Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-1998 PC Minutes5"()() . u,.~. :s MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: July 20,1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m.Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Vern Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary e.:-> ~. i., 4(;,) ~~ J~" 7 11::;';:) Jd. J:) -ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-98; ZONE CHANGE 1195-98 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2217-98 - CHILDBRIDGE PRESCHOOLS, INC.Martha J. Malane, President of Childbridge Preschools, Inc., submitted a letter dated July 1, 1998,requesting continuance of this item to August 3, 1998. The applicant states that the process to address environmental issues related to the project has taken longer than anticipated.This item was continued from the May 4 and May 18, 1998 hearings.)Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue General Plan Amendment 2- 98, Zone Change 1195-98 and Conditional Use Permit 2217-98 to the meeting of August 3, 1998. AYES: NOES:IN RE:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1998 AND JULY 6. 1998 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of June 15,1998, as written.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of July 6,1998, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED:Commissioners Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Pruett MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2228-98, VARIANCE 1554-98 - LYNDA WHITMIRE Demolition of a one car garage and construction of a two story second unit, over a new three car garage,within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. Also requested is a variance in the required side yard setback to accommodate future street widening. The site is located at 493 South Orange Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1561-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the July 6, 1998 hearing.)Mr. Jones reported this is a lot within Old Towne at the northeast corner of LaVeta and Orange Street.The residence is a contributing 1911 single story California bungalow. The lot is approximately 50 feet by 100 feet. The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a two story second unit, to be comprised of a 3-car garage, over which there is a 2-bedroom unit. The proposal would include the demolition of an existing detached garage. There is an alley that runs behind the property.The parking access for the new 3-car garage and the open parking space would be taken from the alley. In addition to the conditional use permit, there is a request for a variance from the required two foot side yard setback. This property is somewhat unique in that it is the same size as all of the other properties in the block, but because it is a corner lot, the code requires an additional 10 foot setback. The property is impacted by setbacks greater than other properties on the block. There is also a dedication requirement on LaVeta that will impact this property. According to the Master Plan of Highways and Arterials, there is a two foot dedication requirement. By code, the City is required to make a 10 foot dedication. On the other hand, there has been an agreement reached by Public Works, while they have to accept it, it will not be implemented and at the time the ordinance was changed, would be reconveyed back to the property. It's within that 10 foot area that the parking stall would be requested.The original plans are posted on the wall; the plans have been modified and have a slightly different configured garage and second unit in a different location. Staff noted a 25 foot back up requirement from the garage and the original plans only provided a 23 foot back up distance. The setback requirement on the street side yard is 10 feet, but the plans showed 8 1/2 feet on the interior side yard. The plans were reviewed by the Design Review Board. The DRB felt overall, the project had too much bulk and mass for the neighborhood and they recommended reducing the size of the overall footprint, and to consider a 1 1/2 story configuration to address the bulk and mass issue. The applicants have revised the plans to relocate the building, and the elevations were redesigned. At the second DRB meeting, the DRB recommended approval of the project, as revised, but subject to a number of conditions, which are listed in the staff report.Item 7 requires to set back the fence two feet along LaVeta and the applicants are willing to set it back, but because it is between a sidewalk and the property line, there is a request for some kind of flexibility so that they can accomplish what the DRB wanted without having to precisely set the fence at two feet.Mr. Jones noted with the revised plans, condition 8 is no longer applicable because the 25 foot back up space is provided.A letter was received from Mr. Tom Matuzak stating his opposition to the project based upon bulk and mass. He also feels it is in non-compliance with the Old Towne Design Standards.Commissioner Smith questioned condition 5, to provide a new street light.Mr. Hohnbaum was not certain where that condition comes from, but there is an existing street light and a new light is not required. Condition 5 can be deleted. Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 Aoolicants Scott Fike and Lvnda Whitmire, 493 South OranQe Street, purchased this house in the R- 2 zone in order to belong to the community of Orange. They are from the East Coast and they like the historic ambiance of Old Towne. They are willing to work with the DRB and City to comply with the historical aesthetics of the neighborhood. Their long-range plans are to restore their existing house to the original style structure.Public comments in oODOSition to the oroiect:Louie Caballero, 487 South Grand Street.Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver.Fred Gillett, 205 East Palmyra.Michele Fitzsimmons, 442 South Orange.Patty Ricci, 618 East Culver.The utility pole, off the alley, will interfere with the Ingress and egress of vehicles. The stairs can be seen from the street and it is in violation of the zoning laws. Mr. Caballero complained he was not notified of this hearing, yet he lives within 300 feet of the project. The project does not contribute to the historic neighborhood because of the bulk and mass. The project is overbearing for the lot. Visual compatibility needs to be considered. The LaVeta widening issue is still not resolved. The City should not allow an encroachment permit. The structure needs to be reduced in size. There will be increased traffic on LaVeta. Thirty plus cars park in the 400 block of South Orange Street. The cumulative impact is too much.Resoonse of aoolicants:Mr. Fike and Ms. Whitmire spoke to Pac Bell and Edison about the utility pole before purchasing the house. Both companies discussed several options; one of them being to put a pole at the end of the property line, with a sidewalk anchor over and across the sidewalk, down into the low grass strip.Regarding parking, neither of their cars can fit in the existing garage. The uninhabitable garage needs to be removed. They would both like to protect their cars by parking in a garage. The City is preparing to remove the taking of property off the books in the future regarding the LaVeta Avenue widening. The applicants feel everyone is working together towards a realistic approach to having the property not be overbearing to the community. They have modified their original plans to address the bulk and mass issues expressed by the ORB. They realize there is a definite concern about the cumulative impacts andthey didn't know how to address that issue. They provided their revised plans and conditions to the Commission. Landscaping consists of small shrubs, a tree and other small plants, and a fence exists between their property and the property to the north, but it is a chicken wire fence. They would like to replace the fence along LaVeta and then plant shrubbery to provide a separation between the house and the street for additional privacy.Russell Toeofer, P.O. Box 8981. Newoort Beach, is the architect for the project. Regarding the stairs being exposed to the street, the issue was discussed at DRB. As long as the stairs were behind the setback, there was no conflict with the zoning requirements. They have tried to create a design which imitates the existing structure on the site. The size of the existing house is just under 1600 square feet.It's very long; about 60 feet deep and 30 feet wide. The ridge is parallel to Orange, perpendicular to LaVeta and it is very high. There is room in the attic for a second floor addition that would never be noticed.