2007 - February 5
(;1-500 .G.do 3
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
5 February 2007
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
Commissioner Bonina
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sharon PenttilalMari Burke, Recording Secretary
IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public
to address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda.
Public comment was received as follows:
Michael Short. address on file stated:
. Community Pride Bingo is a program that will be coming up at a future meeting and
funds many of the programs in the schools.
. It is somewhat dying despite the fact that there has been a lot of work put into it.
. Each time they meet the requirements, new requirements are raised.
. They would like to ask the item be moved ahead by a few weeks.
. It will hurt one of the vocal programs at a local high school if it doesn't move ahead.
Jim Frieze. address on file stated:
. He sent a letter to the Planning Commission via the Planner and wanted to summarize
the content of the letter.
. He started a Bingo program in 1986 at Canyon High School and in 1996 it moved to
Katella Avenue.
. They shared a property with a Muslim Church that had a Conditional Use Permit that
covered the same times.
. There has been a problem identified with shared parking being inadequate.
. The Church is concerned if they come in to redo their Conditional Use Permit they will
encounter difficulty being in the same place doing the same type of activity.
. They previously had a letter from the Church that the times didn't conflict and that at no
time would they be doing the same activities.
. Each time they've attempted to move forward they encountered issues i.e. sprinkler
requirements, security system.
. He wants to know if there is anything they can do in lieu ofa Conditional Use Permit.
. They are coming to a point where they are not making any money to give back.
. Since it was started they've given back to Orange Unified and local charities,
approximately $3,000,000.
. Over 50% of the players come from Orange.
. He would appreciate any assistance that the Commission could provide to move this
request ahead.
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
Norma Hockensmith. address on file stated:
. She has been affiliated with School Pride Bingo for 19 years.
. The organization has provided a means for parents to volunteer and raise funding for
their child's endeavors in the Orange Unified School District or for any other non-profit
organization i.e. The Booster Club, Choirs, etc.
. $3,000,000 has been administered to the City of Orange to help those in need i.e. Boys
and Girls Scouts, Ronald McDonald House, Assistance League of Orange philanthropic
projects, etc.
. The Orange High School Varsity Baseball team was assisted with obtaining new
uniforms.
. School Pride Bingo has no paid employees.
. They are struggl ing to obtain a building to house their events.
. This is the second attempt with the City of Orange.
. As a deposit must be given to reserve a building, it is very costly while they go through
the process.
. They are pleading that some type of agreement can be made so they can continue their
efforts.
. There are 60 volunteer parents involved for 2 evenings of Bingo.
. School Pride Bingo has complied with all requests of the various city agencies.
. They need the building and the Conditional Use Permit to survive.
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
JANUARY 3, 2007 AND JANUARY 15, 2007.
Vice Chair Imboden made a motion to approve the January 3, 2007 minutes with one
revision as noted.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker
None
Commissioner Merino
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED.
The January 15,2007 minutes were pulled due to a lack of quorum and will be placed on
the next Planning Commission agenda.
NOTE: Vice Chair Imboden modified the sequence of items on the agenda. Item (4)
was the first item heard.
INRE:
NEW HEARINGS:
Page 2 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2603-06 - ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN
SCHOOL
A request to increase total enrollment of an existing K-8 private school from 594 to 678
students.
LOCATION: The site is located at 901 East Heim Avenue.
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1692-02 was previously reviewed and
adopted which evaluated the proposed enrollment increase.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 05-07 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2603-06.
Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox provided a project overview.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the school was originally designed to accommodate 600
students what is the difference with traffic patterns to accommodate 80 additional
students? Ms. Fox responded there was minimal impact (way below the threshold) to any
of the intersections and the levels of traffic that could be accommodated on Heim and
some of the outlying streets would be significantly more trips than this school would
generate. She noted this is covered in the consultants Traffic Study report.
Commissioner Whitaker noted that in reviewing the February 25, 2003 City Council
minutes, the individual Council members expressed concern for safety at the school site
and the original capacity (at 594) was a compromise. Consequently Commissioner
Whitaker asked if the applicant was coming forth with additional mitigation measures to
justify the increase in the student population. Ms. Fox responded the mitigation measures
that were adopted previously were all tied back to a project description that included 680
students. The 594 students that ultimately became the cap was after much public input
and concern that a parking program put in place may not be adequate but the cap itself
was not identified as a mitigation measure, instead, it was a Condition of Approval.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if there is anything being done by the applicant as a
Condition of Approval to justify the increase in student population. Ms. Fox responded
that in reviewing the prior minutes and discussing the project with the planner who
worked on the previous Conditional Use Permit, she learned there was a tremendous
amount of concern with the enrollment number as the site improvements were not in
place and there was a fear of the unknown over what the implications would be in going
to the full capacity of 680. Taking this into consideration along with the concerns
expressed by the public, the Council offered a compromise to cap the attendance at 594.
Ms. Fox clarified that the basis for that action was not related to traffic or mitigation
measures.
Commissioner Whitaker asked Ms. Fox if she felt that the new student population would
be sufficiently offset by the current mitigation measures. Ms. Fox responded
affirmatively.
Commissioner Steiner asked if when the facility was a public school with a 600 student
Page 3 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
capacity if that represented some sort of traffic capacity limitation. Ms. Fox responded
that she wasn't aware if Staff knew it was limited to 600 students. Commissioner Steiner
stated that assuming it was, he wanted to know if Ms. Fox had any information that
would lead her to believe that the 600 student cap was a function of traffic issues or if it
was a function of infrastructure limitations. Ms. Fox responded if there was a cap, it
would have been as a result of the State law covering open playground space as well as
classroom space.
The public hearing was opened.
