deadline for submitting the proposed text in its final form
[24:15] will remain the same. We
[24:24] have already secured the suggestions provided by Mr. Joy and the park management department, such as building line setback distances. I contacted the county and
[24:30] received council approval to integrate the relevant matters, and the process is
[24:31] very simple.
[24:36] I would appreciate it if you could submit the final version by the next meeting. Those matters will
[24:40] be integrated through the joint efforts of Chairman Schmidt and myself, and
[24:42] then preparations will be complete
[24:43] . Finally, I would like to
[24:54] say that we will provide information about the area in advance through conversations with consultants so that necessary measures can be taken. Yes, that's
[24:56] good. Then I will add it to the meeting agenda
[24:58] .
[25:01] I mean maps and community centers. I will inform you about these two things:
[25:03] rezoning and the community center
[25:07] .
[25:11] Yes, that is correct. I
[25:14] will clarify this for my notes. We
[25:19] plan to finalize the details at the next meeting or within 7 days
[25:21] . Yes, that is
[25:29] because I plan to organize these changes into an ordinance together with Seth. If you do
[25:33] that, it will be perfectly included in the ordinance
[25:36] . It will be able to be
[25:37] submitted before the next meeting
[25:38] . all
[25:40] right. It's
[25:42] within 7 days, right?
[25:44] And is it correct that we have the meeting on October 19th
[25:45] ? Yes, that's
[25:49] good. Then, that part is
[25:55] fine as well. Then, let's move on to the public hearing
[26:00] . There are
[26:04] no attendees at the public hearing. Let's move on to
[26:06] listening to citizens' opinions
[26:07] . There are
[26:10] very few citizens here. There were few
[26:14] participants via Zoom
[26:16] , so there are no opinions.
[26:25] Am I reading the meeting minutes right now?
[26:26] No, I am reading the meeting minutes
[26:28] . Please wake me up.
[26:32] Well then, let's move on to the closing agenda
[26:34] . The next meeting
[26:40] will be held two weeks later, on October 19 at 7 p.m. Please submit
[26:46] all opinions on the three agenda items to Seth within 7 days
[26:48] , that is, within one week from today
[26:51] . Speak your opinion
[26:56] or remain silent forever
[26:57] .
[26:58] Yes, that is correct.
[27:01] It's a common occurrence here. Well then, I will wrap up here
[27:04] . I propose a motion to end the meeting at 7:29
[27:09] . I agree.
[27:11] Thank you, Matt.
[27:15] Mike Collins? yes
[27:17] .
[27:18] Diana Holt? yes
[27:19] .
[27:20] Matt Kass Trend? yes
[27:21] .
[27:22] Mr. Seth McCormick? yes
[27:23] . Ms.
[27:23] Anita Remy Zis? yes
[27:25] .
[27:26] Mr. Tomboy Ditch? yes
[27:28] . We will
[27:28] now conclude the meeting.
[27:30] Thank you all.