Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Walters STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4. 1993 AND OCTOBER 18. 1993 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve the Minutes of October 4, 1993 as recorded. AYES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith NOES:None ABSENT:Commissioner Walters ABSTAINED:Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve the Minutes of October 18, 1993 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1438-93 -CITY OF ORANGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS An environmental impact report addressing the environmental impacts of widening Glassell Street between Walnut Avenue and Collins Avenue. The project includes widening the street right-of-way to accommodate four (4) travel lanes, a central turning lane, and on-street parking. This item was continued from the September 20, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting.) The Commissioners have received the response to comments made at the last public hearing. The representatives of the Engineering Department and consultants were present to answer questions or if further clarification was needed. The public hearing was closed at the last meeting. Commissioner Smith still had unanswered questions regarding the widening of Glassell. She referred to Section 7 S, Page 14 of the responses. It related to setbacks. How many demolitions would occur or how many commercial properties would be left with a less than 5 foot setback? Mr. Johnson referred the Keeton Kreitzer, Environmental Perspectives, 1633 East Fourth Street, Suite 102, Santa Ana, said Table 13 in the document reflects all those structures where there are currently setbacks that don't meet requirements of the code. The Table begins on Page 75 of the EIR. All the structures along Glassell that are less than 15 feet currently do not meet those setback standards. In terms of structures to be demolished, there are two of them. He didn't know how many commercial structures there were beyond the two. Commissioner Smith didn't understand the Table. Would she take 11 feet away from each of the setbacks? Some of the properties appear to have a 15 foot setback. To widen the street, another 11 feet must be taken off of each side. How can that be done? Mr. Kreitzer responded that has already been done. He referred to Page 79 for a better explanation. The exhibits reflect the properties that will be acquired, requiring that additional right-of-way. Stu Stark, Engineering Staff, referred to the fold out map in the EIR. It showed the compilation of the street and the location of where the buildings were. There were only three parcels per their engineering survey that have setbacks less than 15 feet. Two of them are on the northwest corner of Glassell and Walnut. Those setbacks are 18 and 19 feet. When the right-of-way is taken (10 feet), it will result in 8 and 9 foot setbacks. The parcel at 758 North Glassell (Exhibit 9, Page 4) has a current setback of approximately 5 1/2 feet. The City has already acquired right-of-way there due to some improvements that have taken place and the resulting setback is 5 1 /2 feet. Besides the three buildings that were identified as being demolished or reconstructed, there are no others that have setbacks less than 15 feet. He explained the setback to be the distance from the existing right-of-way line to the building structure. Commissioner Smith's assumption of a setback was the distance from the curb to the structure. Mr. Johnson explained the setbacks using the map on the wall. Commissioner Smith's other comment was about the trees. On Page 13 of the responses (7 S), the comment was poorly written. What does the sentence say? Mr. Kreitzer said there was an error; the sentence should read, "...it has no need for more trees in City parks." The workers cannot maintain additional trees in City parks. Commissioner Cathcart said they were looking at a project that had no funding at this time. Was there some reason besides trying to fit everything in the cross section that the potential Alternate C was not examined? Was there a problem with funding if they don't take it to the maximum buildout? That is, Alternate B and C only have a width of 76 feet rather than 86 feet. Is there a reason why the 86 feet was chosen? Mr. Johnson answered they have shown what the Master Plan said the road should be built to, which is 86 feet. That is what would be required if someone came in for a building permit. Staff has looked at the 76 foot width as a compromise. Obviously, you will lose something if the additional 10 feet are not taken i.e., parking or the road is widened on an interim basis on one side or the other). There are trade offs; the project could be looked at as a phased project. Commissioner Cathcart said Alternate C will allow for the increased traffic flow. The only thing Alternate C does not give is parking. He has always questioned why people park in arterials anyway? He would like to consider Alternate C and say that the center turn lane, reduced to 10 feet as in Alternate A, and the outside lane, instead of being 14 feet, would be 12 feet -- an additional 3 or 4 feet would be picked up on each side to make a total of 9 feet. And, not take the 10 feet. Parking is an attractive