The applicant's representative Tim Odle stated:
. The application is to increase the enrollment to 678 students.
. They feel they have fulfilled all of their obligations per the Conditions of Approval.
. They are pleased that the traffic management and parking management plans have been
very successful.
. Their Traffic Engineer representative, Richard Barretto was present at the meeting.
. They have read the Staff Report and accept the Conditions of Approval as presented.
. They respectfully request the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution.
Mr. Barretto was asked to address the Commission and stated:
. He was a Principal with the traffic engineering firm of Linscott, Law & Greenspan
Engineers.
. They are the firm that prepared the traffic analysis.
Commissioner Merino stated he could not find a specific statement that said they had
analyzed the increase in student population and found there to be no impact in traffic.
Mr. Barretto stated it was included in the document and pointed the Commission to Page
7, the last paragraph, which documented the project's trip generation potential and how
they had evaluated its impacts on the 5 intersections in the area that were identified by
City Staff. Mr. Barretto elaborated that based on empirical data that they observed and
developed at the school, they calculated that 84 additional students would generate 105
additional trips. Commissioner Merino responded that he had read that section: however,
he was looking for an actual statement that reads they found that number of trips would
not be an impact. Mr. Barretto pointed the Commission to the bottom of Page 10 where
it talks about cumulative traffic conditions in the Year 2009 with the project and no
mitigation measures are necessary. Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Barretto if based on
his professional opinion there would be significant traffic impact caused by the approval
of additional students. Mr. Barretto responded, "No, there will not."
Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Barretto if it was his opinion that the functionality of
the interior drop off point (designed as part of the last set of improvements) and the flow
through of the parking lot was what is allowing it not to queue up. Mr. Barretto
responded affirmatively and elaborated that generally the drop off solutions at schools are
not very efficient; however, the way this one is set up, in most instances all the queuing
occurs on site.
No public comment was provided on this item so the public forum was closed.
Page 4 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
Commissioner Merino stated he saw in the Staff Reports the mention of an installation of
a traffic signal and he asked if additional impact were to develop, when would the signal
that would mitigate that issue be installed. Ms. Fox deferred the response to Amir
Faranhani from the City Traffic Department who stated the existing conditions and
projected demonstrated conditions don't warrant one.
Vice Chair Imboden asked Staff if the Council was anticipating any additional
informational reports as noted in the previous City Council Conditions. Ms. Fox
responded that Staffs recommendation was to present, receive and file the report and at
such time as there is a perceived problem, Staff would do the necessary investigation and
bring it back to Council rather than bringing the report back annually. She indicated the
Council concurred with this recommendation.
Sensing that there still exists a slight fear of the unknown, Vice Chair Imboden asked Mr.
Knight if the Commission moved forward with approval of the project if it would be
within the Commission's purview to adopt as a condition, that a report could come back
to the Council 12 months from now. Mr. Knight responded affirmatively and offered his
advise that City Council as the senior body has already provided their direction to Staffin
this regard and that is what Staff would be guided by as the overriding advisement. He
added that if they wanted to put in a condition that was similar to that provided by City
Council he would view that more favorably as it would not be construed as a deviation to
what was already provided by City Council. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz cited
the existing wording in Condition #4 covers the requirement to produce the reports,
should the need arise.
Commissioner Merino asked if the applicant could come back at some future time to try
to raise the student population again. Ms. Fox responded that they could certainly make
the request; however, they would go through a different environmental approval process.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve PC 05-07 approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 2603-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED.
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(2) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-248, MINOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 407-05 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1775-06-
WIMBLETON COURT (JOHN C. NGUYEN)
Page 5 of22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
A request to subdivide a 1.57 acre parcel into four parcels for the future construction of 4
single-family dwellings with access from Wimbleton Road (a private street) to Old
Chapman Road (a public street). This item was continued from the December 4, 2006
and January 15,2007 meetings.
LOCATION: The site is located at the north side of Wimbleton Court and 200 feet east
of Old Chapman Road.
NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1775-06 was prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission adopt this document as an adequate and complete assessment of
environmental issues related to the potential approval of this proj ect.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 27-06 recommending
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-248, Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05,
Variance No. 2165-07, and Negative Declaration No. 1775-06.
Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight provided a project overview.
Commissioner Whitaker noted that in the draft Negative Declaration it states there is no
soil impact because at the time of building a study will need to be created which will deal
with any issues of expansive soils. Understanding the Building Department would
handle those issues Commissioner Whitaker asked if a Commission approval of sub-
division of the four lots would hinder the Building Department from doing their job and
bind the City to issue building permits. Mr. Knight responded that inasmuch as this is a
tentative parcel map it does not create legal building sites as no overwhelming
entitlement is created through the adoption of a tentative parcel map.
Ken Peterson, a registered land surveyor stated he prepared the map provided and he
worked with an engineer to develop the preliminary grading plan. Mr. Peterson indicated
a soil report was prepared approximately 12 months ago and it states this project was
feasible at the time. Furthermore, since there is a lot of fill material necessary all the soil
imported can control the expansiveness.
Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Peterson if there would be any impact to the side of the
hill where the fill would be used. Mr. Peterson responded that another consultant did the
Soils Report and that consultant concluded it was a feasible project with all the
appropriate mitigations for over-excavation and recompaction, etc. Commissioner
Merino stated this would certainly be a concern going forward.
Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Peterson to identify where the soil would be cut. Mr.
Peterson responded it was in the most northerly portion of the slope and added that the
quantities specified do not include the over-excavation because at this time it is unknown.
It is just recommended they go down to bedrock.