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch asked for staff's confirmation on the stairway and whether it conforms to the zoning requirements. Also, Mr. Caballero stated he did not receive a notice of the public hearing.Mr. Jones responded there is not a code requirement that says the stairs cannot be visible from off the property line, and the stairway is not within the setback area. In terms of the 300 foot notice, he pulled the radius map. A public notice was mailed to Jay and Kristen Caballero at 487 South Grand Street, who are the legal property owners, according to the Assessor's Parcel Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 Commissioner Smith wanted to know the FAR for this project. She wondered if the parking requirement drives the size of the unit. She asked if the proposed garage were a standard size for a 3-car garage.Mr. Jones said the parking requirement requires two spaces for the primary house, and one enclosed and one open space for the second unit. The modified plan shows the garage at fairly close to minimum size.The minimum code requirement is 20 feet by 30 feet. The proposed garage is 22 feet by 35 feet.Commissioner Smith asked why the Commissiondidn't get the new plans and information in their packets to review prior to the meeting. Her inclination was to continue this item in order to allow them time to review the documentation. Shedidn't like having to make last-minute decisions, especially when pressured by a large agenda.Chairman Bosch shared the concern about doing an instantaneous review of information received during the course of the hearing. He also needed to separate the issues of number of units on the lot vs. the architectural design and conformance with Design Standards for the project. The number of units on the lot is not a discussion item because two units are allowed in the zone. However, the units must be designed and developed to meet the Design Standards and Development Standards that are also part of the City ordinance, which may impact the size or number of units on the lot. He did not have difficulty with the second unit on the lot, if the design is compatible and does not overly develop the mass on this lot.The size of the garage is contributing to the bulk and mass of the project on the site. It's assisting in creating a variance. The only justification he could see for the variance is the potential taking for the widening of the street, which exists legally at this time.Commissioner Carlton said everything around this project is zoned R-2, and she sees this issue coming up every time someone wants to add another unit. The only way to solve this problem in the community is to change it back to R-1 zoning. The applicants meet the requirements and the recommendations of the Design Review Board, and she is inclined to move forward with the project. She would like to see a landscape plan, which can be a condition of approval.Commissioner Romero's concern is with the variance. There needs to be a legal ground to grant a variance. The problem is the size of the garage. He requested to ask the applicants if they were willing to modify their plans and reduce the size of the garage in order to eliminate the variance.Mr. Fike said the only thing this will accomplish would be to reduce the square footage by 160 square feet on each level. They must still have four (4) parking spaces, and each space has to be 10 feet wide. They will still need a partial variance because of the actual width of the lot. Public Works staff is recommending the variance.Ms. Whitmire explained the reason they requested the variance is not because of the size offfi'e garage,but because of the street widening issue, which forced the setback in 10 feet further than it was originally.The parking space is in the disputed area.Mr. Jones said because this is a comer property, there is a required 10 foot setback. Most comer properties have an extra 10 feet, but this lot does not. There is also a code requirement that does not allow parking within that setback area. The proposal is to set the building back 10 feet from the existing property line, which makes the building okay, but the applicants are correct. The code requires 40 feetof parking area. They've only got 40 out of the 50 foot wide lot to really work with. The options could include an administrative adjustment. There could be an option tohave an 8 1/2 foot interior parking space, on the northside of the structure. Without an administrative adjustment or variance, the applicants literally cannot build according to code.Mr. Fike addressed the concern of the 10 foot setback with Public Works since it will take away the pop out in their dining room, if the City takes the property. The back entrance to the house will then need to be reconfigured. They were encouraged by DRB to address the parking because it was more of an issue than the variance. The variance is for Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 The applicants were wHling to continue their project in order to modify their plans. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2228-98 and Variance 1554-98 to the meeting of August 17, 1998. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Car1ton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith asked that the staff report include the size of the existing house, the FAR of the property with the second unit, discussion about what will happen to the utility pole, and to notify Mr.Caballero of the next hearing date.IN RE: NEW HEARING 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2230-98 - M. J. MARTINI A proposal to construct an accessory second unit. The site is located at 638 East Walnut Avenue.Negative Declaration 1564-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.The full presentation of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition to this item.NOTE:The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant. M.J. Martini, 638 East Walnut Avenue. introduced Richard Dennen, who will be building the second unit.Richard Dennen. 31732 Via Madonna. San Juan Caoistrano, proposes to build a second accessory unit for Mr. Martini so that he will be able to live on the same property with his son and his wife. They want to attach a small 500 square foot unit to the back of the garage, located in the back yard and it is not visible from the street. They have designed the second unit to match the existing residence. To match the existing windows would almost be impossible as they are an old style casement windows, mixed in with some wood windows. He prefers to put in weather-resistant, aluminum clad windows, with the look of exterior wood. The existing garage is quite large and can accommodate more than four cars. Parking is not an issue.Commissioner Smith's only reservation with the project are the windows. She feels strongl}L.about such an unique architectural style as this house being replicated exactly. She personally would like to see the wood windows.Mr. Dennen agreed to install wood windows on this project.Public comments:Alain Hasson, 634 East Jefferson. spoke in favor of this project. This is a classical second unit for the family.