Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - April 3 !, ) r,.., /..l 3 '- r'f .......i ,~. 'L:r ' Cassie.. MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange April 3, 2000 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Smith John Godlewski, Principal Planner. Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEMTOBEWITHDRAWN } ~ : t ~ OJ t:J/ G ~ 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2314-99 AND VARIANCE 2080-99 - TEREZIA GIURGIU A request to convert an existing office building to a 28-bed rest home for the elderly. The proposal includes enlarging the existing building. The site is located at 1407 East Collins Avenue. _}':.:~~r;J ;'cT,j~) _. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicant requested to withdraw her request. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to accept the withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 2314-99 and Variance 2080-99. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of March 20, 2000 - (pulled for discussion) MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Minutes of March 20, 2000 with corrections to Pages 1 and 4 regarding Tentative Parcel Map 2000.117, rather than Tentative Tract Map. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 3. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 136-00 - SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF ORANGE - (pulled for discussion) A request to demolish an existing 80 unit residential hall and construct a new 80 unit residential hall. The site is located at 480 South Batavia Street. 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2000 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. No one was present indicating opposition to this item. The public hearing was opened. Sister Marv Bernadette McNultv. 480 South Batavia Street, wrote a letter indicating that within 12 months of occupancy of the new facility they would begin to demolish the old residence. However, when she read the staff report the demolition is to begin within three months and they can agree to that time frame. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve Major Site Plan Review 136-00 with conditions 1 through 9 listed in the staff report, amending condition 5 by revising the last sentence: "The ultimate dedication to conform with City of Orange Special PrOject #32-84, with a loss of no more than three (3) parking spaces." The Commission finds that the project will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses, it conforms to the City's development standards and applicable design guidelines and specific plan requirements. The project will not cause significant negative environmental impacts. The on and off-site circulation is adequate to support the project and City services are available and adequate to serve the project. The project is compatible with community aesthetics. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 4. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-03 - PATRICIA RICCI A request to demolish an existing garage and to allow the construction of a new garage and a patio trellis. Applicant requests reductions in garage width and setback requirements through an administrative adjustment process. The site is located at 618 East Culver Avenue within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1633-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Godlewski noted a couple of corrections in the staff report. Under Project Description on Page 1, it calls out a new 155 sq. ft. storage shed in the first paragraph. It's actually a 15 sq. ft. storage shed. At the bottom of the second page, second to the last paragraph, it states the applicant is requesting a 20% Administrative Adjustment on garage width. It's a 10% Administrative Adjustment. The plans show the applicant's request to be 10% through staff's analysis. There was no opposition to this item and the public hearing was opened. Doualas Elv. 139 North Waverlv Street, is the architect for the project. The applicant is attempting to remove an existing garage and is proposing to build a new garage that is more in conformance with the garages in Old Towne. They understand that 6 feet is required for the separation of the house and garage per the building code. 2 Plannin9 Commission Minutes April 3, 2000 The public hearing was closed. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1633-00, finding that the project as proposed is consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Conformance with the plans as proposed presents no impacts to the historical resource or to the Old Towne Orange Historic District itself. And, approve Administrative Adjustment 00-03 with conditions 1 through 7, which includes condition 1 requiring the separation between the garage and main house to be six feet (6'-0"). The reduction in standards will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working on the property and in the vicinity. And that approval of the request does not compromise the intent of the zoning ordinance. The findings and conditions relative to the Administrative Adjustment help provide the mitigations indicated in the Negative Declaration. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2326-00 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-04 - KEN ARTHUR A request to allow the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new two-car garage and workshop with a new second-story unit over the garage. The project includes two parallel open parking stalls on the south edge of the driveway. The site is located at 133 North Shaffer Street and is within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1632-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Godlewski explained there were a couple of corrections in the staff report. On Page 2, under Development Standards, the Driveway (aisle) width (minimum clearance) requirement is 12'. The proposal is for 10'-3", not 9'-6", which resulls in a request for a 15% reduction. On the last requirement, the requirement for a stall size is 10' x 24'. The proposal is for a 9' x 24', which is a 10% reduction. The applicant is requesting to demolish the 375 square foot detached existing garage, which was built in approximately 