Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-1999 PC MinutesUSSr f/ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange September 8, 1999 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m.PFlESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PFIESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith Commissioners Carlton, Romero Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Principal Planner Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer t!7 : e E" d.:r; 2;;IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR Y~:.r~J A.1.IJ -Item 2 was pulled from the Consent Calendar and heard separately.1, Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of August 16, 1999.3, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1608-99 - PRISCILLA SELMAN A proposal to allow the removal of an enclosed porch and small rear dormer, the restoration of the original porch and installation of a new matching dormer at the rear of a 1915 Craftsman Bungalow. The proj'9ct is located within the Old Towne Orange District and is addressed 191 South Cambridge Street.RECOMMENDATION: Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1608-99.4, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2186-97 - METRO CAR WASH A request for a one (1) year extension of a conditional use permit allowing the construction and operation of an automotive lube facility. The site is located at 387 North Tustin Street.RECOMMENDATION: Grant a one (1) year extension for Conditional Use Permit 2186-97. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED 2. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1605-99 - PAUL HUDSON A proposal to demolish the rear portion of a 1 1/2 story, 1911 Craftsman Bungalow and construct a new 1 1/2 story, 1,454 sq. ft. addition at the rear of the structure. The project is located within the Old Towne Orange Historic District and is addressed 212 South Orange Street. (This item was continued from the August 16, 1999 meeting.) Mr. Jones reported the proposal is to expand both the first floor and second floor living areas at the rE!ar of thE! residence. It includes a reconstruction and an extension of the existing second story dormer at the rear of the structure. The Design Review Committee (DRe) reviewed the project at their July 21 meHting. The primary concern is related to the size of the second floor addition and a proposal to raise or replace Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1 99B the existing dormer ridge at the rear to the same height as the main ridge line of the house. The DRC'sthree (3) conditions are outlined in the staff report, and they recommended approval subject to the three3) conditions: 1) to lower the second story dormer at the rear of the property; 2) to make the second flooradditionlookmorelikeadormerratherthananextensionoftherooflineofthesecondfloor; and 3) to ensure that the exterior finish materials are consistent with those used to construct the house originally. The applicant revised their plans somewhat to lower the dormer ridge line. There is some concern that theproposedplansdoesn't fully address the intent of the ORC. Mr. Jones reviewed the original and revised plans with the Commission, and referred to the plans by date. The public hearing was opened. Rick Anderson, 128 South Glassell, was available to answer the Commission's questions. The ownerwi:~hes to have the full width (gable) with the lowered roof line rather than a dormer, Paul Hudson, 212 South Oranqe Street, spoke about his project and passed out additional information and pictures to the Commission. The house is a very simple shape with its roof lines. The public hearing was closed. The Commission thought the ridge line has been lowered by a reasonable amount. Any greater reductionwouldreducethefloorareasubstantially, The DRC has done a good job in identifying what was a bit oVI~rpowering and out of historical context. It's unfortunate that the revised plans have not been revil~wedbytheORC. The balcony is of some concern as well. The Commission needs to interpret what "moredOI'mer-like" means. They preferred to send the project back to the DRC with the applicant's revised plan, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue MitigatedNegativeDeclaration1605-99 to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 4, 1999, and refer theapplicant's revised plans back to the Design Review Committee to determine compliance with DRC's original intent. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2294-99 - ORANGE COAST COMMUNITY CHURCH A n~quest to allow the development of a residentially-zoned property as a community church, witha2,880 square-foot chapel and approximately 36 parking spaces. The new chapel isproposedtobeconstructedofmodular (or pre-fabricated) units. The site is located at 245 South Flower Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1600-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, presented the full staff report, as therewasoppositiontothisitem. The applicants are no longer proposing to assemble the chapel with modularunits. They are still thinking of how the building will be constructed, although the plans are accurate in terms ofthesizeandheightofthebuilding. The existing primary residential building will be retained asaresidentialuse, and the secondary structure, located to the rear of the site, would be demolished. The Commission is being asked to authorize development of a church in a residential district. According tothezoningordinance, a church is an institutional use that may be permitted in the R-1 zone, at the Commission' s Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 199B The project site is surrounded by single family residential subdivisions and development, primarily limitedtosinglestory. There is a group home across the street on Flower Street. The