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Romero liked the existing house and is in favor of approving the addition.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1564-98, finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1564-98, finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2230-98, including conditions 1 through 7 listed in the staff report, and adding condition 8 that the new addition shall utilize wood windows to conform to the profile of the existing wood windows in the existing residence in lieu of aluminum or steel. The Commission finds that the project meets the required findings of the Orange Municipal Code Section 17.92.020 as listed in the staff report, and fully conforms to the requirements of the ordinance for accessory second units and to the Old Towne Design Standards. It provides a design based upon sound principles of land use and services required by the community without causing deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for its area. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area and it is made subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2231-98 - THAI PAN RESTAURANT A proposal to permit the on-premise sale of beer and wine within an existing restaurant. The site is located at 724 East Katella Avenue.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.The full reading of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition.Commissioner Smith was concerned about condition 4, which speaks to the sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages. This particular condition is too restrictive since the CUP goes with the land, and is not compatible with the other restaurant uses in the area. The other restaurants stay open much later. She would like to see consistent language in the conditions for these projects.Mr. Jones responded staff included the 9:00 p.m. closing time in response to the Commission' s desire to cease the sale of alcoholic beverages one hour prior to closing, and the applicant had i1ldicated their hours of operation ended at 10:00 p.m. Staff could eliminate the hour of closing, or make it much later,but keep the one hour prior to closing.The public hearing was opened.Michael Cho, 3991 MacArthur Boulevard. #350. NewDOrt Beach, is the attorney for the applicant. This is a mom and pop type restaurant and is not a cover up for a bar or lounge. He shared the concern raised by Commissioner Smith relative to condition 4. The owners are planning to extend their hours of operation and remain open all day on Sundays and be closed on Mondays. They ask that the condition be consistent with an 11:00 a.m. opening 7 days a week. They also feel 9:00 p.m. is rather restrictive, even though they currently close at 10:00 p.m. They wish to serve alcohol until at least 10:00 p. m. when they close the restaurant.Chairman Bosch explained the sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages needs to cease one hour prior to close of business each day, based upon the recommendation of the Police Department.This is a law enforcement issue that needs to be adhered to. Since the CUP goes with the land and not the applicant, the City does not know who will be in this space operating a restaurant, subject Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 an ABC license in the future, over which the City has no control. Regardless of the closing hours, the Commission requires cessation one hour before closing. Mr. Cho said they would like to stay open later and have sales until 1 :00 a.m. on New Year's Eve. The pUblic hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2231-98, subject to conditions 1 through 8 listed in the staff report and modifying condition 4 to read,Sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall not begin before 11 :00 a.m. and shall cease no later than 1:00 a.m., or one (1) hour before closing." The Commission finds that the permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. It is considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan. And, it is subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m.6. MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 58-98 - RALPH & LINDA ZEHNER Proposed demolition of an existing garage (located within the Old Towne Historic District) and one and one- half story construction of two (2) duplexes and one (1) cottage unit and a single story garage for seven (7) vehicles to be located behind an existing single family home. The site is located at 630 East Culver Avenue. NOTE:Negative Declaration 1540-97 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.John Godlewski, Senior Planner, reported that this is the third proposed project at this property.Currently, it is proposed as a minor site plan. Previous applications were for a conditional use permit for a project that was in excess of 11/2 stories. The current project is 11/2 stories in height. The intent of the application is to retain the existing historic single family home at the front of the property, demolish an existing garage, construct a new one story, 7-car garage, construction two new1 1/2 story cftfptexes and one1 1/2 story cottage. The project ultimately includes the existing home and five new units for six units on the parcel.In 1993 the south side of Culver, between Shaffer and Cambridge was rezoned from R-1- 6 to R-2-6. This action allowed for the unusually large lots to be considered for multiple units. The General Plan was also changed at this time to be consistent with the R- 2 zone. Mitigated Negative Declaration 1425-93 was prepared at that time with the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment addressing the cumulative impacts of future development. In addition, to adopting mitigation measures concerning traffic circulation,conflict points, number of driveways, an additional mitigation measure was adopted at that time indicating the Council's concern for the neighborhood compatibility with future developments and future demolitions, and the need to consider all future developments with the historic architectural context of the neighborhood in terms of bulk and mass, and their effect on the neighborhood.The current submittal reflects the applicant's efforts to modify his plans to be more in keeping with the Old Towne Design Standards than the previous applications. Previous plans are shown on the wall, which included a larger structure - more of an apartment type development. The next plan that was submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission included a plan that was Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 development. The current proposal reduces the size of the structure to 1 1/2 stories; thus, not requiring the conditional use permit. No building is more than a duplex. The current floor plans are also posted on the wall and they indicate that the existing house remains at the front of the parcel. Immediately behind the existing house is a 7-car one story garage with a roof pitch that is similar to the existing house in front, a large open parking area to accommodate the required parking on site, and then the cottage unit, followed by a duplex unit and another duplex turned towards the north, at the rear of the property.The staff report includes an attachment B which provides a detailed analysis of the proposed architecture prepared by the Historic Preservation Planner on staff. These comments are to provide some perspective as to the appropriateness of the project with the Historic Preservation Design Standards. Mitigated Negative Declaration 1540-97 was prepared for the current project to evaluate the project impacts, as well as potential cumulative effects the project could have on the historic district. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared with the assumption and mitigation that the project would be found compatible with the Historic Preservation Design Standards.On July 8, 1998, the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project and recommended denial of the project based on their belief that the project was generally too tight for the site, the roof pitch was steeper than typically found on the Craftsman style of architecture, the proportions of the cottage unit were inconsistent with the type of architecture, building materials and landscaping were insufficiently represented to make a final determination for consistency with the Old Towne Design Standards.However, the DRB went on to make some recommendations that could improve the project should the Commission and City Council choose to approve the request. These included removing the extra garage space to make a 6-car garage and this would allow readjustment of the site plan, improving the open space and relieving the tightness and building separations. By removing the one garage stall to the north, it could reduce the size and depth of the building by at least 10 feet. By doing that, everything in the back of the project could shift forward. The DRB also suggested incorporating the cottage unit into a tri-plex development, which would improve the proportion relationship. It would also take away the separation between the cottage and duplex, which would allow an additional 10 feet of open space. DRB also suggested to change the roof style to be more consistent with the front house, and eliminate the storage shed, which would also help open the plan and relieve the tightness.Attached to the staff report is Negative Declaration 1425-93 and the Council Resolution 8199 that approved the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment in 1993. Also included as Attachment B is the staff analysis of the historic context. Attachment C is a letter from Mr. Zehner' s attorney that conveys his perspective on the appropriateness of the project. Attachment D is a letter received from Frank and Shannon Tucker which reflects their views on the project, as neighbors and concerned citizens.Subsequent to these attachments, staff also received a letter from Tom Matuzak, and a phone call from Carole Walters, who is in favor of the project. The Commission also received, under separate cover, a letter from Joan Crawford. And, staff was handed a petition from Dan and Martha Phelan, coMeining 234 signatures from citizens in the neighborhood that are opposed to the multiple units. Finally, the City Attorney's office provided the Commission with a memorandum that basically recommends findings and determinations to be made should the Commission decide to approve the project. The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant. Raloh Zehner. 630 East Culver. said he plans to replace a gable roof on the present garage. He submitted a plan to the City Council with a hip roof on the garage and they didn't like it. He doesn't necessarily agree with the Design Review Board; however, he does agree it would make more sense to slide the cottage into, and make it a tri-plex. His neighbors would rather see duplexes and cottages. He is going to put wood trim around all of the windows and install masonite siding. The windows are going to be white, anodized aluminum with window screens. The doors are going to be metal clad, raised panel doors with screen doors. The garage doors are the metal, raised panel style with electric door openers, and wood trim will be put around the doors. The garage doors cannot be seen from the street. When he first brought this project forward, he had 15 parking spaces. The Council said he was over parked. He would like a 2-car garage for his own use. He is now providing what is required for parking plus one space for guest parking. The average driveway on Culver is 141/2 feet wide. He Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 They have reduced the FAR down as far as they can, have 6,300 square feet of green open space and he can't see where it is tight. A portion of the existing storage shed wDl be converted to a laundry room. 6 oeoole sooke in favor of the oroiect: Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver. Ken Brimlow, 652 East Culver. Carol Harnack, 546 East Culver Avenue. Corinne Schreck, 446 North James. Lee Painter, 577 East Culver. Mike Keller, 632 East Culver Avenue. The speakers commented Mr. Zehner has worked hard on his plans; it's an attractive project. The storage shed is needed and it does not present a problem. Housing is always in demand. The project fits into the neighborhood and Mr. Zehner has been sensitive to the area. 12 oooole sooke in oooosition to the oroiect: Patty Ricci, 618 East Culver Avenue. Tom Staybel, 390 South Pine Street. Tom Matuzak, 340 South Grand Street. Mary Matuzak, 340 South Grand Street. Fred Gillett, 205 East Palmyra. Mattie Unk, 801 East Culver Avenue. Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver Avenue. Gary Elsey, 815 East Culver Avenue. Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive. Dan Phelan, 375 South Pine Street. Martha Phelan, 375 South Pine Street. Laura Raney, 368 South Cambridge Street. The speakers were opposed to the project because of the impact of the rental units in a single family neighborhood. Five units are just too many for the property. There will be more traffic and noise impacting the neighborhood. The mass, scale and bulk must be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Open space, rhythm and pattern impacts the neighborhood as well. How does the project conform to CEQA and where is the EIR. The neighborhood should be re-zoned to R-1. People do not want apartments in their neighborhood. The cumulative effect is a concern. This is a high density development in Old Towne and it is a non-conforming use on the street. The project will set a precedent for other projects on Culver Avenue. The sewer line is also a concem. Aoolicant's resoonse:Mr. Zehner understands his neighbors' concerns; however, the neighborhood was re-zoned to multi-family use. He feels he has done a good job in making his new construction compatible with the existing neighborhood. He down sized and got rid of the bulk and mass. The traffic capacity of Culver Avenue is 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day. He acknowledged the sewer line is deficit, but the City does not anticipate a critical over1oading of the sewer Une because of the zone change. He is willing to redesign the project to provide a tri-plex. The trash enclosure must be sprinklered and the trash truck will not be driving back into the property. This is not affordable housing; it will be market rate rental units. They considered building a single family home on theproperty, but financially, it won't work.Commissioner Smith felt the project is much improved over the previous one, but she is concerned with the synthetic materials Mr. Zehner is using. Wood windows and wood siding are high Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 Mr. Zehner responded many of the structures in Old Towne have masonite siding as it has been approved as a substitute material. If he were adding on to the front structure, he would use redwood siding. It gets down to cost. The windows and siding will have the same profile and no one will be able to see them from the street. Commissioner Carlton asked if the shed encroached on the Edison easements since it was on the lot line. Mr. Zehner replied no, the shed is two feet off of the lot line. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch said Mr. Zehner commented on the sewer adequacy and traffic impacts, and the Commission would like staff's comments as weD. Mr. Hohnbaum remembered reviewing this. In Mr. Zehner's general area, the sewer trunk line does not have a deficiency perse. The deficiencies occur down stream. which will have to be dealt with as far as upgrades or re-routing the sewer in the future. There will be no significant deficiency increase with this project. There will be a point, however, where the sewer system will be insufficient to accommodate the additional demand, and the City will need to place a moratorium until the sewer could be upgraded, or have the applicant do the upgrading and be reimbursed at a later date. Regarding traffic impacts, the street could adequately handle 8,000 cars per day. This project does not have a significant impact on the existing traffic on the street.Chairman Bosch thought it would be appropriate for staff to reiterate what CEQA conformance requires and findings of the mitigated negative declaration in terms of compliance with the law. The larger scale question is the issue of cumulative impacts.Mr. Godlewski responded there are two CEQA documents. One is the CEQA document that was previously prepared in 1993 concerning the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. In that document it outlined the City's concern for what type and intensity of development would likely take place on these parcels, and certainly a type of mitigation to see that it is in conformance. Although not specific, it did refer to the Historic Design Standards. The Standards speak to bulk and mass, and basically soliciting a level of community acceptability to what is the definition of too much, too big, and too much mass. By addressing those issues and defining them in the project, the Commission and City Council will identify what they feel to be an acceptable standard. CEQA conformance requires the Commission to make a decision on whether or not the project conforms to the Historic Preservation Design Standards as they are presented in the booklet.Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attomey, stated when the Mitigated Negative Declaration wa~roved in 1993, it addressed the cumulative impacts. There would be 65 units at build out. The Negative Declaration for this project incorporates by reference the previous analysis that was done in 1993. With respect to historical resources, a two step analysis is required, which Mr. Reynolds explained. He also explained the CEQA requirements.The Commission discussed the negative declaration issues of cultural resources, Old Towne Design Standards, traffic, demolition, aesthetics, and cumulative impacts with staff regarding the proposed project. A mitigated negative declaration was determined to be appropriate as long as certain mitigation measures were incorporated to make sure the impacts were addressed. An interim measure was put in place to only allow two units to be developed on a lot, unless an applicant applied for a conditional use permit. The Zoning Ordinance adopted the 11/2 story threshold rather than two units to address how much development could take place.Mr. Jones explained the cumulative impacts. In 1993, the re-zone looked at the densities and the potential impacts. There were 29 parcels in the re-zone. If the land area was built out under the R-1-6 density, there would be a total of 61 dwelling units that could be developed in that area. When re-zoned to R-2-6, it could have a maximum total of 126 units on those 29 Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 are four mitigation measures that need to be applied. The DAB and Old Towne Design Standards are referred to when dealing with the intensity issues. One measure of that is the FAR (Floor Area Ratio). In this case, the FAA for the A-2-6 zone is .7 and the project is cIear1y under that. The density of the project is allowed because of the R-2-6 zone; however, the bulk and mass of the development can be measured.and the Commission has the ability to determine what is appropriate, given the Old Towne Design Standards.Commissioner Pruett referred to the open space issue for the project. He agreed with the decision of the Design Review Board in that the project is too tight. He also asked about the shed and if it were subject to setback requirements.Mr. Godlewski responded there are two standards in the Zoning Ordinance. One is for habitable buildings and the other is for non-habitable buildings such as storage, accessory or garages. Accessory buildings can be closer to the property line. They can be on the property line if constructed to the Uniform Building Code requirements. They are only limited by a 10 foot height at the property line. The laundry room for this project is considered to be an accessory building.Commissioner Smith thought after building out 11 lots, the ambiance of a single family neighborhood is lost. With the build out of this one project, the single family residential character of the street will be lost.Commissioner Carlton thought the project is in conflict with the guidelines for the historic district. The cumulative effect will impact this neighborhood for the potential number of units that can be built. The mitigated negative declaration is not being adequately met.Commissioner Smith did not think the project is compatible with the Design Standards. The project is much improved, but it is not compatible with the Design Standards for several reasons. The Design Standards clearly ask that the buildings be done in an architectural style somewhere between 1880 and 1930. These buildings, although attractive, are not a true, Craftsman style. They are taller, do not contain the elements that Craftsman's do, there are no garages attached or included with them. The garage is not a Craftsman style. There needs to be wood windows and doors, and all the other elements that a Craftsman style has. The materials are not compatible and therefore, do not comply with the Design Standards. The footprint is not compatible with the footprint of the neighborhood. There are not 7-car garages, as part of the historic context of the neighborhood. She thought some features could be added.The DRB also found that the project is incompatible; it does not relate to the pattern of the street. The buildings over shadow the original structure on the property. The addition of so many buildings will change and destroy the character of the neighborhood. This plan adversely affects the historic neighborhood. To make the project work, there must be a picture perfect, precisely compatible project --compatible with the Design Standards. The project should have hip roof cottages, done with wood siding,wood windows, set in a pattern compatible with the neighborhood, facing east or west, lined u~ in a single line like the houses in the neighborhood. Commissioner Smith is against the R-2-6 zOning for this neighborhood. That zone was not properly documented for environmental purposes or environmental impacts at the time. That decision should of had an EIR because of the large number of lots that it affected. The impacts were not adequately addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The decision for R-2-6 zoning was a political decision rather than a good land use decision.Commissioner Romero also did not believe the proper decision was made on the zoning. He is not comfortable with the open space, rhythm and pattern for the project and could not approve it as presented.Commissioner Pruett stated Commissioner Smith outlined the issues very well. He agreed with the concern of consistency with the Design Standards. He had an issue with the open space and the impact the proposed development will have on the neighborhood.Chairman Bosch disagreed with the re-zoning to A-2- 6 when it occurred; however, it's the law of the City now. He must judge this application with regard to the Development Standards that apply to the R-2-6 zone. He stated they Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 Secretary of Interior Guidelines cautioned against replicating existing historic buildings because it diminishes their value. Yet, the City continues to encourage compatibility by matching details, design and style for new buildings built on parcels containing existing buildings. His justification is because those buildings are closely