Mr. Peterson asked for clarification of Condition #35 noting that in the Staff Report
(Page 5) it states that fire sprinklers will be used for the houses located on Parcels 2 and
3. Mr. Peterson indicated it was worked out with the Fire Department that only the two
rear houses would require fire sprinklers yet this is not clear in Condition 35 as stated.
Page 6 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
Mr. Peterson stated that Condition #52 requires a Fire Department access roadway to be
provided with adequate turning radius yet as specified in the Staff Report (Page 5) they
did provide a field modification plan that was approved by the Fire Department and in
mitigating items with the Fire Department it was decided that a hammerhead turnaround
was not required on this site. This is reflected on the site plan. For these reasons he
stated he didn't think Condition #52 applied and asked for clarification.
Public input was provided as follows:
Ronald Minor, address on file stated:
. He owns the parcel to the west side ofthis proposed construction.
. He understands there will be a 10' retaining wall built between the properties.
. At a future date he hopes to be able to fill in the rest of the ravine and he asked if the
retaining wall would jeopardize his ability to fill it in.
. There is a large palm between the two properties and he wants to know if it will be
removed. He indicated he would like to have it relocated rather than destroyed.
Richard Perrino, address on file stated:
. He owns the other parcel on the west side.
. His concerns are there is a lot of heavy equipment going in and generally those workers
are not concerned with other neighboring properties. He had already sustained some
damage prior to this purchase and that has never been resolved. He wants to know who
to contact if his property is disturbed.
. He wants to know what the 10' wall will look like, ifit will block his view, how high it
will extend on his side of the property and he doesn't want his view blocked.
Richard Vining, address on file stated:
. He is the individual that showed up at the City's Public Works Department today.
. He was the only resident on the street before the first development came (the first four
houses on the far side ofWimbleton).
. He is the property owner just east of this proposed development.
. He is not opposed to the development but sometimes what happens at the Planning
Commission and at the City Council is not what actually happens in the field. This is
alarming.
. The primary issue is access. When the second editions of homes were built across from
him (to the south) they wanted to put a wall on the property line for aesthetic purposes.
He didn't want it and asked Public Works what would be required to have the wall
moved back ifhe wanted to develop on his lot. The response was 6'. He then went to the
developer and stated that if they would move the wall to 7' on his property he wouldn't
have to tear it down. True to their word they are making Mr. Nguyen move Wimbleton
back 6'. The part he is concerned with is the little wedge that exists that would be in the
road. His contention is they could do it all in a coordinated fashion and leave the apron
that exists now.
. Parking is restricted and with this development it will be even more restricted. People
frequently park in front of his gates and it is inconvenient to try to track them down. He
therefore needs the access directly from the cuI de sac, which was planned.
. He hopes someone comes to their senses and does not install a 10' wall. He sited an
Page 7 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
error made by Ridgewood Development wherein they put in a 14' wall and consequently
he never sees the sun.
. The drainage has never worked and the sprinklers are currently broken.
Commissioner Whitaker asked Staff what volumes of soil initiate the requirement for a
grading permit and when will they obtain a grading permit. Mr. Knight responded that a
grading permit could be obtained at any time and the applicant does not have one yet.
Commissioner Merino asked if the applicant worked with City Staff to develop the site, if
the 10' wall is as low as it can go and if the project was feasible. Mr. Knight responded
they did work with the applicant and actually the second wall (the safety wall) is not a
masonry wall, it is wrought iron. The wall is 10' at its highest point and reduces in size
as it goes up the slope.
Vice Chair Imboden recapped the concerns raised by the public speakers as well as the
applicant as follows:
(I) He agreed with the applicant that the Staff Report specifically addresses Condition
#52.
(2) He asked for clarification from Staff as it relates to the sprinkler requirements
specified in Condition #35.
Mr. Knight responded that it was Staffs intent to require sprinklers in the two rear
homes, not necessarily in the two front ones. He added that this review is only for the
subdivision of the land and that as each home is built it will go through the site
review process with the Design Review Committee where this issue may be brought
up agam.
(3) He pointed out that although it may not be answerable at this time he asked if once
the retaining wall was in place it would preclude any future fill by properties at a
lower level.
Mr. Knight responded that his initial reaction was that it wouldn't and that usually a
retaining wall has weep holes that permit some amount of drainage; however, the
drainage is along the property line so the water is conveyed from this property to the
street.
(4) Mr. Knight stated that regarding the comment made about the palm tree, there is a
condition in the mitigation measure about tree preservation and he didn't see a
problem with putting in a condition that specifically addresses the palm tree in
question.
(5) He asked who should be contacted if there are disturbances to neighboring properties.
Mr. Knight responded they would contact Public Works, as they are the department
that issues the grading permits. He added that generally they like to have 24-hour
contact numbers for the contractors printed on the plans.
Page 8 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
(6) He asked City Staff if there was any consideration given to permit landscaping to be
grown on the retaining wall to help screen it for the neighboring adjacent properties.
Mr. Knight responded that Staff did look at the aesthetics of the wall and they did
specify conditions that included the requirement to stucco it and paint it a color that
would tend to diminish its appearance; however, Staff did not look at landscaping
treatments.
Vice Chair Imboden asked if there was adequate space on the topside of the retaining
wall for some type of landscaping to be provided, with proper irrigation that would allow
it to grow over the top of the wall. Mr. Knight responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Merino asked if anyone in Staff had looked at the visual impacts of the
wall on the neighboring properties and if someone would be looking at a 10' wall from
their property. Mr. Knight responded, "yes, they will." Commissioner Merino offered
suggestions including using a two-step process or a multi-step process with a series of
smaller walls (which may affect the setback). Commissioner Merino then asked the
applicant ifhe would be amenable to doing something different with the wall to minimize
the impact on his neighbor(s).
Vice Chair Imboden re-opened the public hearing.