1913, and to build a new two-car garage with a workshop. The total floor area is equivalent to a three-car garage. The second unit will be built over the garage structure. In order to meet the requirements for two units on a lot, it is met by two of the garage stalls being the enclosed parking and it also requires two open parking spots. The proposal is to have those open parking spots along the driveway, south of the existing residence, as parallel parking in a wide driveway. The result is parking spots that are approximately 9' wide and a driveway that is a little over 10' wide, getting back to the two 9arage spots on the property. The conditional use permit request is because there is a two story structure being proposed and it is in the Old Towne Historic District. This item was reviewed by the Design Review Committee and the DRC found that the project, as proposed, was conforming to the Old Towne Design Standards and fhe Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. They listed three conditions with this approval that included the design of the garage doors had to stay the same or be submitted to the DRC for approval, that care should be taken during construction to avoid damage to the roots of an existing specimen Oak tree on the property, and that the detailing and colors of the new building should match the existing building. One of the comments made in the staff report was the discussion on the floor area ratio. The FAR for this application is .42. 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2000 The public hearing was opened. Ken Arthur. 133 North Shaffer Street. would like to demolish his garage and build a new structure with a unit over the garage. to be used by his family members. His plans were drawn in 1991 and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Half of the project was built (the addition to the main house) and at that time they did not proceed with the addition of the new garage and unit. There has been some interest in the elevations of the south and east side. People are asking why he didn't put more windows on the south side of the unit. The south side looks into Coco's parking lot and he wanted to avoid putting in a window. The east elevation includes a kitchen and bathroom, and there is a window proposed for the bathroom. He believed the proposed structure would be a buffer for the street. He intends to use the third garage as a workshop and to store equipment, and cars will not be parked on that side of the garage. He intends to retain the Oak tree on the property. Mr. Godlewski noted for the record that a letter, dated April 3, was received from Tom and Mary Matuzak. 4 oeoole sooke in oooosition to this oroiect Janet Crenshaw, 464 North Shaffer. Anne Siebert. 340 South Olive Street. Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street. Shannon Tucker, 206 North Pine Street. They had questions about the parking and circulation on the property. There was a concern about the second unit being used for business. There is always the issue of bulk and mass. which will impact the immediate neighbors. The FAR is a concern. The current FAR is .29. Before the applicant built the addition it was .24 or .25. The project that is being built is doubling the FAR and it is too big for the property. Most of Old Towne is between 20% and 30% of the FAR. The existing garage has some beautiful characteristics. If the siding and doors can be salvaged or re-used, that would help as an alternative to demolition. Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Arthur stated the second unit requires the two additional parking spaces. He does not plan to rent the unit so that will eliminate two cars. He wants to use the parking area for his cars and boat. He offered his old garage to anyone who could use it. In 1991, the FAR was not addressed. The location of the new building will not impact the neighborhood and the large Oak tree will help to soften the elevation to the south. The Commission and applicant talked about the proposed project. In 1991 plans were approved to build an addition to the back of the main house. In the three-car garage. a separate workshop is proposed and the applicant prefers to put in a single garage door rather than an entry door. Architectural elements are preferred on the east side of the elevation rather than a blank wall. Mr. Arthur did not object to stipulating to maintain and protect the existing Oak tree along the driveway. The Commission would like to see every reasonable effort made to re-utilize the materials from the existing garage. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton asked staff what the maximum FAR is in Old Towne. Mr. Godlewski responded the zoning ordinance specifies an FAR of .70. It's hard to say what the maximum FAR is allowed in Old Towne. Averages are much less than .70. The Old Towne Design Standards specify a need for the compatibility of the project with the surrounding District. Commissioner Pruett recognizes the project was considered some time ago in a two-stage process. And, the FAR was something that was not discussed at that time. He's concerned with the bulk and mass of the project. The findings have to be within the context of the historical district. 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2000 Commissioner Romero was concerned about seeing a large plain sided building from Chapman Avenue. He thought the FAR is too dense. He dislikes seeing a huge line of vehicles in someone's yard when there is a three~ar garage. Chairman Bosch didn't have a problem with the two story unit if the design is such that it is appropriate to the context and scale of the house to which it is adjacent, and to the adjacent properties. It is necessary to consider the floor area ratio, not as a number by itself, but in the context of the overall development standards of the Old Towne Design Guidelines, and the appearance of the bulk and mass that goes with the detailing and design of the structure that is proposed. It's possible to have an appropriately designed building with a higher FAR than this on a lot. And, it is also possible that a lower FAR is necessary because of the particular design of the building. He has a problem