linked to the existing dwelling, and do not have the proper relationship in terms of open space, separation, mass and orientation to allow a difference in style. He strongly does not believe that precludes placement of several different styles of building when they have compatibility and contextuality to other buildings in the immediate neighborhood on a property with a different style. The opportunity exists if properly accomplished to provide stnJctures at the rear of the lot that are of a different, but historically correct and neighborhood compatible design style, different than that of the original contributing historic building at the front of the lot, if the relationships of mass, bulk, and orientation to access in respect to the existing residence are met. This can be accomplished by a transitional structure such as a garage or cottage unit, depending on where it is placed on the property. They also need to be careful in terms of how they define what is changing their historic district. Bulk and mass are caused by a variety of items. Some are permanent such as the height and dimension of a building and that doesn't necessarily relate to density. They have some flexibility as they define the community standards relative to what is of value in the historic district (i.e., color of a building). They need to look for stylistic transitions and diversions in making buildings compatible that have a direct relationship to those that exist in the historical context. A Craftsman-style structure could be appropriate for the buildings on the rear of this parcel. The detailing of that Craftsman style must be in a familiar relationship with what is recognized within the range of Craftsman detailing, bulk, mass, roof, pitch and materials that are found in the community. It's the appearance or profUe of a window frame that is important, and the finish of the material -- not the material behind it itself. He would much rather have an aluminum window with a profile that is lavishly duplicative or transitional from the existing profile installed on houses to maintain the historical context, than to see a re-use of the material that cannot be seen within the window itself.Chairman Boschdidn't think the design before the Commission has demonstrated yet the detailing in terms of size, location of windows, the detailing of roof corbels, the relationship of the dormers, and entrance doors that is necessary to fit within the definition of what is a reasonable family of design for Craftsman-style buildings. The bulk and mass, as designed for the garage, serves as a transitional structure, recognizing that the style of the existing garage is not the same as that of the house, and that the replacement need not be replicative of the existing garage. But, this design does not provide that transition yet. The bigger issue from the design side is, does this meet the Design Standards and is there a basis for stating that the DRB should be over ruled, or their decision modified. The Chairman did not think so. A style of living space needs to be created in relationship to the ambiance of the historical neighborhood, and the size and mass of the buildings is needed before he finds the project acceptable.More open space is needed between the structures. He concurred and accepted the advice of the City Attorney's Office relative to the current legal import of the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted with the Zone Change. He has yet seen demonstrated how and why such a proposal causes a significant impact when one looks at the overall historic district. He didn't feel good abbut the Mitigated Negative.Oeclaration except that it is adequately prepared. There is not enough evidence to identify that there is a significant cumulative effect. It might be, but it is not demonstrated. He cannot oppose the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but he still had significant problems with the Minor Site Plan Review with regard to the specific findings and issues that revolve around the Design Review Board approval and conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards that can be met by the number of units on the site and the type of development on the parcel.Commissioner Smith clarified she agreed with the Chairman's statement about transitional designs on the same lot. She's not calling for it to be a cookie cutter replication in the back. She feels strongly though that it needs to be a true design, whatever it is. She doesn't like the watered down version of style in the historic district. She didn't know if the applicant is getting sufficient design guidance in putting together his project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration bothers her. This one has several checks in the " less than significant impact" and aesthetics and cultural resources came into "potentially significant unless mitigation added". There is more activity on this Mitigated Negative Declaration than the Commission usually Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 Commissioner Carlton said this discussion boils down to compliance with the Old Towne Design Standards. In looking at the project review summary, she felt Mr. Zehner needed a different architect. She didn't think the architect understands how to implement the Old Towne Design Standards. The Commission asked the applicant if he were willing to continue his project to address the concerns he has heard at this meeting. Mr. Zehner requested a 10 minute break so that he could call his attorney for advice. He also extended another invitation to Commissioners Pruett and Romero to visit the site and discuss the project with him. He wants to be first on the Agenda if he comes back. RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 11 :25 p.m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 11:40 p.m.Mr. Zehner reported his attomey told him the direction he is receiving at this hearing is contrary to what the City Council gave him in April. He also said specific directions are needed; however, Mr. Zehner agreed to a 30 day continuance.Commissioner Carlton wants to see fewer units. She encouraged Mr. Zehner to look through the review summary (Attachment B) and incorporate as many of the suggestions as he can. There definitely needs to be more open space. The review summary specifically addresses a number of elements that are appropriate for this project, and makes recommendations on the proportion, pitch of the roof, Craftsman-style architecture, and materials.Commissioner Pruett said the issue of the Design Standards is very important. The applicant needs to take into consideration how the new construction will flow with the rest of the neighborhood; how will the project fit within the community. The project appears to be tight on the lot and needs to be looked at. The shed may be a factor in the applicant's decision. The proposed materials are an issue. If the applicant wants to use substitute materials, it needs to be incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate why a substitute material should be approved for the project.Commissioner Smith does not want to see a tri-plex. She would like the applicant to consider wood windows. She's open to a mix of architectural styles; they don'thave to match in order to make the transition of buildings. She would like to see something with a hip roof if it can be done without too much expense. She called to Mr. Zehner's attention a couple of really nice, original Craftsman duplexes. There is one in the 200 block of North Olive, on the east side of the street. There is another original duplex in the 200 block of North Harwood, on the east side of the street. She would like Mr. Zehner to re-evaluate the shed because it adds to the massing on the property. There needs to be more attention paid to the detailing on the building. She wished he would drop one unit, and put his money into the..detailing