Allen Nguyen stated that they could fill in the area in conjunction with the project so
there wouldn't be a need for such a high wall. Vice Chair Imboden asked Mr. Nguyen if
they had considered alternatives that would diminish the aesthetic appearance of the wall
to the surrounding properties such as landscaping that drapes the wall or landscaping in
the wall itself, or perhaps staggering smaller walls so there isn't one continuous surface.
Mr. Nguyen responded that due to the elevation and the slope, the walls are staggered;
they are not 10' all around. Commissioner Merino stated they meant stepping it up. Mr.
Nguyen replied there is a safety wall behind the retaining wall so it is staggered.
Commissioner Merino suggested a smaller wall then a step then the safety wall set one
level back. Mr. Nguyen responded they wouldn't have enough frontages in the yard to
stagger it in that manner. Vice Chair Imboden asked Staff if the lot frontages were at
minimum. Mr. Knight responded that it wouldn't affect the setback as the setbacks are
structural and as he pinpointed on the drawings where the walls were located he stated
this is a side yard condition.
Commissioner Whitaker noted that during his site visit he saw quite a few piles of dirt in
the gully and asked if there was pre-grading activity taking place. Mr. Nguyen responded
the soils were being tested and they had to see if it was viable for moving forward if the
Planning Commission approved the project.
Vice Chair Imboden asked the applicant to speak to the proposed disposition of the trees
on the property. Mr. Nguyen responded they have already removed some trees that were
on their property and he wasn't aware of any concerns with the palm tree as indicated by
one of the neighbors. He added that if there was something they could do with the tree to
satisfy the neighbors, they were perfectly willing.
Page 9 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
Commissioner Merino stated that as it seems the neighbors and the applicant are all
cooperative he would like to see them work together to come up with a methodology to
amicably resolve the visual impacts of the wall.
Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Knight if the applicant was asked to do staggered
walls if it would eliminate the need for the variance. Mr. Knight responded the variance
is required due to the proximity of the safety wall to the retaining wall and as a result of
combining the two walls the height is 14'. He added that alO' wall would not require a
variance; however, you usually want to mitigate it through landscaping treatments and
staggering it to break up the bulk.
Commissioner Imboden stated he was in agreement with the concerns expressed by
neighbors and Commissioner Merino as it relates to the visual impacts of the wall and he
felt it was the applicants responsibility to resolve them as the project has to stand on it's
merits and solve it's own problems on it's own property. He stated his preference was to
see the wall staggered and landscaped to mitigate the presence of it on the neighboring
property. He added that a sectional elevation was not part of the information provided
and the Commission as well as the neighbors want to know what the wall is going to look
like.
Commissioner Merino asked if this project could be continued to give the applicant an
opportunity to address the issues presented. Vice Chair Imboden asked if the variance
could be separated. Mr. Knight responded that the way the project is designed he didn't
think the variance could be separated but the issues related to the wall could be addressed
by having the item continued to afford the applicant an opportunity to explore some of
the options suggested by the Commission.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if there is a nolicmg requirement if the project were
continued. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz responded it would not be required if it
was continued to a date certain.
Vice Chair Imboden made a motion to continue this item to the March 5, 2007 meeting.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED.
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2580-06, DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4080-06 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1767-
06 - DRENNER RESIDENCE
Page 10 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
A proposal to demolish a 380 square foot, single-story detached garage replacing it with a
1,327 square foot, two-story, detached accessory structure, providing a three-car garage
and an Accessory Second Housing Unit on a property with an existing single-family
residence characteristic of the "Hip Roof Cottage" architectural style that was constructed
originally in 1906.
LOCATION: The site is located at 424 South Grand Street.
NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1767-06 was prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and in accordance with the City's adopted
Local CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 04-07, adopting Negative
Declaration No. 1767-06, and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2580-06 and Design
Review Committee No. 4080-06.
Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if this project was within the state code allowing a second
residential unit for family use and complied with the granny flat ordinance. Ms. Fox
responded this is referred to as an accessory second housing unit and that the term granny
flat or how it is used is not necessarily germane. She reiterated that this is an accessory
second housing unit and added that it does fit within the city-adopted guidelines.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if there was enough open space and if it was coming from
removal of the driveway. Ms. Fox responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Merino asked if this project was subject to the R1 zoning change. Ms.
Fox responded the zone change does apply and this project is being considered under the
Rl zone.
Commissioner Merino asked if the applicant were given approval to build this structure if
it would be permissible to be used as rental property. Ms. Fox responded that whether
the property is owner or tenant occupied is not under the purview of the zoning and she
added that there could be tenants in both structures.
Commissioner Whitaker stated that inasmuch as the City has adopted it's own ordinance,
his understanding was an accessory structure could not be used as a rental and he asked
for clarification by Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz as to what was permitted in a
secondary structure in a Rl zone. Mr. Sheatz responded that what is permitted is the
structure, the zoning is different than a covenant not to rent or lease. He elaborated there
is no restriction on whether it can be a rental or the owner has to live in one or the other.
State law does not address that and neither does the City's own ordinance.
Commissioner Merino asked ifthe Commission could make it a Condition of Approval to
prevent rental of the accessory second unit. Ms. Fox responded she didn't believe they
could. Commissioner Merino asked if there was any provision of state or local law that
Page 11 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
could restrict the property owner from renting portions of their property to non-family
members. Mr. Sheatz responded that would be getting into the boarding house area and
the number of rental contracts or agreements that could be entered into as defined in the
City's ordinance. The answer in the broad scope would then be yes, if it exceeded the
number of contracts that are prohibited by the ordinance; however, if with a structure of
this size could the Commission require a covenant that it can't be a rental unit, the answer
IS no.