development standardshavebeensatisfiedbytheapplicant's proposal. The proposed chapel has the capacity for 150 people.The applicant is proposing to restore the primary residential structure, which is a historic building at thefrontofthepropertyandusethatasaparsonage, The residence was constructed in 1915. Thirt~l-nine 3!1) parking spaces are proposed in an improved parking area, The facility would be constructed at the rear portion of the church, with the church located at the center of the site. Access would be provid,edbyatwo- way driveway.Mr. Donovan noted that Flower Street is a commuter street and he talked about the traffic volumefromthefreeways, The City has made improvements to preserve the neighborhood including raisedbarriersthatlimitaccessonAlpine, Bedford, Crest and Devon to rightturn in/right turn out. NorthboundaccesstoFlowerStreetisprohibited from LaVeta.The public hearing was opened.Wayne Brazil. 2509 North French Street, Santa Ana, is the Chairman of the Board for Orange Coast Community Church. They have 60 to 70 families (or approximately 140 people) who attendtheirchurch.They offer a homeless ministry, counseling services, and music lessons in addition toSundaymorningservicesat9:00 a.m. and evening services, ending at 8:00 p.m, They are requesting approvaloftheirCUPsothattheycancloseescrow. Parking will be off the street, at the rear of the property, and asi>( foot high wall will be built between the parking area and adjacent residential uses. He talkedabouttheproposedhoursofoperationanddidnotbelievetheirserviceswouldcausemuchnoise. The parsonage will be used as a residence in addition to holding bible studies and meetings.Rick Rzeszewski, 14851 Canterbury, Tustin, is the pastor of the church. They minister todifferenttypesofpeople, They are not a loud congregation and they are looking forward to building on this new site.Chairman Bosch stated the Commission received a letter dated August 30, 1999 in oppositionfromPeterandLaurelFriday, 2231 West Almond Avenue.eople spoke in opposition Sarah Hunt, 240 South Marie Place.Barbara Trace, 302 Marie Place.ThElY are concerned about a fence across the east side of the property, The church will highlyimpacttheresidentialneighborhoodcausedbytraffic, noise, lighting, safety and privacy. A shortage of electricityisaconcerninthearea. Ministering to the homeless and narcotics anonymous are concerns; the residents want to make sure their neighborhood remains safe.82plicant' s response Mr. Brazil said they do not have a detailed plan because they do not have a conditional usepermit. They need to close escrow before hiring an architect. He appreciates the concerns expressedbytheresidents, They would like to see the traffic slowed down. They will take full responsibilityforthemeetingsheldattheproperty. It is not their desire to create a homeless shelter. He alsoexplainedtheAlanonmeetingsthatareheldatthechurch, They will do their best to mitigate all problems that arise,The Commission was concerned about a conceptual site plan without a lot of detail. The CUPisthemitiqationofpotentialimpactsproveninthedesign. There are many things that are vague. They wanted to know if landscaping were proposed for aesthetics and to assist as a noise buffer. The lightingoftheparkinglotisalsoarealconcern; how will light and sound be buffered. The Commission was hesitant to app 'ove the project now and communicate the wrong message to the applicant.The public hearing was Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Commissioner Smith wanted to know the history of the property to which Mr. Donovan explained the owners were fruit and nut growers in the area. The owner sold off most of the surrounding property tohomebuildersinthe1950's, but kept this property for themselves. Chairman Bosch said the difficulty is assessing whether placing the proposed use on the property is the correct thing to do in terms of planning. Because of the property's narrowness and depth, it really restricts flexibility in terms of how to lay the property out. In benefiting the applicant's proposal, it also impacts -11 or12residentialhomessubstantiallywithimpactsthattheydon't have now -- traffic, noise, lighting, and circulation. There is not enough information to feel pOSitive about the project on this site with all of the impacts on the neighborhood.Commissioner Pruett said it would be very difficult for the Commission to make the necessary findin9s to approve the project without more specific information.Commissioner Smith is very much in favor of churches and preserving the existing home on the property.And, is in favor of maintaining the R-1 neighborhoods. However, the proposed use does not feel like agoodfit. She's not sure the church would be happy at this location, if the neighbors are not happy to havethem, M C!.!.!.Q!:! Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Smith to deny Conditional Use Pormit22H4-99 and Negative Declaration 1600-99, finding that the Commission cannot make thefindingsthatthepermitwouldbebaseduponsoundprinciplesoflanduse, although it is in responsetoservicesrequiredbythecommunity, That, the permit, if it were to be approved, would cause deterioration011theborderingR-1 single family residential land uses, although it would not create social problemsfortheareainwhichthesiteislocated, And, that in considering the relationship of the site and theproposaltoitseffectonthecommunityandneighborhoodplansfortheareainwhichthesiteislocated, the Commission has made that consideration and find that there are apparent impacts particularoftraffic, parking,circulation, light and noise that cannot be mitigated by the submitted proposal, becauseofthedifficultconfigurationanddepthofthepropertyandthesurroundingsinglefamilylone. And, that an approval would have to be made based upon the individual welfare of the applicant and not onthegeneralwelfareof the surrounding community. