HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-06-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters
ABSENT: None
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 NOVEMBER 15.
1993
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of
November 15, 1993 as recorded.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4-93, ZONE CHANGE 1166-93 - CITY OF ORANGE
Ordinance Amendment 4-93 is a comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Orange
Municipal Code. The proposed amendment reformats the existing ordinance and updates provisions
regarding the development review process, zoning district use regulations, development standards and
design standards that apply to the Old Towne Historic District. Also part of the amendment is a proposal
to eliminate four zoning district classifications: CP (Commercial Professional), C-3 (Commercial), R-1-40X
Single Family Residential, minimum lot size 40,000 square feet), and the RCD (Residential Combining
District) overlay zone. Zone Change 1166-93 addresses the reclassification of properties within these
zones. Staff recommendations are as follows:
CP Zone
Properties located along Katella Avenue between Glassell Street and California Drive -Rezone from CP
to C-1 (Limited Business). Orange Hill Restaurant property on East Chapman Avenue -Rezone from CP
to C-1. Properties on the south side of Orangewood Avenue between the Orange (57) Freeway and
Eckhoff Street -Rezone from CP to OP (Office Professional).
C-3 Zone
Properties are primarily located along Main Street south of Chapman Avenue -Rezone from C-3 to C-2
General Business).
RCD Overlay Zone
Properties are located within or adjacent to the Old Towne Historic District. The proposal is for all
properties to retain their base zone classification, and to incorporate a height regulation that applies
throughout Old Towne based upon averaging height within neighborhoods.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1437-93 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts on
this project.
This item was
Mr. Godlewski presented staff's revisions to the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance since the
previous hearing. The packet includes a brief overview of those issues that have been discussed,
additional discussion on some of the issues of height in the RCD zone, as well as listing specific
recommendations that staff is looking for direction on from the Commission. The items include a 2-page
memorandum, PC Direction Provided at 10/18 Hearing. Staff tried to list in three different sections:
Changes to Title 17, Changes to Historic Preservation Standards for Old Towne, and Other. These
correspond to those documents that have been supplied to the Commission subsequently and lists the
page numbers of those changes. At the last hearing, the Commission gave staff certain direction and
issues that needed to be looked into further. They have been considered and changes have been made
and are included in the packet. The bullet points also need to be discussed (located on the last page of
the staff report). Staff is still looking for specific direction from the Commission, or at least a consensus,
at which time staff would like to take all the changes and put them into a final draft document to bring
back to the Commission for final recommendation to the City Council.
Chairman Bosch was asked to read into the record a memorandum from the Orange Taxpayers
Association dated 12/6/93 with regard to the amendments. The Commissioners did not comment on the
document.
Chanaes to Title 17
Page 26 - 6.1.b. -minimum size of decks - "A yard area, or uncovered deck or patio shall have a
minimum width and length of ten (10) feet; a balcony shall have a minimum dimension of seven (7) feet in
both directions." PC Concurred.
Chairman Bosch wanted to make it clear this was to allow space to be counted toward the open space
requirement and to limit sizes of balconies otherwise.
Page 5 - H.i.a. -same issue as above; use same wording.
Demolition - 3rd page -staff added, "This penalty shall apply to all properties unless waived or modified
by the City Council, upon appeal in accordance with Section 17.08.050 of this title."
Demolition - 2nd page - E. -delete the word "may" and insert the word "shall" to put some teeth into it.
Demolition - 1st page - A. -authorized official of the City was questioned. It was suggested to delete the
words "authorized official" and insert "Building Official or Fire Chief" for clarification.
Demolition - 1st page, bottom of page - C. Issuance of a Demolition Permit -how is that 50%
determined? Is that square footage or linear measurement? Is it indicated elsewhere in the document?
It needs to be defined within the intent of assuring a review for compatibility of replacement structure to
the historic structure (if within the Historic District).
Demolition - PC consensus.
Page 23 - SRO's - g. added - "SRO residential hotels should be located within 1/4 mile (1,320 feet) of
transit stops. Other services which shall be located within a reasonable distance, or on the transit line
serving the SRO are employment areas, grocery stores, personal service establisments and banks."
Commissioner Cathcart felt "employment areas" was vague. The wording needs to be spelled out or
eliminated. Chairman Bosch's recollection was that SRO's were tied to specific zones. It would be
redundant to list employment areas.