Commissioner Steiner asked Ms. Fox if her assessment of this proposal is that it is in
compliance with all local and state ordinances and statutes. Ms. Fox responded that was
correct. Ms. Fox added there is no variance included as part ofthis project.
Commissioner Steiner asked Ms. Fox if this project was in conflict with the RI
designation and he asked her to explain. Ms. Fox stated that as long as you satisfy all the
criteria listed in the city code i.e. the size, the parking requirement, etc. an accessory
second housing unit is permissible as long as you have a primary residence already
constructed on the property or they are constructed at the same time.
Vice Chair Imboden asked Ms. Fox for a little bit of history on South Grand and a
summary of what took place with the rezoning of South Grand. Ms. Fox stated that
although she wasn't with the city when that transpired, her reading of it was that before
the district was established there was an R-2-6 zoning designation in the area, which
would allow for duplex development. She elaborated that would be different than the
proposal being presented as there wouldn't be a limit on the size of the second unit; you
could conceivably build two full size single family dwellings. This situation is a smaller
scaled project than you could have done under the previous zoning. It appears this
applicant has been working with Staff since 2004 and her opinion is that as the item
progressed, it ultimately made more sense to be in compliance with the R-1 zoning.
Vice Chair Imboden stated there are issues with the Old Towne Standards that address
bulk, mass, etc. and those standards have not changed so the same criteria that would
have judged the previous projects would be relevant for this project as well. Ms. Fox
agreed and added that the City Infill Residential Guidelines would also apply.
Vice Chair Imboden asked if this is the first property to come forward proposing an
accessory second unit since the rezone. Ms. Fox responded she did not know.
Vice Chair Imboden asked if it would be fair to state the only way on this particular
parcel that the accessory second unit could be built and meet all the requirements without
a variance is putting in the second story which would trigger the requirement for the
Conditional Use Permit i.e. a larger lot would have allowed a single story unit. Ms. Fox
responded "you may have been able to accommodate it on a differently configured lot".
Furthermore Ms. Fox added that in either scenario the FAR would not change and she
cautioned that the open space and perhaps the parking would be challenged.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Doug Ely, the project architect stated:
Page 12 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
. He wanted to thank Ms. Fox for getting this project to the Planning Commission as they
have waited quite a while to get to this particular stage.
. Mr. Drenner had a schedule conflict, which precluded him from attending this meeting.
. The project is 629 sq. ft. over a 698 sq. ft. garage.
. The differences between R-2 and R-I are: the R-2 was looked at when they first started
the project as the property was zoned R-2 when they first started. The R-2 would have
permitted a second residential unit with a maximum FAR of .7. The R-1 down zone
reduces the FAR to .6.
. They are submitting a proposed project with aFAR of .5.
. There are 4 other properties on the block which have aFAR of .5 and higher; there is
also one that has aFAR of .49.
. The purpose of the structure is to house the applicant's daughter who will be a first year
college student.
. To be in compliance with the parking ordinance, every property is required to have
parking for 2 cars and 1 on site parking space for the accessory structure. With the R-2
zone you would have been required to have 2 garages with 4 covered parking spaces.
. The R-1 zone does permit this type of project.
. They looked at saving the existing structure; however, they encountered problems i.e.
the existing structure has a lot of structural problems. Several experts from the City
looked at it and deemed it was not worth saving.
. It does not have a slab floor around the perimeter. The studs disappear into the earth
and there is a footing underneath. A slab was poured after the fact that doesn't connect to
the exterior studs.
. To refurbish the garage would have meant a teardown to just build back up.
. He had exhibits for the Commission, which included a color photograph of the existing
residence.
. They have a 3D modeling program which replicates the project and they added a couple
of trees which block the appearance ofthe structure.
. Their proposal is to demolish the garage and bring back the city scape to what it was in
the early 1920's.
. It appears through the historical maps that there was a one car garage at the rear of the
property when it was first built but that structure is no longer there.
. The existing garage appears to have been built in the 1940' s and their proposal is to
demolish it and turn all that area into open space with landscaping.
. The driveway apron would be removed and the park strip in front would be continued in
that area.
. They concur with the recommendations of the Design Review Committee and the City
of Orange Negative Declaration which states detached garages are not contributing
features.
. They also concur with the Historic Preservation Consultant.
Public input was provided as follows:
Jeff Frankel. OTPA stated:
. There was about a 2-1/2 year study conducted on the 300 and 400 blocks of So. Grand
Street that resulted in the zone change.
. The reason these blocks were chosen is they were considered over developed and the
density levels had surpassed thresholds creating a conflict with the General Plan.
Page 13 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
. This project technically does not comply with the General Plan.
. What they find troubling is the very project that outraged the community and triggered
the study has a lesser total FAR than this proposed project.
. The study also established a threshold of .42 FAR.
. If approved at .50 this project will be the largest FAR on the west block.
. This project already has a large, inappropriate addition and adding to this just
compounds the many problems associated with over development of this block.
. This type of development is the very reason both blocks were rezoned.
. It does not meet the design standards.
. They have no problem with a single story accessory unit being built with a required
uncovered space for parking but this project seems to be stretching the definition of the
term granny flat.
. The bulk, massing and FAR are way out ofline.
. If you check the context study ofthis block you will see the average FAR is .27.
. By rezoning this block it was Council's intent to discourage any further development of
this type.
. Building guidelines were developed in conjunction with this study and by direction
from Council on June 22, 2004, they were supposed to be implemented, applied to all of
Old Towne and incorporated into the Old Towne Design Standards.
. If applied, the guidelines would prohibit this type of development.