in making such nice units that people would be willing to pay higher rent. People do not come to Old Towne just to rent an apartment; they want something that is cute or has a certain flavor and that costs a little bit to put together. Chairman Bosch's problem is with the bulk and mass of the garage building. It does not provide a good relationship to be respectful of the house in the front, and is so overwhelming that it really encumbers the site. Whether its designed to be more compatible with the architectural style of the existing residence or stay within the Craftsman-style, or be a transitional element, must relate to a style acceptable within the Design Standards. The project is overwhelming in its height and size and needs to be brought down. He highly recommended that a small color materials board be presented to the Commission. It appears Mr.Zehner meets the zoning code requirements for individual, usable, outdoor recreation space for all of the units, but the problem is that the duplex to the rear and its relationship to the duplex immediately north of it, is so tight. It does not relate well. A front identity needs to be created for the easterly unit of the rear duplex, and a relationship between those two duplex buildings that is compatible architecturally. The landscape plan could be conditioned for final approval by the Design Review Board. He is concerned about how base landscaping is developed on the north side of the cottage, relative to the parking immediately adjacent to it, how the trash area is detailed and screened, and the type and style of the Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 proposed fencing is an important part of the architectural design and recognition of the bulk and mass. He wouldn't mind seeing a tri-p1ex if the apparent volume of the building in terms of ridge height and through the articulation of design, the mass of building can be kept down so that it resembles a larger single family home can be done in order to get that 10 feet to help provide a correct separation between the two dwellings. The specific detailing should include the size of the windows, as well as the trim material, and how both the gable ends and the dormers are detailed out.Commissioner Smith would defer to Chairman Bosch's recommendation of the tri-plex if the design elements are there. But, it can't get too big and massive like before. The design will buy a lot of bulk and mass because that is what adds the ambiance to the neighborhood.Chairman Bosch said there were questions raised that need to be clarified by staff regarding the environmental issues. Also, staff is asked to address the linkage between the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the site plan approval. And, move forward with further clarification relative to not just the legal basis for the findings relative to cumulative impact of the previous Negative Declaration, but any others that might be caused by imposition of a design relative to the Design Standards that were formally adopted after that previous Mitigated Negative Declaration.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Minor Site Plan Review 58-98 to the meeting of Wednesday, September 9, 1998, and this item shall be placed first on the Agenda.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Car"on, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2233-98 - THE BLOCK AT ORANGE A proposal to establish a Major Commercial Center Sign Program at The New Block at Orange, formerly known as the Orange City Mills Shopping Center. The site is located north of SR-22 and west of The City Drive.Negative Declaration 1568-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Commissioner Carlton met with some of the representatives from the Mills Corporation for additional information on the project.NOTE:Commissioner Smith previously spoke with the applicants and left her comments with them. The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant. Jerry Enaen. The Mills Corooration. 1 City Blvd. West #1700, thanked staff and the DRB for their assistance in helping to bring the final element of their project to the Commission. He introduced Mr.Beer, the founding principal of Communication Arts who came up with the ideas for their project.Henry Beer. Communication Arts. 1112 Pearl Street. Boulder. Colorado, talked about their sign program.They want their project to maintain the same competitive edge five or six years out, as it does the day the center opens. Buildings have spoken to people for many years. Today, they can speak with a whole course of new voices. The elements intend to create a fusion between the image and culture that people live in, and the architecture of all that it inhabits. The stylons are intended to communicate and celebrate the resident culture. The language of the stylons scales down into a series of ambassadors, which march out into the parking lot. They carry the message out to people arriving and they also serve as elements to scale and mitigate the parking lots. The placards are very neatly stitched into the project and emerge right from the buildings. This will help create a strong identity for Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 Mr. Engen presumed the wording of the conditions supersede the original staff report. Along with that, he wanted to make sure the wording is consistent. Under condition 5 it talks about the issue of being readable or recognizable. They would like to add the word "cIear1y readable and recognizable". and then have that same language filter through the summary section on the first page. The next issue is to clarify the proposed restriction on the placard signs as it relates to what faces the public street. He wanted to make sure that the styIons that march out into the parking lots are not governed by that same restriction. There is an area that is allowed to have a logo or sponsorship identification on the stylons. Condition 4 is an extension of the DAB recommendation that relates to the stylons. They do not agree with the DAB's condition to restrict the use of the stylons to black and white images only. The last sentence in condition 4 needs to be deleted. It was suggested that any change to color graphics be reviewed by staff rather than the DAB. Linda Bozuna. 550 South Hooe Street. Los Anaeles. has worked on The Block since the process started. She went over the findings that are required for the sign program and the conditional use permit. The signs are separated from adjacent uses by both arterials and the freeways. In proportion. these signs are as far away, if not further, than the right-of-way and the property line and are consistent with the ordinance. This is a highly developed commercial area, and many of the buildings are larger in scale and height than the center itself. Because the signage is part of the architecture of the shopping center, they feel it is very distinct from the traditional kind of signage. They are creating an urban environment and are trying to bring people into a space that will make them feel like it is a center. A site distance analysis is required to demonstrate why extra height or display area is needed to promote the development. The sign ordinance allows one additional square foot of building frontage area for the signage for every 100 feet of distance from the project to the right-of-way or property line. They have twice as much of sign face area, but three times the distance. An analysis of the range of sign visibility is also required and the potential impacts including impacts caused by lighting upon surrounding properties or public streets,which demonstrates that such impacts will not negatively impact surrounding properties. The illumination will be no greater than the surrounding office buildings. and they will also be creating no impacts to traffic safety. They have submitted scaled and dimensioned plans that provide an