SRO's - PC consensus.
Page 11 -Home Occupations -staff incorporated the current wording of the ordinance amendments.
They will make sure it stays current as the document moves forward.
Chairman Bosch requested a copy of the draft the Commission adopted for his records. He recollected
they had discussed certain types of services that are typical home occupations wherein people do come
to the residences for service, such as piano lessons. It appears they have lost that. The key concern
was avoiding situations where there were employees other than residents in home occupations.
Home Occupations - PC consensus.
2
Page 3 -Lighting - PC consensus.
Page 7 -Arbors -staff added this section and listed the definition first. The Commission concurred with
this at the previous hearing.
Page 4 - C. Structures Prohibited Within Setback Area. Signs were questioned in the setback areas.
The reference chapter strictly limits signs in the setback area, but it might be helpful in this reference to
insert the word "only" -- "Signs may be permitted within the setback areas only as specified in Chapter
17.36 of this title." PC consensus.
Page 25 - 11. -Arbors definition added to Definitions section. The word "garden" was misspelled.
Changes to Historic Preservation Standards for Old Towne
Exhibit - 1st pa a -defines the limits of the various subsets and sets of Old Towne. The Plaza District,
the Downtown Core, Spoke Streets and Old Towne Boundary were defined. In the previous maps it
showed the Old Towne boundary as not being down the center line of the street as it was adopted, but
rather showing the block faces that faced Batavia on both sides of the street. The wording of the
ordinance that adopted Old Towne was clearly intended to be the center line of the street. The other
change was the delineation for spoke streets using the definition, "Any property facing those streets is
considered to be in that category."
Commissioner Smith could not read the street names on the Exhibit. Staff will work to clean that up.
Exhibit - PC consensus.
Page 10 -Project Review - Ms. Wolff reviewed the revisions to the Project Review section in terms of
what requires a minor and major C.O.A. and takes the routine maintenance replacement out of that
category and allows that to happen without a permit.
Commissioner Pruett asked where they would (by definition) place the Old Towne Historic District? Ms.
Wolff said that would be consistent with the Old Towne boundary. Commissioner Pruett felt there needed
to be some clarification. Staff will come up with the proper terminology.
Commissioner Cathcart had a problem with the subjectivity of the term "appropriateness". If guidelines or
standards are going to be set and they conform to it, then it is a certificate of conformance. Mr. Ryan
explained some things could be conforming, but the Board could make a decision that it's appropriate
under certain circumstances, which may not meet the guidelines. The term "appropriateness" is in the
State model that is used for the preservation ordinance. Basically, the City is certifying that the project
has met the intention or criteria in the ordinance.
Commissioner Pruett referred to Chapter 3, which was not included in the packet, under 3.5 -Certificate
of Appropriateness - it does discuss that and talks about the minor COA's which can be approved over
the counter by Planning staff. He thought it was defined elsewhere in the document.
Commissioner Cathcart agreed, but his personal feeling was that if they said certificate of conformance,
then put an asterisk and say this is referred to as "certificate of appropriateness". He would like to stop
any misleading phrases.
Commissioner Pruett suggested "the project is in conformance and a certificate of appropriateness has
been issued." It was agreed to change the third sentence on Page 10 - 1.2 Project Review -delete the
word consistent and add the words in conformance -- "When the project is found to be in conformance
with these standards, the City will issue a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)." PC consensus.
Page 12 -Process Flowcharts -staff was asked to show a better interaction between the Planning
Commission and DRB. Staff realized they would have to go to a more extensive charting to show some
of the various procedures that take place. Page 12 will be deleted and the two new pages will be used.
Flowcharts - PC consensus.
Page 16 - "Bauhaus" or international style architecture -staff included this per the Commission's request.
Commissioner Smith spoke about the masonry fences in the C1 and C2 districts. She felt it detracted
from the buildings to have a six foot high modern fence inbetween. Chairman Bosch explained this was
to separate OP from C1 and C2; it's not in a residential district. Commissioner Pruett asked if it were
necessary to indicate that it has to be a masonry wall?
Ms. Wolff explained when talking about masonry division walls it's usually the rear property line. You
would put a masonry wall there to block out noise and other undesirable impacts that might be felt from a
commercial property onto another property. You're looking at the zone of the property; not the use.