. It seems the FAR calculations of this project do not include the 4 dormered second story
on the original house. Adding 60% of that floor area would boost the total FAR to .62
(over the allowable FAR for a R-I-610t).
. It is their opinion that the existing garage has not been evaluated properly and that the
consultants assessment is inconclusive and with the evidence supplied you can go either
way on its status.
. Although this project is slightly under the 640 sq. ft. limit, the City is not required to
approve this type of accessory unit as it is located in a national registered district and is
unsympathetic in regard to bulk, massing and design.
. They feel the applicant should pursue a more fitting design, rehabilitate the garage and
build a sympathetic single story unit that would be unobtrusive and out of public view.
. They are also concerned that the Staff Report is missing critical background material
that is crucial to a comprehensive review and assessment of this controversial project.
. Missing is the Grand Street study history including City Council comments explaining
why this type of development is inappropriate and also the Staff Report and minutes
associated with the first project when the garage was considered contributing.
. The City should be discouraging rather then encouraging this type of development,
especially in this R-I zoned area of a historic district.
. They urge the Commission to deny this project.
Jan Chomyn, address on file stated:
. She is representing OTPA.
. There has been a lot of review as to whether or not this garage is a contributing
structure.
. The City's consultant relied heavily on the Sanborn Maps which are notoriously
unreliable.
. She doesn't feel enough attention was given to the materials used or the construction
techniques as well as other factors.
Page 14 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
. It is generally understood that additions of this age are inherently part and parcel of the
entire structure.
. When considering significance you must consider the addition, accessory second units
or garages to be tied in to the historical significance of the original building.
. It is largely believed by members of the DRC that this structure was built prior to 1940.
. This also refers to the proposed filling in of the driveway, creating a curb and
theoretically then restoring it back to the 1920's era.
. This driveway (as well as the others along Grand Street) have become "historical" in
their longevity.
. According to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a structure
does not have to be listed in the register to be considered a historical resource. It can be
determined to be eligible for listing and in this case this garage complies with the
eligibility by all of the above definitions.
. When a non-contributing status was given to this garage by Staff, the proof was so
inconclusive, she would not want to hang her hat on it.
. By defining the structure as contributing, the project could actually move forward and
be resubmitted as a granny flat which is the original intent of the South Grand rezone
study.
. They deserve the protection of the R I zoning.
. The Staff Report states the subject proposal to construct a 2-story structure at the rear of
the site is consistent with the established land use pattern yet the land use pattern was
determined by the Grand Street Study to be overly developed and it is the most dense
street in the district.
. It's as if they are saying this block is already really messed up, let's just mess it up
some more.
. She respectfully requests this project be denied in its current form.
Tom Loughrev. address on file stated.
. He is President ofOTPA.
. While the Staff may not have many concerns with this project, the neighbors do.
. There are a lot of concerns with the project, including: the density of So. Grand in this
particular block, poor maintenance of the property, the FAR of the property which seems
to have been improperly calculated, the bulk and mass of the property and the general
lack of sensitivity to the historic character ofthe neighborhood.
. He is particularly concerned how a project like this ever got this far.
. He is surprised that a qualified architectural firm such as DSE Architecture did not
advise the owner of the inherent problems this presents and if they did, why the owner
didn't listen to that advice.
. He is surprised it was not dealt with at the Planning Desk.
. He is very surprised the DRC let this go through without significant modifications and
most of all he is surprised the City didn't have the Senior Historic Planner working on
this project from the very beginning and right up to this point.
. He is sure Ms. Fox is an excellent City Planner; however, she is not a Historic City
Planner with the knowledge of preservation issues and the knowledge acquired over the
years of the special issues of preservation in Old Towne.
. The City has an excellent resource but for some reason they chose not to utilize that
resource. This is remarkable given the prominence of this project and the impact it will
have on other properties in Old Towne.
Page 15 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
. Given the myriad of issues involving the correct application of CEQA regulations, the
City's own Design Review Standards, the obvious attempt to create multi-family housing
in a RI zone, approaching something like a boarding house, the lack of the most
knowledgeable resource being used on the project, and the sheer inappropriateness of the
project demands that the Planning Commission deny or at the very least continue the
application for a Conditional Use Permit and instruct the applicant to either drop the
project altogether or come back with a plan (if one is even feasible) that is more in
keeping with the character ofthe community.
Diane Zdenek. address on file stated:
. She and her husband reside I block over and down from this proposed project.
. She is against the project.
. Even though Ms. Fox mentioned that due to the recommendation by the Consultant the
existing garage is not historic, she feels it is historic.
. She is against tearing down the existing garage to erect the proposed huge structure.
. She feels the bulk and mass is not in keeping with the historic standards or the rezone of
this particular street and it exceeds the FAR.
. She is confused as to why this project is being brought forward.
. Why wasn't Dan Ryan who worked on the rezoning of this street not assigned to this
project as he would know it better than anyone.
. She thought the taxpayers paid for a 2-year study for the South Grand Street project
which resulted in the rezone to RI to prevent this type of building project.
Noel Wilcox, address on file stated:
. She lives 4 houses away from the proposed project and she has a unit behind her.
. She opposes the project.
. In 1978 when the rules in Orange were very different than they are today, there was a
tremendous amount of units built behind.
. She has always been owner/occupied; her son lives in the back unit. Before him her
daughter and grandson lived there. She has never rented it out.
. If she could demolish the back unit and put in a granny unit, she would do so.
. She has been in mortgage banking for 30 years in various capacities and a granny unit is
for mother in laws who generally don't climb stairs to a second floor.
. In mortgage banking if it is less than 650 sq. ft. it isn't countedmit pretty much has no
value.
. She definitely opposes this project.
Mary Matuzak, address on file stated:
. She was one of the motivating people behind the rezone to begin with.