with the lack of articulation to the facades on the south and east sides. He does not believe the building will have a visual impact on Chapman Avenue. He thought some articulation could be done to the facades that would benefit the neighboring properties without being detrimental to the environment for people who might live in a second floor unit over a garage in the back yard of this home. This is a residential zone; not a commercial or industrial zone, thus a workshop would be seen as a home hobby and not as an extension of a general contracting firm. He asked if the relaxation or the adjustmenf requested in terms of driveway width and the stacking of parking cars to meet the code requirement make sense in terms of what it preserves. In terms of the environmental quality review of the historical structure that it preserves. He starts to lean in that favor. The third garage door cannot be seen from the street because it is behind the house. He's less concerned about the garage door than the architectural design of the building. The project needs extra design work to reduce the apparent bulk and mass through the detailing of it. The approvals on the building go with the property. If Mr. Arthur decides to move, the building will still be there and could be rented out. Commissioner Carlton said the DRC found the project to be in conformance and the FAR is not the maximum. The height is under what is allowed by code. She would like to see the single garage door eliminated. She would also like to see some enhancements made to the south and east elevations of the property. People park their cars all over the place so there is no way to control that. It was moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett, for discussion, to deny Conditional Use Permit 2326-00, Administrative Adjustment 00-04 and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1632-00, finding that the employment of the applicant, the potential large workshop, the lack of detail on the east and south elevations, and the size of the new construction would not be considered sound principles of land use and not be a response to services required by the community. Commissioner Carlton will vote against the motion because she believed a continuance is more appropriate to allow the applicant to come back with a revised plan. The Commission asked the applicant if he were willing to accept a continuance and revise his plans, based on the concerns expressed at the meeting. Mr. Arthur agreed to a continuance. The first motion died and a substitute motion was made. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to continue Conditional Use Permit 2326-00 and Administrative Adjustment 00-04 and to the meeting of May 15, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2000 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2327-00 (MODIFICATION TO CUP 2158-96) C&C CORPORATION (CASK 'N CLEAVER) A request to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages including distilled spirits, beer and wine in a restaurant, with meals. The site is located at 186 North Atchison Street. NOTE: This project is. categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Godlewski said there is concern over the hours of operation. The applicant's understanding of alcohol sales ceasing one hour before closing was not completely clear and he would like to discuss this with the Commission. The public hearing was opened. Duavne Bliss, 8651 Madrone Avenue, Rancho Cucamonqa, is with C&C Corporation. The hours of operation on their application was from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. In discussing the hours ot operation with the Police Department and City staff, they have found out that alcohol can be served up to one hour betore closing. He requested to change the hours of operation to seven days a week from 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m. and alcohol sales to cease at 12 midnight, or one hour prior to close of business. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Conditional Use Permit 2327-00, with conditions 1 through 5, and adding condition 6 that the proposed hours of the Cask 'N Cleaver Restaurant will be from 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m., and alcohol sales to cease one hour prior to close of business, seven days a week, finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located. The CUP is considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans. It is granted and made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 7. APPEAL NO. 473 (RE: DRC #3384) . LEMAR LUNDQUIST An appeal of a DRC decision to approve a request to re-side a historic single-family home with new material over original historic material. The site is located at 133 South Shaffer Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Godlewski said this is a proposal to re-side a contributing structure in the Historic Old Towne District. The applicant has been in process with this application since October, 199B. Originally the applicant came to the City and requested to re-side his building in masonite. That process has evolved to the point where the City Council took the appeal on the masonite question and directed staff to work with the applicant in 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2000 finding a siding material that is a redwood material or that is acceptable to the Old Towne Design Standards. Council stated that the masonite material was not acceptable. Stall worked with the applicant and presented to the City Council three alternatives. The first alternative was to patch and repair the original material, peeling oil the plywood that is currently on the structure. The second alternative was to remove the plywood and remove the historic siding material, and replace it with new material milled to match the original material. The third alternative was to cover the existing plywood that is on the building with new material that is milled to match what was originally on the structure. Stall brought the question forward to the Design Review Committee because the applicant chose to mill material that is an exact duplicate of whaf is currently on the house, but apply it to the outside of the plywood. The