Staff will check on the masonry wall issue; there was no dissension on the "Bauhaus" or international
style.
Page 21 -Seismic and Masonry Rehabilitation Standards -staff tried to reword the section to make it
more timeless. Chairman Bosch suggested one more minor modification. To read, "Many of the
buildings in the Plaza Historic District were originally constructed of unreinforced masonry. It is necessary
for the owners to carry out an extensive rehabilitation program. In order to ensure that the seismic retrofit
of a building does not compromise the Historic fabric or ability of the owner to restore the exterior of the
building, according to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards, the following guidelines shall be followed:"
PC Consensus.
Page 26 - c. -'Translucent, backlit plastic awnings are prohibited." PC Consensus.
Page 36 - 4. -The question was raised, was it intended for West Chapman only? The answer was yes.
Commissioner Smith was talking about the front yard setbacks rather than side yards. Mr. Godlewski
said that was on Page 37 -buildings on West Chapman, a zero foot setback... PC consensus.
Page 37 -two Changges: zero front setback and intent to maintain the residential character of East
Chapman and South Glassell. PC Consensus. (Commissioner Smith did not agree, but consented.)
Page 44 was not included because a question was raised. There is a requirement that says T&G starter
boards shall be required. Is that a Building Code requirement? In checking with the Building Official, no it
is not a Building Code requirement. Staff can change it and not require T&G starter boards or they can
leave it in. PC Consensus io delete requirement.
Page 47 -fence color -delete specific color requirements -wrought iron fence materials -staff deleted
the requirement at the direction of the Commission. PC consensus.
Page 47 -ribbon driveways should not be mandatory; it's now an encouragement. It was suggested to
delete "and the ends shall be curved." End the sentence after 18 inches. PC consensus.
Page 48 -list of trees -staff deleted Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis). PC consensus with
Commissioner Cathcart abstaining.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation -added as an appendix as part of the official
law of the land. PC consensus.
Other -Definition of Block Face and terms, nominations and designations. Staff has changed the
wording to reflect the fact that nomination is the process you would go through to become designated. A
survey is simply a "survey". The process is further discussed in the last package, Rehabilitation
Incentives.
Chairman Bosch would like to be sure they really understand this. His understanding is if they have a
certified local ordinance, it does not establish another level of government; it does not make any district of
the City self-governing. What it does allow is that the City can take back some control over the
designation process, which has currently been lost to State and Federal government. They can then
require by City ordinance that no one's property can be nominated to, or placed upon the Register as a
historic building or district without the consent of the property owner and not without the agreement of the
majority of the people in the area for a district.
Commissioner Cathcart said the certified local government would be the City Council to handle those
issues which face a historic district. It doesn't give the power to any group other than the City Council.
Correct.)
4
Commissioner Cathcart voiced his concern (referring to Page 5 -Designation of certified local and
national register districts) that he didn't like the minority pulling the majorityy around. He would prefer to
change the statement of 51% or greater than half would have to do that. It was brought to his attention
that this was only to nominate. He would like clarification on how far they could go in re-wording the
elements to still fall within the state/federal guidelines?
Staff was not sure at this point. They will have to contact someone to find out.
Mr. Ryan explained this was a federal requirement for nomination. The City Council does have the final
say in this matter. Also the configuration of the district could be changed depending on the number of
persons who wished to be in a district.
Commissioner Pruett thought they were walking a fine line. The staff report indicated each city was
required to adopt a preservation ordinance that was consistent with the model approved by the State. If
that is true, they will be locked into what the State is mandating. If you fail to be consistent with the
State's approved program, then those incentives for rehabilitation of the properties will not be there.
Commissioner Cathcart would like staff to go back and see if that section could be re-worded. It won't
change the intent. Chairman Bosch agreed and felt it could be made simpler. Commissioner Pruett felt
questions have not been answered and it would help to understand the process involved. Commissioner
Cathcart stated the Orange Taxpayers Association voiced a concern that it's confusing. It needs to be
spelled out more clearly.
Commissioner Smith had a question on Page 4 under Historic Survey Data - it speaks of the Historic
Survey as a reference document that identifies in catalogs building sites and urban features of historic
significance in the City. That is not completed for the City yet.
Mr. Ryan said the 1992 survey updated the results of the'82 survey, which included structures outside of
Old Towne. They were updated as to which buildings still were contributing and which ones were eligible
either as a local landmark or national register eligible structures (the entire City).