. It took almost 4 years to find projects like this to get the neighborhood rezoned.
. She is stunned they are here to discuss another back yard apartment unit as they thought
this was taken care of with the RI rezone.
. She noticed that the architect had quoted all high FAR's on the street in support of the
fact that this house is acceptable. He is forgetting the fact that they were all done prior to
the Rl rezone.
. She and her husband are opposed to the project.
. Mr. Drenner is in some way involved in real estate and she knows he is aware there are
a lot of back yard units already available for his daughter to rent. He doesn't need to
Page 16 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
burden the street by building another back yard apartment.
Patty Ricci, address on file stated:
. She lives on a Rl block.
. She is speaking as a concerned neighbor who is proud of their safe and friendly little
neighborhood.
. Those who have the pleasure of living in Old Towne walk the blocks and admire the
lovely homes and as a result she noticed this home at 424 So. Grand as she strolled by.
. Sadly, it was added on to in 1986 with an addition that is way too big and inappropriate.
. It doesn't match the original historic house. It looms overbearingly above the little old
house.
. The existing buildings and gardens are unattended and in need of paint and care. This is
not a new neglect; it has been that way for a while.
. Does this project mean multiple units on run down property (similar to those that the
City would like to improve)?
. The already in place addition towers over the small original bungalow and over the
neighbors historic homes, causing concerns for privacy issues in the gardens and through
their windows.
. The further addition of a two story garage apartment with balconies could only further
exasperate this condition.
. There are consistently at least 3 cars parked in front of the historic garage with only a
single family dwelling on the property. What will happen when a couple of apartment
dwellers are added to the mix?
. Please consider this is a national registrar historic district.
. The addition in place has affected the property already.
. More cars on the street will affect all the neighboring properties.
. This is a RI zoned street and more building will compromise what is already there.
Dennis Caldwell, address on file stated:
. He is going to speak somewhat factiously and he hopes it is taken in the tone that he
hopes to bring forward.
. If the project is approved he wanted to thank the Council and City Staff in advance for
alleviating any concern he might have for retirement income.
. He lives on a R2-6000 and he now understands he can max it out with any size building
that will fit the FAR. He can rent it to whomever he wants to and make any kind of
income he can get from it. He doesn't have to be concerned about the parking impact or
the impact to his neighbors or his neighborhood.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Ely responded to the public comments as follows:
. He understood where a lot of the resident's viewpoints were coming from.
. He wanted to clear up a lot ofthe inconsistencies that were mentioned.
. About the City not having their Senior Historic Planner, Mr. Dan Ryan involved: he
was involved in this project for quite a long period of time and due to work load his
involvement could not continue; however, a lot of his input was on the project. In fact,
when they were considering other alternatives, which included retention of the existing
structure and doing a development behind it, Mr. Ryan was instrumental in that particular
project which was denied by the DRC.
. The project being presented is a consensus of 3 trips to the DRC and it has now been
Page 17 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
approved by the DRC.
. The comment about the average FAR being .27 is a fallacy. A sketch was provided of
the existing development on the west side of South Grand where there are 7 lots that have
2 units on them. One was occupied by one of the speakers who have a second unit on
the back of their property. Mr. Ely stated he is asking for the same rights to be provided
to his client as have been provided to others.
. There is a lot of discrepancy about when the existing garage was constructed. The
Sanborn Maps have proved to be inaccurate in some areas but aerial photographs in the
report indicate the garage was built between 1938 and 1947. There is no guarantee it
was built before 1940, the materials are inconsistent with the house.
. It is in very poor condition and would require consider demolition in order to be rebuilt.
. They did look at a one story project but the accessory structure requires for the parking
ordinance to come into affect which means a 2-car garage and one on-site parking space.
. Leaving the existing structure would provide one parking space versus two and require
they provide two additional ones plus with a minimum of 450 sq. ft. for an accessory unit
it would cover the entire rear of the lot.
. Though it may not mean much, what you see from the street has far less impact to the
local context as many of the existing residences.
. They are implementing the design elements of the original structure in the proposed
project.
. The project has been found by other City bodies to be consistent and compliant.
. The parking is now getting to be oriented to where it once was historically at the outset
when the property was first developed. The garages are at the rear so the cars will be in
the alley, off the street, which is the reverse of what has been stated.
Vice Chair Imboden stated the side dormers in the historic structure didn't appear to be
original to the structure instead, they appeared to be a later change in an attempt to create
square footage in that space. He asked Mr. Ely if that space was attic space, living space
or how it was developed. Mr. Ely responded that it had been a while since he had been
through there but he believed it was attic space as he remembers having to duck as he
passed through it. He did not know why the dormers were added other than for looks and
ventilation into the attic space and he stated he did not believe it was being used as
habitable space. Vice Chair Imboden asked if that space was calculated in the proposal.
Mr. Ely responded that they took all of the habitable space and calculated that but he
would have to recheck his calculations. He concluded stating he didn't believe they
considered it as habitable space and therefore it wouldn't have been included.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the second story on the existing house was included in
their calculations. Mr. Ely responded the second story was included in the FAR.
Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Ely to confirm that the applicant's daughter is going to
occupy this unit. Mr. Ely responded that was the intent about one year ago when they
were at the Design Review Committee and he understands that is still the case.
Commissioner Merino asked if there are a couple of bedrooms on the second floor. Mr.
Ely responded affirmatively and added that the applicant has a mother as well and he's
not sure if she will also reside there; however, he stated the applicant told him it is for
family members.