adequate basis for evaluation.Commissioner Carlton was very impressed with the proposed sign program at The Block.Chairman Bosch wanted to know how the banners will be integrated into the architecture and into the contextuality of the documentation.Mr. Engen could add a couple of their anchor renderings, which show the banners. They are integrated into the actual architecture features of the outside of the buildings. Elevations of Dave & Busters were shared with the Commission to show how the banners are integrated into the pilaster architecture around the building.Chairman Bosch asked a detailed question relative to pylon D at Chapman (Page 5 of the study). This pylon is immediately adjacent to apublic right-of-way and doesn't have the distances that are utilized to represent the need for increased height or size. Yet it is a 36 foot pylon. He had some difficulty with not seeing a specific justification for 36 feet and not 32 feet. How is this deemed appropriate and how does this not damage the context of a very different streetscape. Digital imaging techniques are mentioned.The image areas of the signs are not moving or changing during the course of the day. Some of the signs mentioned in the different documents have different heights, and it needs to be narrowed down to be sure it is clarified to be 12 feet. Flag poles show up at different heights. Chairman Bosch had a real technical challenge on the applicant's request relative to advertising -- 20% at the bottom of the stylons to be able to be utilized for commercial off-site advertising.Mr. Engen said they tried to utilize the style of that pylon that matches the pylons in the parking lots. It's a shared sign between them and the Double Tree Hotel. It was necessary to make it large enough to have a compatible use and still have the imagery needed to identify The Block. If the 36 feet is an issue, they would be amiable to lowering that to 32 feet so that it meets the current code. The digital imaging signs are replaced from time to time with new images. The first program will set the tone of the project and may last six to eight months. There is only one flag pole being requested at Dave & Busters Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 large stylon signs are meant to be graphic images only on the entire stylon. The stylons out in the parking lot are meant to be able to have the same graphic images, but on the lower panel of that graphic image to be able to utilize text as well that would not necessarily be third party advertising, but would be demonstration of a sponsor that maybe is underwriting one of the programs or story lines. They could restrict the faces of those particular stylons where it could be clearly readable or recognizable. which is the same criteria for the placards. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Binning clarified the sign code clearly states there shall be no off-site commercial signs in any project.It has been the position of the City Attorney's Office, in working with the Mills Corporation, they prefer not to see off-site advertising allowed. However, there are a couple of limitations that would make it better in the eyes of the Commission and City Council. One concession has been to say that advertising is limited to tenants, products and services on site. Even that is a concession because normally off-site advertising is considered to be the business itself. The second compromise they encouraged is that the advertising would not be visible outside the center.Commissioner Pruett said the issue of products and services is consistent with some of the other signs done in the past (Le., markets).Commissioner Smith is excited about this project and is pleased with the sign program. This is a very unique site and something different needs to be done.Commissioner Carlton thought the signs were innovative and she had no problem with the sign on Chapman Avenue.Chairman Bosch was against the concept of having off-site advertising on any sign visible from the street.If it is facing inside, that is a different story and that can be justified. It's an extraordinary and well crafted sign program.Mr. Carnes suggested a condition relative to the height of the flag pole that the maximum height would be 80 feet and that it be kept a minimum distance of 320 feet from any residential use (condition 6).Regarding condition 5, the word "clearly" could easily be added in front of the words readable or recognizable. If the Commission concurs to the sma. stylons, that can also be added to the first line. "To the extent that commercial signage on placard and small size stvlon signs is clearlv readable or recognizable from public streets," The applicant's request regarding condition 4. it could be left that any change to color graphics shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Community Development Department. A condition could be added that the pylon sign on Chapman Avenue shall confonn to the present major sign ordinance. The sign could be lowered in elevation by four (4) feet. maintain the same size graphic and signage area. and comply with the minimum clearance required underneath, at the maximum height of 32 feet. Condition 5 could also be modified so that off-site sponsors or advertisers could not be clearly readable or recognizable from the public streets.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve Negative Declaration 1568-98 and find that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.AYES:NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2233-98, finding the permit will be granted upon sound principles of land use and In response to services required by the community. The signage program is in conformance with the appropriate section of the Municipal Code relative to major sign programs. And, is required to properly identify a previouslyapprovedmajorregionalcenterintheCityofOrange. The permit will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located, as designed and conditioned for approval, in addition to not causing further deterioration to occur from the pre-existing conditions on the site. The permit has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located and found to be appropriate. It is to be granted subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any partiCUlarapplicant. Approval of this conditional use permit are subject to conditions 1 through 9, as listed in the staffreport, adding condition 10, which states that, "Entry pylon D, located near the Chapman Avenue right- of-way shall not exceed 32 feet in height and comply with the City's sign ordinance with regard to clearance to the bottom of the sign construction faces, but may retain the sign age areas and contentproposedbytheapplicant.Revise condition 4 to state, first sentence, "The imaQ9 area within the stylon signs..." Second sentence,indicate, "Any change to color graphics shall be reviewed and approved by theDirectoroftheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentorhisorherdesignee." Modify condition 5, first sentence, to state, "To the extent that commercial signage on placard and small sMan signs is c1earlv readable or recognizable from public streets, it shall only be used to advertise products, services. and tenants within "The Block at Orange. " Insert the word, services. before "and tenants" in the second sentence, and insert the word,c1earlv, before "readable" in the last sentence of Condition 5. The motion includes the documentation of the sign age package dated July 8, 1998 and shall include the overall color project elevations demonstrating the integrated range of signage package components, including a clearer illustration of the specific role of banners in the signage package.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourntothenextregularlyscheduledmeetingonAugust3, 1998. The meeting adjourned at 1: 35 a.m.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None