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED Chc,irman Bosch thanked the applicants for their efforts and wished them the best as theygoforwardtofind a suitable site.6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2299- 99 - VILLA FORD A request to allow the demolition and replacement of the existing showroom/offices andtheredesignofexistingaccesspointstotheproperty. The site is located at 2550 North Tustin Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1610-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project,The staff report was waived as there was no opposition to this item.The public Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 199B Erik Marcussen, 5109 East la Palma Avenue #B, Anaheim, is the project architect. He thanked staff for tho help they have given Villa Ford. They are looking forward to expanding the dealership as the currentfacilityisshowingsignsofwear, They propose a contemporary design that is sensitive to Tustin Street.They have read the staff report and concur with the conditions of approval, including the traffic conditions. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith thought the plans were an enhancement to Tustin Street and she is in favor ofmovingforward, Commissioners Bosch and Pruett also approved of the new design, and appreciated theefforttomakethisacompleteproposal. Mj)TION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Mitigated NegativeDeclaration1610-99 and Conditional Use Permit 2299-99, with conditions 1 through 10, findingthattheapplicant's request to expand their automotive sales facility is granted upon sound principles oflanduseandinresponsetoservicesrequiredbythecommunity. The facility expansion will notcausedeteriorationofborderinglandusesorcreatespecialproblemsforthecommercialandresidentialareasinwhichthE! site is located. The conditional use permit has been considered in relationship to the expansion plans' Elffect on the City of Orange General Plan. And, in granting the conditional use permit, it is madesubjecttoconditionsnecessarytopreservethegeneralwelfareandnottheindividualwelfareof the applicant. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2300-99 - OSCAR' S RESTAURANT A mquest to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine at a new restaurant. The site is locatedat763SouthMain Street, Suite 200.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct, per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.No one opposed this project; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived.ThE: public hearing was opened.lomnzo Reves. 1224 East Katella Avenue #105, represented Oscar's Restaurant. They have read the conditions of approval and have no objections. Beer and wine sales are only to complimentthemeals, He would not object to changing the hour of 10:30 a.m. to 11 :00 a.m. in condition 2, but hewouldlikethesarnehoursastheotherrestaurants in the center,The public hearing was closed.The Commission discussed the hours of sales, service and consumption ofalcoholicbeverages. They stressed that all applications need to be consistent, 11 :00 a.m., but in fairness to thetworestaurantsinthecenter, for the sake of friendly competition, the times should be the same, 10:30 a,m. A precedent has been set with the previous approval for the earlier hour.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from Plclnning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Conditional Use Permit 2300-99, with conditions 1 through 13 as stated in the staff report, finding that the permit has been granted based upon sound principles of land use and in response to community required services. Its granting will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for its area. The permit has been considered in relationship to the effect on the community and the neighborhood plan for the. precise area in which it is located, and has been granted based upon conditions necessary to prEiserve the general welfare and not the individual welfare of the applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2304-99 - STAURI HllO (lUXOR) (AS A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2019-94)A request to allow a change in restricted hours of operation allowing daily use (after 9:00 p.m.), to use amplified music and to enlarge the dining area by 1,100 square feet. The site is located at 2688 North Santiago Boulevard.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, reported that the applicant leases about 73% of the existing commercial building, although the restaurant only occupies 37% of the floor area in the building. The request to add 1,100 square feet of dining area would increase that portion of the building used as a restaurant to46,0; 0 of thEi building. The limitation on daily use was proposed as part of the initial application rather than required by the City. The applicant voluntarily stated they wanted to use the building as a restaurant on Friday,Saturday and Sunday only,The conditional use permit affects shared use of the parking facility and the sales and service of alcoholic beverages, and also the ability to conduct live entertainment on the premises. The site has reciprocal access with an automatic car wash and filling station to the north of the property. There is a small shopping center on the south side of the property line, and both have the same commercial zoning classification.There is a residential zone across Santiago Boulevard, and to the west of the property is the Newport Fmeway,The development includes 57 parking spaces in a common parking facility that the restaurant shares with thE~ only other tenant in the building, which is a hair salon. The salon books its last appointments of the business day at 7:00 p.m, and it is closed by 8:30 or 9:00 p,m, The