It was the Commission's understanding there were some neighborhoods they didn't get to because of
time and money limitations. Staff will check into this.
Wording relative to the nomination and election process needs to be explained thoroughly. PC
Consensus.
Height averaging issue -staff suggested a number of ways to handle the height issue in the Old Towne
area. Four bullets have been marked in the November 24, 1993 memorandum to the Planning
Commission. This was discussed in great detail at the previous meeting. Staff is not trying to require or
prevent development from taking place; staff is not preventing 2-story development. They are trying to
set a threshold which a person can develop without a conditional use permit without any further review.
When that line is crossed, then the person needs to come in and obtain a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Pruett thought bullet #3 was one he could live with, with some minor modification. It
indicates it would require a conditional use permit to construct any two story structure within Old Towne
unless a two story structure exists on any adjacent lot. He didn't know if he agreed with an adjacent lot
being anyone on the three sides. In other words, a property that is to the rear or on another street for
example shouldn't set the tone for the street that piece of property is on. Maybe the word "block face"
should be added -- "Unless a two story structure exists on any adjacent block face lot..." (it would have to
be adjacent).
Chairman Bosch had not reached a conclusion yet.
Commissioner Walters preferred bullet #3 also. The one change that could alleviate the three adjacent
lots would be the two adjacent for a two story construction perceived on the front part of the lot and where
there is a rear dwelling to be constructed, then indeed the rear adjacent lot should be considered. He
thought that would solve the problem.
Commissioner Smith thought consideration of the lot to the rear is a very important one because that is
what directly impacts one's view of the sky and open space from one's property. On either side you
already have properties next to you on the block face, but if the back yard is open and the neighbor's back
yard is open, there is some open space. She liked Commissioner Walters' idea because it would
definitely impact more than the front. Her opinion of the RCD, which she said before, is the reason why
5
she liked the RCD was because it gave public notice to the neighbors that there is going to be a change
in the immediate vicinity. If this would also require a CUP that means there would be public notice to the
neighbors. That is the most important part the RCD includes. If there is no process, then the neighbors
don't know. She still questioned the averaging of the block face and how that was going to be done. It's
not included on the page they were discussing, but she was assuming it will be defined some place as to
how that works.
Mr. Godlewski responded block face averaging was not included in some of the proposals. That was one
proposal they had brought forward and in discussion it was decided that it was impossible for staff to
implement that sort of thing. It would require an extensive amount of staff time. That's why the other
options were brought forward. If the Commission wants staff to pursue block face averaging, staff will do
it. Or, staff was suggesting other outright simple methods of addressing the problem m another way.
Staff was trying to develop a threshold with block face averaging as they are in some of the other things.
In bullet #2 staff was saying if you built no more than 1 1/2 story, then a CUP would not be needed. If
something were built that exceeded 1 1/2 story, a CUP would be required. It does allow some
development to take place (a conservative amount of development}.
Chairman Bosch said bullet #3 wouldn't preclude the 1 1 /2 story because it specifically addresses two
stories -- it still allows that usable space to be constructed without damaging the fabric.
Commissioner Pruett thought distance might be the driving factor.
Chairman Bosch said there was one other issue -- a concern that there are other standards that they are
requesting to be adopted in the district that speak to the design of the dwelling - in terms of bulk and mass
by instituting floor area ratios, by calling out the size of usable open space in side yards, by redefining the
heights of dwelling units - a variety of functions of that kind. He prefaces that into the worry he has
always carried of if you have a two story dwelling next to you on one side and yours is one story, and on
the other side of you is one story, what is being said is the guy in the middle can build a two story. He
liked the suggestion, but he wanted to attack that one issue to see if they felt comfortable that the
remainder of the review process and strength of the standards don't mean automatically someone who
had one story all around before, now loses any review or any chance of concern about that two story
dwelling. It says there would have to be a CUP; a person could not even apply for the CUP unless there
was a two story on at least one side. The worst case one could have is the 1 1 /2 story without public
review.
Commissioner Pruett clarified he understood Chairman Bosch say if there was a two story on one side,
then the individual would still be required to take out a CUP. That's not the way he's reading it. It is
saying, unless a two story structure exists...lf there is a two story structure on one side, a CUP is not
required.