window and door trims would be furred out to cover the proposed material. The DRC reviewed the options and at their first meeting looked at the various alternatives and had some concems with the way it was presented. They continued the item to allow the applicant to mock up a small portion of the building to show what the siding would actually look like on top of the plywood, on top of the original siding. The DRC continued their meeting and met on site. All members of the committee reviewed the proposal and they felt it was a reasonable solution, ending up with a structure that is reasonably compatible with the historic district and still retains the original historic material underneath the process so that future owners, if they wish to rehabilitate the structure to its original condition, would still have the original material to work with. Although this is not the optimum decision, stall supports the cover of the existing alternative mostly to settle this issue and allow the applicant to move forward with a completed structure. In order to ensure that this doesn't happen again, staff has been working and training all staff members, Committees, Commissions and Council so that there is a better understanding as to what can be approved in the future. There have been 12 study sessions and special staff training sessions with Building, Planning, DRC, Planning Commission and City Council to go over the new policies with historic preservation consultants and staff experts. Chairman Bosch noted that stall's memo indicated a follow up partial removal to identify whether the plywood could be removed satisfactorily without further destruction to the original redwood siding. Mr. Godlewski responded the plywood removal was not requested of the applicant. After further discussion with the historic preservation consultant it became a question of who is actually qualified to look at the underlying historic material and whether or not a decision could be made to recommend whether that material is totally destroyed or partially destroyed or even able to be rehabilitated. Chairman Bosch said since a partial mock up was done and in review of the proposed details of the new siding being installed over the plywood, he asked if there has been an analysis of potential penetration of the plywood by the nailing of the new siding. Is it possible to secure the siding appropriately and in conformance with building code requirements without damaging the original redWOOd? Mr. Godlewski said an analysis has not been done. The public hearing was opened. Marv Anne Skoroanich spoke on behalf of the Old Towne Preservation Association. They did not think that this process should ever have happened. OTPA felt they had to file this appeal because their main goal is preserving historic structures in the historic district. Robert Imboden. 226 West Palmvra, presented the OTPA's appeal because the DRC's determination regarding Mr. Lundquist's project is not based on the standards they are required to follow. The Old Towne Design Standards are quite clear in regards to the maintenance, repair and alteration of historic strucfures. The Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for preserving historic buildings are even more precise. He commented on the three options discussed by the DRC. They prefer the first option of 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2000 tearing off the plywood down to the original redwood siding. The third option is inconsistent with the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines. OTPA does not believe that an adequate determination of the condition of the overall building can be made as long as the plywood remains in place. Ms. Skorpanich summarized their presentation. They requested that the Commission uphold their appeal. They want to see a proper adherence to the standards. It will set a precedent if an exception is made. Commissioner Romero asked if the opposition was due to the altering of the door and window trim with the furring. Mr. Imboden said the entire process of layering new material over the existing material is not a common approach for historic preservation. The alteration is going to damage the existing redwood. Ms. Skorpanich said their primary objection is that the Secretary of Interior's Standards state that new material should only be introduced when the existing historic material cannot be restored. New material is being introduced on top of the old material. This procedure is not allowed. Chairman Bosch's recollection of the Secretary of Interior's Standards state something to the effect "should be avoided whenever possible". Should is not an absolute, but "whenever possible" is interpretable. Ms. Skorpanich said their reading of the Standards forces them to conclude that this method is not in compliance with those Standards. No one knows if that historic material can be restored. Perhaps there hasn't been the due diligence to investigate that. A number of OTPA members have restored their own homes and have removed asbestos siding from the outside of the house. Mr. Godlewski stated staff's concern was that once the plywood was applied to the historic material, it was assumed there was damage to the original material. The reason the plywood was applied in the first place was because of the condition of the siding was not optimum for repainting according to the applicant. It was felt that by just leaving the plywood on the house at least the original material is still on the building and could be salvaged by someone in the future. Commissioner Carlton wanted clarification on DRC's fourth condition regarding a seismic strap being installed from the inside so it wouldn't be visible from the exlerior. Mr. Godlewski explained part of the project that the applicant undertook was to tie the wooden structure of the house to the foundation with seismic straps. It's a metal strap that goes from the side of the building down to the foundation and ties it in. The DRC stated the straps are not consistent with the exterior of the building and needs to be installed on the inside so that they are hidden from view. 3 people sooke in favor of the aooeal Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street. Shannon Tucker, 206 North Pine Street. Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive Street. They believed the repair to the original redwood is the right thing to do. The City needs to take the extra step and help the applicant meet the Design Standards. Also, the City should hire someone specifically to remove the plywood siding and to do an evaluation of the underlying condition of the redwood siding. Ms. Tucker has restored the original siding of her house at 556 Culver Avenue, and had to replace 500 linear feet of siding that they retrieved from a salvage yard. They were disappointed in the total disregard tor the value of the home and its contribution to the Historic District. This home is one of the oldest homes in the district and it was a contributing structure before the plywood was put on the house. This compromises the neighborhood and the district. 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2000 2 oeoole sooke in oooosition to the aooeal Lemar Lundquist, 627 East Barkley. Pat Lenahan, 1556 North Case. The owner does not want to take the plywood off of the building because of his age and health. The City Council instructed him to put redwood siding on the house. The plywood acts as a vapor barrier and prevents water from seeping into the structure. There are over 10,000 nails that went through the plywood and original redwood. The contractor also spoke against tearing off the plywood to restore the original siding. Aooellant's resoonse Ms. Skorpanich responded to comments made regarding the vapor barrier and restoration of the historic house. It's important to maintain a level playing field and that the rules be applied to everyone. By covering up the house it is recreating something new. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton asked why one section was not taken oft so that it could be examined. This would settle the question of what the condition of the redwood is underneath the plywood. Until that is done, she could not see moving forward with the other method. Mr. Godlewski said they were not sure that a 4x8 section of the building would actually prove one way or the other whether or not the wood was destroyed for the entire structure. Chairman Bosch asked if consideration was given to the south wall because he remembers that it had heavy deterioration through previous modifications. It appeared to be in the worst condition prior to the application of the plywood. Mr. Godlewski acknowledged that the south side of the building was in the worst shape and the applicant has stipulated that the south side had the most exposure. They don't remember what the condition of the other sides are like because they only saw the south side. Commissioner Romero could not see a difference in the restoration of the house using the alternative option of applying redwood over the plywood. He did not think the net effect would be detrimental or negative. The comment made by the Secretary ot Interior's Standards was "should" be followed; not required. He believes Mr. Lundquist has put forth every effort that he possibly could have in accommodating the Old Towne Preservation Association. The shear strength that the plywood and additional redwood is adding energy efficiency. With the 10,000 nail holes having to be filled and patched, he questioned the integrity of the original redwood. He's not in favor of the appeal. Commissioner Carlton stated Mr. Lundquist originally had no intention of putting on redwood siding. He was going to put up synthetic siding over the plywood. Everyone was at a disadvantage because the original siding was covered up before a thorough investigation could be made. Now, Mr. Lundquist is having the new redwood siding specially milled to fit the house. Commissioner Pruett agrees with the OTPA and believes they should be trying to find a way to preserve the historic value of the structure if at all possible. He did not think there was any malice by anyone. The intentions were good from the outset. But there is a conflict with the project and that of the National Historic District in Old Towne and he struggles with what is the appropriate thing to do. He was concerned that an evaluation ot the house was not made and without a determination, they cannot make a judgment as to whether or not the original character of the building can be preserved. He is of the opinion to uphold the appeal from the standpoint that there needs to be more information. 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2000 Chairman Bosch would also like to know what is under the plywood. The Commission cannot cause an investigation of the wood to occur because they don't have that authority. However, they can determine whether or not they have enough information to make a reasonable decision. By pulling the wood off on the south side could tell many things. The wood might be in terrible shape on the south side as Mr. Lundquist and his contractor stated in the very beginning of this process. There may also be a way to repair the redwood siding, or just replace the most damaged siding. He would like for the original wood to be restored, but he doesn't have enough information. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Appeal No. 473 (Re: DRC #3384). AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett Commissioner Romero Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED The Commission acknowledged and shared Mr. Lundquist's frustration; however, they had no other choice than to uphold the appeal. Hopefully, this can be resolved but the issues are beyond the authority of the Planning Commission. They recommended that City staff and OTPA find a consultant who can undertake the kind of process that is needed and be sure that it is done ri9ht. Further care is needed to make sure Mr. Lundquist is not further damaged along the way. Ms. Binning explained the appeal rights to Mr. Lundquist. A waiver of costs can be included in the staff report to the City Council. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. The joint study session with City Council, scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 2000, has been delayed. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Isld 10