previously approved conditional use permit currently restricts the applicant's restaurant hours of operation so that they do not begin service until 9:00 p.m. Daytime requirements for the hair salon is only 17 of the 57 parking spaces, The appHcant is basically proposing to match the parking supply of 57 spaces with the proposed dining area in the restaurant of 5.700 square feet.The applicant has proposed to build an interior partition wall between the dining room and the front of the structure so that would ideally mitigate sound. There would be no openings between the performance ama and the dining area, and the homes across Santiago Boulevard. The building entrance would be alternated to the side of the building that is adjacent to the Newport Freeway, Staff includes SIIX (6)conditions of approval. They acknowledge the applicant's desire for the restaurant hours notto CO'llmence until 9:00 p.m. and they would close by 2:00 a.m. except on Sunday, when they would dose at 12:30 a.m,The public hearing was Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Stauri Hilo. Luxor Restaurant, 2688 North SantiaQo Boulevard, stated that he and his daughter run the restaurant. They are the anchors of the center and request to expand their hours of operation. They are on!y open at night. Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a letter dated September 8, 1999 from Lewis Crouse II, representing the salon, opposing the proposal. And, a letter received August 30, 1999 from ,Ianet MElcada at 2656 Vista Glen in opposition, 1...I;Ieople spoke in opposition to this proiect: Lewis Crouse, 412 South Crest. Gary Arnone, 2680 Santiago Boulevard, Shelly Dusserre, 2680 Santiago Boulevard. Carol Arnone, 2680 Santiago Boulevard. Th'3Y were concerned because there are fire code and code enforcement violations at the property. The incidences will increase if the applicant is allowed to increase his hours of operation, Over the last two years the restaurant has been plagued with 40 violations of the conditional use permit. There have been some 25 reports, including police response, to this facility. The Luxor Restaurant is to provide a copy of their liability insurance to the City; there has been none. And, they are to provide a hold harmless agreement. There has been an incident in the past where smoke from inadequate venting in the restaurant has come into the hair salon. Also, the fire exits have been blocked, The hair salon has had problems with the restaurant due to the restaurant's private parties and a lack of parking spaces. The applicants already have amplified music, even though it is not currently allowed. There are also problems with trash. 6Qplicant's response Mr. Hilo said the hair salon wants the Luxor Restaurant's space. They do not have the same hours of business. The rooms shown on the plans are not used, Commissioner Pruett stated the Commission originally approved the conditional use permit with the understanding that the entrance to the building was going to be on the Freeway-side of the building so that it would not have an impact on the neighbors across the street. There was to be no entrance on the Santiago side of the building. He sees that has changed and the building is not in compliance with the conditions of approval. He did not see how the Commission could take action on the current request if the applicant is not in compliance with the existing conditional use permit.Commissioner Smith asked about the code violations and police calls to the property.Mr. Hilo is aware that the hair salon has called the City about the code problems; however, they have done eVE,rything that was asked of them. He took over the business on December 4, 1997. They werEl not cited by the Police Department because nothing was wrong,Susan Avau, is Mr. Hilo's daughter and business partner. When they took over the restaurant, the entl"ance was always through the front of the building. She only learned two weeks ago that the entrance should be at the rear of the building. She has a letter from the City stating there are no violations at the restaurant, which she shared with the Commission. She only wants the option to be open for business in case someone wants to book a private party once or twice a month.Chairman Bosch stated the Commission reviewed two letters: One dated June 29, 1999 addressed to the property owner, Mr. Presler, from the Department of Community Development, indicating that in review with City Planning and Code Enforcement, there had been no violations of conditions ofapprovalindicatedtotheoperatoroftherestaurant. And, also a letter dated August 12, 1999 to the property owner, from the Code Enforcement Division. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Chairman Bosch, in reviewing the plans, is concerned about exiting and the reason for the exit way to theeasttoSantiago, which unfortunately began to function as an entrance, was to provide the requiredsElcondaryexitfromthediningarea. He also noted the applicant may have difficulty in creating a solid wallpartitionwall. He wondered how the applicant intends to assure acoustical separation from the expansion.The plans as drawn, do not meet code requirements. Commissioner Smith noted in the staff report on Page 5, as a condition of approval, item 4, it say's livepE!rformances and amplified music will be controlled so that no noise is heard from off the premises. Theccnditiongivestheimpressionthatamplifiedmusicisallowedundertheproposedconditions. However, Commissioner Pruett pointed out the original approval permitted live entertainment, but notamplifiedmusic, per condition 6. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett wanted clarification from staff on the letters. Mr. Jones was not aware of the letters,but would get back to the Commission with an answer. Commissioner Pruett goes by this restaurant everyday and has seen how the entrance has changed tothEtfront. Sign age is on the front of the property and he believes it should be at the back. There are someissuesthatneedtoberesolvedbeforeapprovingthenewconditionalusepermit. He will not approveamplifiedmusic. That was a concern of the people who lived across the street. Valet parking is required atalltimeswhentherestaurantisopen. Commissioner Smith is concerned about the poor relationship between the two neighbors in the singlebuilding. She suggested that the two parties come together with professional mediation to discuss someoftheissuesinvolved, She couldn't make a decision at this hearing because of the cloudy issues. Shewantedtoknowtheviolationhistoryonthepropertyfromallstandpoints -- police response, code enforcement, the health department, etc, It is the responsibility of the property owner to know what the CUPentails, There is no excuse for the tenant not knowing what the rules were in the first place. The exi':s must be brought up to code, The two businesses must be compatible in speaking to each other.Sheisalsoconcernedabouttheparkingsituationanddoesn't understand why the restaurant is being blamedforalackofparkingspacesduringthedaywhentheyareonlyopenatnight.Chairman Bosch shares concerns as well about the state of the existing operation on site, and the need to havethatconformtoalllifesafetycodesaswellastheconditionalusepermit, including the restoration of theexitwaytoitsproperconditionatalltimes. There is nothing worse than blocking an exit in any building; that cannot continue to occur. The extra space, the non-dining area of the restaurant, can't beusedforanypurposewhatsoeverwhiletherestaurantisopen. He wants to know what this space is beingusedfor. There needs to be more information as to how the building is going to work. Land use issuesrelatetohowtheoperationswithinthebuildingoccur. If the plan for the building does not correctly assignthespacebecauseexitingisn1correctlyassigned, and it isn't in the plan -- the existing internal exit corridor isrradeintoanillegaldead-end corridor and there isn't sufficient separation of the exits from the diningareaproposedwiththeexpansion, It could be solved, but it has ramifications relative to noise coming outofthebuilding, potential access and egress problems from the building, and the impacts on the valetparkingandthebusinessitself. He needs revised information that corrects these problems anddemonstratehowtheexistingincompatibilitywiththeapprovedconditionalusepermitistoberesolved. In looking at the recorded deed restriction on the property, the deed restriction that was recorded simplysta1t::ls that, "No other business or businesses will be open and in operation at the subject site during thetimeperiodthattherestaurantisopenandinoperation," It doesn't state the hours, although in the intentoftheMinutesandthemotiontherewerehoursofbusinessstatedthatheexpectedtoseeinthedl3edrestriction. As it stands, the approval itself states that, "No one else's business can be open on the sitebetween9:00 p.m. and 12:30 a.m" or 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday." So, the salon business cannotextendpast9:00 p.m. This has to be resolved as well, If it takes a strengthening of the deed restriction tomakethatwork, it should. He would like more information on why the hold harmless agreements were not 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 necessary to be filed any more. He noted the Commission received a copy of a certificate of insurance for tho restaurant, but it is dated in 1996, prior to the current owner taking over. It would help to clear the air to provide evidence that proper liability protection is being provided, Clearly, there are major problems. The utilization of the property must first conform to the CUP. He could not approve the expanded use until everything is in place with the existing use, and that the plan for expansion mitigates any additional potential impacts upon other businesses on the site and off site. The Commission wanted to continue this item to allow staff to provide further information with regard to the let.ters and other information the City might have relative to actions taken on this property. And, for the applicant to come bacK and clarify their plan for resolving existing incompatibilities with the CUP that is now in place. And, the plan needs to meet all code requirements. And that the parties involved 011 the property actually sit down, shake hands and talk to each other in order to find a way to live togeth43r so eVl3ryone can succeed, Commissioner Pruett said it was important for the applicant to understand why there was valet parkingrequiredaspartoftheoriginalconditionalusepermit. By putting the entrance on the west side of the property, it kind of pulls it away from the parking. And the applicant at that time was concerned about their customers coming through the front door. The proposal was to have valet parking so that the customer would be able to drive up to the west door and get out of their car, go into the restaurant and their car would be parked for them. That was a parking management plan that was approved for the project. Chairman Bosch asked the applicant if he was willing to continue the hearing in order to obtain additional information to assure that codes will be met and there will be no further problems in the future. Mr. Hilo agreed to a continuance of 30 days. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to continue Conditional Use Permit 2304-99 to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 4, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to a Special Meetin';:j on M01day, September 13,1999 at 7:00 p,m. to discuss the Culver Avenue zoning. The meetingadjournedatB:55 p. m.AY[ S: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED Isld