Chairman Bosch had a problem and maybe it could be solved. The fellow on the other side is one story.
There is one story dwellings all around. Now a neighbor on one side, because his further neighbor has
two stories, has the right without a CUP to build two stories. Is that sufficient suddenly having that
imposition of the two story.
Commissioner Walters wanted to add a CUP is required for all two story homes, with the other
mitigations.
Chairman Bosch would hate to have that requirement for all two stories, but if there is no way to assure
that there is a fair process, what can they do? He didn't want to preclude the right of someone to add
onto their house.
Mr. Godlewski briefed the Commission on the four bullet points. The first bullet point says that if you want
to build anything over one story, a person needs a CUP. Staff thought they should allow some
development to take place, establish a threshold and if one goes beyond it, then a CUP is required. The
second bullet point says it's OK to build 1 1 /2 stories in Old Towne. If one goes beyond 1 1 /2 stories, then
a CUP is needed. Because 1 1/2 stories, as defined, allows habitable space on a second floor, but the
look of the house is basically one story. That resolves Chairman Bosch's question if you've always been
one story and the person next door builds 1 1/2 stories, that person is not going to be impacted that
greatly (given the rest of the criteria). Bullet #3 requires a CUP to construct any two structure within Old
Towne unless a person is next door to a two story structure. Then you run into the problem discussed by
Chairman Bosch. The last bullet allows two story construction subject to a specific design or
development standard, which they have not come up with yet.
6
Chairman Bosch advocates bullet #2, based on the discussion and concerns. Commissioner Cathcart
said since there are no defined standards yet, bullet #2 would be appropriate. It would be nice to get to
bullet #4.
Bullet #2 - PC Consensus.
Final Bullet Points
Site plan review, including review criteria presented in the Zoning Ordinance document. This is another
application similar to a conditional use permit where there are major and minor site plans. The smaller
projects -staff would have a staff review committee to review projects. Larger protects would come
before the Planning Commission, where they could review a development project.
Chairman Bosch remembers the Commission agreed with the concept and there was some discussion
about being sure there was a clear line between minor and major so there was no doubt. PC Consensus.
Staff review committee -staff body that is made up to make decisions and issue a written resolution on
whether or not a project has been approved and what those conditions are. It would be on an "as
needed" basis for these applications -- maybe twice a month. Timing would be determined at some future
date. Representatives of Engineering, Planning, Fire, Police, and Building would have a voting say. They
would act like the Planning Commission and adopt or eliminate conditions and formally put it in writing
and hand it to the applicant at that point. The applicant then could either appeal or build. There was
concern as to whether or not there should be architectural representation on that minor site plan review
committee. Their answer to that is no, they don't have an on-staff architect. In some cases, there could
be Design Review Board review.
Chairman Bosch's recollection was that the Commission thought the process was appropriate; it clarified
and formalized what ERB was doing now in some cases.
Mr. Godlewski said ERB would be eliminated and this would become the formal body that would make
those decisions.
Staff review committee - PC consensus.
Residential FAR's -staff showed the Commission what those numbers would produce on a lot. Staff is
trying to get something in the ordinance to provide a framework for FAR's.
Chairman Bosch said this was to resolve the very ambiguous issue of bulk and mass, which is extremely
arbitrary todate.
Residential FAR's - PC Consensus.
Revised Old Towne Design Standards - 6th booklet - is this something the Commission wants to adopt
with the ordinance? PC consensus with the concept and with the modifications.
Staff intends to create a final draft document and bring it back to the Commission at a future date.
Preservation procedures including Certificates of Appropriateness, Rehabilitation incentives,
Nominations and Designations of Cultural Resources, Landmarks and Districts, Demolition Review - Mr.
Godlewski felt they got some good information from the Commission during the meeting. Utilizing those
considerations, he was under the impression they should go forward with that. PC Consensus.
Elimination of RCD overlay zone -Use bullet #2 and expand it; thus, eliminating the RCD zone. PC
Consensus.
Elimination of CP zone - it was Mr. Godlewski's impression that with the last discussions there was
concern about the setbacks and the interface to the residential properties, but the elimination of the CP
zone was something that could be agreed upon.
Chairman Bosch's opinion was that it could be agreed upon, but the key concern was on the
redevelopment of existing CP properties adjoining R1 residential where there is currently a large setback
and with the elimination, reconstruction could result in a zero setback, 20 foot wall. They don't want to
create any more overlay zones, but that's the tough one to solve.