nuisance. It's not really a convenience; it becomes what we allow it! Would Alternate C accomplish the City's goals, without allowing parking? Mr. Johnson thought that was one of the alternatives that should be considered. He felt there was a need for the people on the street to retain the parking (as a result of their scoping meetings held a year ago). The area tends to be a higher density, commercially-oriented street. The residents have voiced the fact they felt parking was needed. He referred to Chapman Avenue and the phased widening of that street, removing parking and adding continuous left-turn pockets. Commissioner Smith was also interested in pursuing Alternative C a little bit more without the parking. At the last hearing the Commission asked for a parking inventory from staff to inform them of the status of what parking was if it were to be removed or who would be impacted by it's removal. 2 Doug Keyes, Traffic Engineer, said staff was in a quandary as to how the question was posed. They interpreted from the Minutes and staff discussions that the Commission wanted to know what the impacts would be on off-street parking if indeed the full project were to take place. That means, if they were to take the full project (maximum right-of-way) in order to get to the four lanes with the center left turn lane. You will be removing approximately 10 feet of drive way. The residents of multi-family dwelling units are discouraged from parking in the driveways because the driveways will be blocked. If the maximum amount of right-of-way were taken, there would be some take of driveways, but none of the single family driveways would suffer an impact such that the residents could not park a minimum of one private vehicle in the driveway. Chairman Bosch followed up by reading what the Minutes stated: "Why isn't the parking survey done now from the point of view of what the needs are caused by existing land uses and the General Plan allowed growth and development along the street to identify whether it is ever feasible to take the parking off?" It had nothing to do with the widest solution. The question is, why can't we understand now whether or not it's feasible to reduce that parking by studying the amount of parking taken up off-street, particularly in the multi-family developments. There is sufficient information already based on similar protects and land uses to identify whether or not they are adequately parked off-site; that there would be no need or little impact by removal of the on site parking. How many of those cars parking on the street really relate to the properties adjacent to it or are simple storage because there is parking available? Mr. Keyes said staff would need to do a license plate survey through the Police Department to ascertain where the owners live. Commissioner Pruett said the issue is the project and the way it is designed currently -- are there sufficient parking spaces as code stipulates to service the project? He suggested looking at the number of units that are there and the required parking for those units. It would be an easier study to conduct. He was concerned about the over night parking. There needs to be some parking provided for people who are going to be visiting other people m the neighborhood. On the other hand, the issue of limited parking is also important and may solve some of the problems in terms of overcrowding. Limited over night parking needs to be addressed as well. Chairman Bosch said the actual street over time will have an affect (either positive or negative) on the environment within the residences or the recreational areas. It seems there is enough land use issues in the City and resolved street parking issues over the years that virtually every condition has come up. By now, it should be part of the reference material in order to refer to it and see what the impacts might be rather than having to discuss it again and again. Commissioner Cathcart asked if it would be appropriate to add as a condition of approval the project be brought back before the Commission with an emphasis on one of the alternate cross sections? Mr. Godlewski stated what was before the Commission was whether or not the environmental documentation was adequate or not. Once that decision has been made, the Commission could make subsequent comments that refer to the Commission's desires in the way of a project when it comes forward to the City Council. Commissioner Pruett wanted to explore the mitigation of exterior noise. He wondered if more work could be done in terms of landscape design of the front yards where property is being taken. The yards were landscaped and designed for the existing area and by taking the yards it will change the complexion or architecture of the yard. Landscaping will help reduce the noise and it may help to beautify the widening. Commissioner Cathcart thought by focusing on Alternate C, when a project is funded, that's what he would like to see -- that extra dimension in there used for landscape treatment. Those elements are appropriate and should be mentioned as part of the recommendation to the City Council. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, that the Planning Commission finds the Environmental Impact Report 1438-93 has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED 3 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council that if and when funding for the street widening project becomes evident, that Alternate C be the significant choice; and that particular attention be paid to mitigating parking and sound attenuation through landscape design. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED Discussion Commissioner Pruett asked when talking about Alternative C and landscaping, were they talking about the ultimate right-of-way width of Alternative A? Where is the additional landscaping? Commissioner Cathcart said the ultimate right-of-way width is in place. If someone were wanting to build, they would have to dedicate that right-of-way; it's already there. What he was saying was to only build out to 76 feet, but look to improve the additional right-of-way in landscape treatment that would help mitigate noise and other aesthetics. Commissioner Pruett understood the intent of the motion to be 64 feet, curb-to-curb, and everything beyond the curb to be parkway, landscape, sidewalk, etc. (Correct.) Commissioner Smith would like to add "with retention of existing landscaping". She was concerned about the retention of the 47 trees that were in question. Commissioner Cathcart added there was also an alternative as the Palm trees are movable and could be moved to other places in the City. Chairman Bosch would also like to recommend as a project is funded and moved ahead, the curb-to-curb be built out. But then there comes a point that could be phased with regard to the striping of the street when it is appropriate to remove parking from the street. The left turn lane (subject to the safety considerations) will improve traffic flow and take care of the accident problems. Parking could still remain with one lane in either direction or it could be phased by striping. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2037-93 - DUNCAN AND ALICE CLARK A request for a density bonus to allow the development of a 4-unit senior housing project in an R-3 (Multi- Family Residential) district. The proposal also requires a conditional use permit because development would include a 2-story building adjacent to an R-1 (Single Family Residential) district. Subject property is located on the northwest corner of Orange Street and Walnut Avenue, addressed 500 North Orange Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b). Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report as there was opposition to this project. The request is to develop a corner parcel by removing what buildings are on the site now and build a 4-unit senior housing project. The conditional use permit is to allow a density bonus according to the senior housing section, as well as additional density provided if the units are "affordable". Further, the conditional use permit is to allow a 2-story multi-family residential construction within 70 feet of single family residential district. There is a mixture of zonings in the neighborhood. The project site is zoned R-3 on the corner parcel. Then going north up the street, it runs R-1, R-2, R-1, R-2, etc. The proposed project is looking at four small residential units for seniors. The unit sizes range from 480 to 517 square feet and will be developed within the requirements of the senior housing ordinance. A number of conditions have been recommended to be adopted with the project. It includes a condition for at least one unit to be qualified under the State Department of Housing & Community Development as low or moderate income families. The public hearing was opened. 4 Applicant Robert Coline, 3810 East Palm, represented the Clark's on the project. Affordable housing for seniors is needed in the City of Orange. Small, functional units have been designed with 4 parking spaces and landscaping. The density bonus is being requested for the fourth unit. At least one of the urnts is required to be affordable, but all units shall be affordable. Lighting at Chapman stadium will not be an issue. The units have been designed for independent, active seniors. Commissioner Smith stated the plans did not include landscape plans. What kinds of recreational space is being provided within the landscaped area of the property? Where is the recreational open space for these urnts? Mr. Coline said trees are provided on the property and landscaping will be provided around the buildings and along the parking space in the rear, next to the garages. The landscape plan has not been completed; they will submit it at a later date. Those speaking in favor Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, said it was not necessary to provide recreational plans on a small project such as this; just landscape plans. They must go back to the D.R.B. with them. They are covering 34% of the lot with buildings so there will be open space provided for the units. AI Ricci, 1320 North Manzanita, said the existing residence was built in 1919 by Welch Concrete. It was built out of scrap lumber; it's full of dry rot and termite damage. The property for the area has no redeeming value nor aesthetic value to the neighborhood. He thought the City should encourage development of the property, especially "affordable" units for senior citizens. Corrine Schreck, 446 North James, favored the project and felt Orange needed senior housing. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, favors the project; it would be nice and it would improve the neighborhood. Those speaking in opposition John Aleccia, 510 North Orange, was not completely opposed to the project. He believes senior housing would be a good idea. The changing from R-3 to R-4 -- how will that affect parking permits? Most of the homes in the neighborhood are early 1900's. They are not in Old Towne, but will the new structures be in keeping with the aesthetics of the neighborhood? He lives in a one story, single family residence with no units in the back. Chairman Bosch responded there was no zone change proposed; only a conditional use permit. Along with senior housing and affordable rent controls, density bonuses are mandated by state law so that's where the extra units are coming in. The property would remain under it's current zoning. From what he understands relative to the parking permits, there would be no parking permits accruing to the Qroperty; they're on their own. That the parking would meet the criteria for senior housing. The architect has proposed designs for the exterior of the building similar to those in the neighborhood. Seniors will occupy these units with one unit being low income {affordable) as required by law. It will require annual reporting and under state law must remain affordable for 30 years. Carl Hornack, 490 North Orange, was not in opposition, but he wanted the Commission to know lighting and noise from Chapman impacts the area. It is not a quiet neighborhood. Gary Minick, 515 North Orange, appreciates someone building nice houses for this site. He questioned the density of the number of units for the property. Where will the trees or grass be? There isn't going to be much space for any grass or landscaping once the huge building is built. The corner definitely needs some improvement, but he finds it hard to believe someone can get all that on a 50 x 125 lot. He was disappointed there were no landscaping plans. Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, was not opposed to the project in general. It will be an incredible improvement for the corner and she believed it would enhance the neighborhood in the long run. She was concerned with the arterial status of Walnut. The MPAH, as designated in the General Plan, is listed as a study street. Where and how is dedication waived on this particular street? She cannot find it in writing anywhere. She was concerned as the street will be widened, there will be a good chance the 5 Walnut/Glassell intersection will be enhanced and some take will be necessary for the right-of-way on this property. She understands the Commission has the power not to discuss the dedication issue, but to evaluate whether or not the structure should be set further back from the ultimate right-of-way as deemed on the secondary arterial status from the MPAH. Mr. Johnson thought she was in receipt of Bernie Dennis' memorandum which stated in his opinion the Council mandated staff to not require dedication in the time frame the street is being evaluated. He was not sure if that was the mandate; however, the Council is the only one who can give a relief of that particular condition. Rebuttal Mrs. Clark answered some of the questions that were raised. They have rented to many senior citizens over the last 10 or 12 years; out of the five, only one had a vehicle. They intend to rent the units to one senior (widowed, unmarried). Most of the seniors in their age bracket do not drive cars. The units will be dedicated for 30 years and at least one, possibly two, will be dedicated for low income. They're all going to be affordable. They are near Old Towne and will be building Craftsman style housing units. They have ample parking for their tenants. She asked about temporary parking permits for their relatives or will they be discriminated against? Six Pecan trees will remain m place at the eastern edge of the property and the south edge of Walnut -- a good screen for lighting from Chapman. She picked up a landscape list earlier today and she is intimately involved with the protect. She would like to hold an open house when the units are completed. Chairman Bosch noted the discussion about parking permits was on Page 9 of the staff report. Residents will not be eligible for City permits that allow on street parking because the property is located in a multiple family residential district. He referred her to the City Traffic Engineer if she had further questions. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart had a concern: he would prefer not to be the final action on the C.U.P., but a recommendation to the City Council because there is a concern about the study street status of Walnut. There is no doubt of the integrity of the Clark's, but the Commission has requested in the past that landscape plans be a part of the package in order to make sure the overall design fits within the conditions of approval. The Commission has asked other people to go to the expense of paying for those plans and in some cases, they don't. He wanted to make sure ~t was brought to the public's attention that in the Administrative Session he brought it up to staff he would like to see consistency. It's a concern that the Commission needs to be consistent on. Commissioner Pruett thought this was a good project. He would like to add a condition requiring automatic garage door openers for the garages. Commissioner Smith made some public comments for the record because consistency is being talked about. She was not sure the consistency was in place with this particular project. It's a very nice project, but it doesn't appear the lot is big enough for the project. If the dedication right were to go mto effect, it would take out 1250 square feet off of a 6,250 square foot lot. She stated in order to build the dorms, Chapman College had to dedicate two blocks across the street from them to widen Walnut. She wondered why the Council's directive was not in place for Chapman College and it is in place for this project. She was also concerned about the intersection enhancement at Walnut and Glassell, with a take on the property adjacent to this. The building will be demolished because of the street widening needed on Walnut. This is the adjoining lot, yet the dedication is not even being addressed. It looks like a special island between Chapman College and the North Glassell widening protect. She had a problem with the fact that suddenly the dedication doesn't mean anything on this particular project. There is no memo in writing to talk about the disregard for the dedication; however, at the time of the project on LaVeta there were many memos in writing as to how the dedication had to be enforced or the City would lose Measure M funding. This street has the exact same status as LaVeta and should also jeopardize Measure M funding. She had a real problem with arbitrary decisions and inconsistency; if the dedication is going to be enforced, then enforce it all the way around. If you're not going to, then don't. She doesn't like the fact that every single project is treated differently. She would be most concerned if indeed the street is widened and 10 more feet is taken off. That will degrade the quality of life for a seniors' project and that's one of the reasons why the dedication has to be considered. Aside from that, the project is well needed in the City and it sounds like it has the neighborhood support. She's concerned that there be patio area, shade and a space outdoors for the seniors. She would like to see the yard enhanced and comfortable so they would at least have some blue sky and green space where they live. 6 Chairman Bosch shared the concern about the right-of-way dedication. He didn't think it was fair to the applicants or anyone else in similar situations not to be able to know what the rules are. He hoped there would be a preamble to the recommended motion recognizing under what rules the Commission is judging the worthiness of the project. That is, the presumption that no right-of-way requirement is in place. Special study areas are strange beasts; they might exist forever and that's not fair to the property owners either. Relative to open space, they could try to interpret how people want to live in their dwelling units. He thought there was a reasonably limited lot coverage on the site, with quite a bit of space between the units. He regretted not having the landscape plans before them as well. Commissioner Cathcart thought the City Council ought to be more consistent; they have consistently been inconsistent when it comes to residential properties throughout the City when it comes to dedicated right-of-ways and other tough issues. He thought they have failed in their responsibility to take a stand and to do the right thing. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, the Commission found the project to be categorically exempt from the provisions of CE(~A, and to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2037-93 with a presumption that no additional right-of-way will be taken. Also, to add condition 7 to require automatic garage door openers for the enclosed garages. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 5-93 -CITY OF ORANGE A request to amend the City's R-2 zoning classification, to add a provision which requires issuance of a conditional use permit whenever a property owner proposes more than two dwelling units on a parcel. This ordinance amendment would directly affect all properties zoned R-2 and having a lot area in excess of 9,000 square feet throughout the City. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. Mr. Godlewski said there was a zone change approved a while back for the Culver Street area and quite a bit of discussion took place at that time about what could be done to improve the zone change and still retain some control over the character of the neighborhood so that development would not run out of control. A number of suggestions were proposed to the Planning Commission and City Council, none of which could really have been implemented very well in light of conditioning a zone change. Staff has brought forward an ordinance that basically allows the Commission to have a higher level of review on any R-2 development where more than two units are proposed on a piece of property. This would occur under the existing ordinance -- you are allowed one dwelling unit for every 3,000 square feet of lot area. It is likely to occur only on lots where there is a 9,000 square foot lot or greater, which would allow three units or more. Staff has taken the old ordinance and included it in the staff report and have shown where changes have occurred. The public hearing was opened. Public comment Ralph Zehner, 630 East Culver, said when this property was re-zoned, part of the mitigation measure was whether or not to include a C.U.P. and the City Attorney, Mr. Herrick, provided him with a memorandum, which he read. He addressed temporary procedures and gave his interpretation of the memorandum. Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, approved of the wording and description of the criteria for the C.U.P. She commented it appears to be adding regulation to regulation and that the one unit per 3,000 clause in the R-2 district is the problem. It's not the R-2 district or large lots that is the problem -- it's the one unit per 3,000 clause! It seems the City is trying to amend a problem that exists and it would be a lot easier to eliminate the one unit per 3,000, which she brought up at the study session. The public hearing was closed. 7 Commissioner Smith asked if a person wanted to build a third unit on the 9,000 square foot lot, a C.U.P. would be required; then when a fourth unit is added, would the person need to come back for another C.U.P? Mr. Godlewski responded yes. It didn't specify that but they would consider anything more than two units to require a conditional use permit. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 5-93. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS REQUEST TO ALLOW BILLIARD USE IN THE CP ZONE -HUNG NGUYEN PARTNERS A petition for Planning Commission determination as to whether a billiard use is similar in character and not more detrimental. than other uses allowed by conditional use permit in the CP (Commercial Professional) zone. Commissioner Pruett questioned the need to request permission of the Commission. He kind of understood why they're Joing this because a fee is involved for filing a C.U.P. But there's still staff time in putting together the proposal. It bothers him that a process is being set up to petition the Commission -- he's uncomfortable with the process. Mr. Godlewski said the current ordinance does not allow staff to handle it any other way. They have amended the ordinance in the revised zoning ordinance, but they don't know when that is going to be operative. Because billiards is a use that is currently improperly addressed in the zoning ordinance under which staff operates, this is the only method they have to bring forward something that is not listed as an allowable, outright (or by conditional use permit) use in the zoning code. Staff has taken the requests done in the past and let that infer that if the Commission approved asking for a C.U.P. in the CTR zone, those others that have come after that, staff has forwarded to the Commission as a conditional use permit application (without going through this exercise). The Commission only needs to do this once for each zone and this is the last zone it could be requested in; then the City is covered. Chairman Bosch said the key thing for him was 17.40.040 -Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit (F) which is the catch all typically put into ordinances. It places the burden upon the applicant to prove they are similar in character to, and not more detrimental to others listed. It would behoove any applicant out of prudence to carefully review the lists involved in the zoning ordinance section. A letter was received by the Commission from Leonard Horton, 1838 East Rose Avenue, dated 10/26/93, who was concerned about this issue as well. Mr. Godlewski explained staff needed some action from the Commission to tell them to accept or not to accept the applicant's conditional use permit. Commissioner Cathcart thought it would be un-American not to allow someone to come before the Commission with the opportunity to be turned down. Commissioner Smith loves to play pool and would like to play in every zone of the City. She encouraged an application to come before the Commission. The Planning Commission gave Mr. Godlewski their consensus for the applicant to come forward in the commercial zone to put the burden of proof before them. IN RE: OTHER ITEMS C Commissioner Pruett thought they should address the concern about plans coming forth without the landscape plans -- staff should be directed to make sure that all appropriate plans accompany requests coming before the Commission. 8 Commissioner Cathcart said the landscape falls within two categories and if they put it at a higher level all plans should accompany all applications. Chairman Bosch concurred. He found it impossible to design a building and plan a site without full consideration of the details of the landscape. It's part of the building environment. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue those items that did not contain all plans until they were complete. IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT Lisa Blanc, 368 South Orange, personally thanked the Commissioners for getting on top of the consistency issue in so many arenas. It will save, in the long run, not only time for the Commission and staff, but the residents as well. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. sld MOTION CARRIED 9