7
Mr. Godlewski said the way to solve it would be to leave the CP zone, which in effect, is not an overlay
zone but a separate zone. The CP zone is left or make it C1.
Chairman Bosch would like to simplify it, but he didn't want to eliminate the zone if it causes that potential
problem. There are a substantial number of CP developments with the problem he mentioned. He opted
to leaving it in unless an answer could be found.
Ms. Wolff pointed out the reason they wanted to eliminate the CP zone is because Orange does not have
a discreet zone as far as uses go in the CP area. There is basically the C1 zone by use and the CP zone
by that rear yard standard. If the CP zone were retained, it can't be retained in the format that is currently
in. It would need to be reworked so that the uses were basically C1 uses. They've gotten to a point
where they can't go back.
It's a question of development standards vs. use potential for the property. The development standards
have remained in the CP, but staff has given away the uses in the majority of the CP. They've come in for
conditional use permits to do what is allowed in the C1.
Chairman Bosch said if there was no other way to solve it, he would advocate leaving it in place, allowing
the uses that are needed, but modifying the standard to protect the relationship to the adjacent single
family residential.
Ms. Wolff said they would work on the list of uses for the CP zone, but retain the development standards,
particularly in reference to the rear setbacks adjacent to single family residential.
Elimination of CP zone - PC Consensus.
Elimination of C3 zone - it was Mr. Godlewski's feeling there was no consensus from the Commission.
There was quite a bit of discussion of property owners -- they didn't want to see the elimination of the C3
zone. It doesn't involve that many properties; it can easily be conceded to keep the C3 zone if that is an
issue.
The Commission would be in favor of keeping the C3 zone. PC Consensus.
Wall sign height - a concern that it was too rigid to say letters could only be a certain height when graphic
standards, which may call for vertical wording or a logo...it can be very appropriate. PC consensus.
Two year limitation on reconstruction of nonconforming structures - In the nonconforming section of the
code, staff suggested wording that if you have a properly permitted, but currently nonconforming structure
and it burns down, if you rebuild it to that use or to the size it previously was within a year (or at least
proceed with the process of getting permits and getting plan checks), you could reconstruct it to the
nonconforming use. City Council has suggested a two year limitation and that's what staff put in there.
The Commission felt two years was fine; however, Commissioner Smith said if they were able to give a
two year grace period for reconstruction, she felt the demolition penalty should also be two years.
Two year limitation - PC Consensus.
Mr. Godlewski said the only other item still in question was the make up of the Design Review Board
relative to a erson who has credentials or formal education in historical architectural styles. Staff
provided the Commission with wording (Page 9 of the October 7 draft of the Design Standards).
Commissioner Smith said they had previously discussed that and she thought by adding one word would
fix it. She referred to the 3rd sentence -- "Of the five board members, two are licensed architects, one is a
licensed landscape architect and two other members have backgrounds in urban planning and
architectural history or preservation, or other disciplines that relate to historic preservation." The concern
was that the two other members would not be urban planners without historic architectural expertise.
Mr. Godlewski recalled that, but he was not sure whether they had a consensus. PC Consensus.
Staff will now prepare a final draft document, including the Old Towne Preservation Standards and all
other documents that have been discussed. It will be brought to the Commission in a final form without
annotation, underlining and strike outs. Staff will provide the Commission a report at the January 17,
1994 meeting as to when to expect the final draft document and to discuss the method of distribution.
8
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance Update, Ordinance Amendment 4093 and Zone Change 1166 to January 17, 1994.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Pruett, Walters
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: OTHER ITEMS
Commissioner Smith read in three different places in the media that the particular document they have
been working on restricts colors you can paint structures in Old Towne. She has read the residential
quadrant ;she sees a section on color, but it says the only color you cannot use is fluorescent or metallic
color. She wanted to make sure she was not missing something in the document. Is there any place
where a pallet of color is stated?
Mr. Godlewski believed there was an early draft that included some discussion of colors. That has been
eliminated; they discussed it at a public hearing and it was not included in the final draft.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to a joint study session
on Wednesday, December 15, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room "C" for the purpose of reviewing
the Plaza Historic District design collaboratives work on facades.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
sld
MOTION CARRIED
9