Page 18 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
Commissioner Merino stated he felt the issues they were weighing have to do with
private property rights and rights of the neighborhood. He quoted the statement in the
Staff Report relating to preservation and protection of the single-family residential
historic characteristics of this area of the City's Old Towne District and stated apparently
the law is not very good because this project is before the Commission. He added that
according to City Staff the applicant has met the letter oflaw and expressed his wish that
a covenant could be executed that would restrict occupancy to the applicant's family. In
summary he stated he knew that was not possible and based on the criteria to be used, his
opinion was the requirements have been met.
Commissioner Steiner stated he echoed Commissioner Merino's observations to the
extent that the ultimate determination is not for the Commission to decide if they like a
project or they think the project is ideal, instead, the Commission is obligated to
determine ifit is lawful. He added he didn't hear anything compelling to substantiate the
claim that the project doesn't comply with the General Plan.
Vice Chair Imboden asked City Staff if the Grand Street Study did come back with
findings the neighborhood was overbuilt in relationship to the General Plan. Ms. Fox
responded she doesn't know if in this context, Staff had gone back to the Study to that
extent. She was able to affirm that this proposal is within the recommended General Plan
density range. Vice Chair Imboden stated he thought there was an inconsistency in that
there was an action by the Planning Commission and City Council to reconsider the
density in this neighborhood and that it was denser than what the General Plan allowed.
Even though it was rezoned, the implications of the General Plan are still applicable so
how could it be consistent with the General Plan desiguations if the area in general was
already too dense. Ms. Fox responded that when evaluated separately not all property
was being over-developed; however, cumulatively there definitely was a sense that the
area was being over-developed.
Vice Chair Imboden asked Ms. Fox if there are other options to meet the required parking
space. Ms. Fox responded there are other options; however, she believes there are some
thresholds as far as square footage, which are local ordinances that trigger parking to be
reviewed for compliance to standard.
Vice Chair Imboden asked Ms. Fox what the maximum allowable square footage is for
an accessory second unit. Ms. Fox responded the range is 450 to 640 sq. ft. with one
open parking space and in this case the applicant has gone above and beyond the
requirement.
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz spoke to the issue of density and stated what the
Planning Commission and City Council didn't like was the R2 zone district designation.
When they down zoned it to RI he specifically remembered the commentary that even
though it was taken from R2 to Rl the City couldn't prohibit granny flat type units as
State law provides for them. He added that the Code had to find a way to provide for
them, which the City had done and the Council and Commission weren't under the
impression they wouldn't have to deal with them because it had been rezoned to RI.
Commissioner Merino asked if an organization wanted a remedy they would have to go
Page 19 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
to the state level and try to have the law changed. Mr. Sheatz responded affirmatively.
Vice Chair Imboden stated that California State law allows for second units in this
particular zoning and it also allows the City to have the discretionary action that is being
used to determined if the project as proposed is appropriate for this block as it relates to
review of the bulk, mass and density in relationship to the project and whether it threatens
the historic district. It is not to say it is allowed or not allowed and he concluded it is not
out of the Commission's hands, there is local ordinance that specifically deals with the
application before them.
Commissioner Steiner asked if one of the first or primary bodies that make the
determination that relates to bulk and mass is the Design Review Committee. Ms. Fox
responded that it is clearly under the purview of the Design Review Committee and under
the Planning Commission's as well in that the Planning Commission has final
determination. She added the Design Review Committee recommendation was approval
of the project.
Commissioner Merino stated that as the Planning Commission is a body that reviews
projects for compliance with ordinances, local or State laws, he posed the question "are
we missing a tool to review this project in a different manner". Vice Chair Imboden
responded that he didn't think they were missing a tool and he asked Mr. Sheatz for
concurrence that in fact the Commission had the discretionary action to apply the local
ordinance to the project. Mr. Sheatz agreed.
Vice Chair Imboden offered a summary stating:
. There were quite a few comments made about the Design Review Committee findings;
however, via the minutes it is very difficult to follow this project. In one meeting there
was a conclusion it was a contributing structure and it couldn't be demolished; however,
there was a problem with the bulk and mass of the project. There had been quite a few
inconsistencies in the opinions that were in the minutes so he had difficulty using them as
a basis for a foundation for his decision.
. There was some discussion relative to the historic consultant retained by the City to
review the garage. In Vice Chair Imboden's opinion the consultant didn't provide a
conclusive answer regarding the appropriateness of demolition.
. He had a problem with the statement made by the consultant relative to removal of the
driveway and apron and pointed out that clearly this is not a restoration project. If this
was a restoration project the accessory second unit couldn't be considered and the large
addition on the rear ofthe house would have to be removed.
. Returning to the down zone, he agrees that State law does allow the addition of the
second unit but whether it is appropriate for this property or not is a discretionary action
to be taken by the Commission.
. The thing that troubled him the most with this project is this is a small, 1906, hip-
roofed, historic, national registered, contributing property with an addition that is not well
disguised nor in keeping with the building and this is overshadowing the historic part of
the property that has more bulk and mass being proposed.
. There are other options that could be explored and he encouraged the applicant to
explore some of those other options.
Page 20 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was personally very conflicted by the project and that
in his opinion some of the other approaches should have been looked at. He did not find
that the garage was historic and consequently had no problem with its demolition. He
stated the only thing driving the conditional use was the second story so as much as he
didn't like the two-bedroom floor plan that he believed was clearly designed to be a
rental on a non-well maintained property, the only thing he would consider was the
second story. He added that in looking at the second story in relation to the rest of the
block, he didn't think it was going to have a negative impact because over half the lots
have a second story unit in the back. In conclusion, he stated that as much as he didn't
like the project he couldn't find there was any condition in the second story that would
prohibit him from saying the Commission should allow it.
Commissioner Merino stated he agreed with Commissioner Whitaker and he also doesn't
like it. He added that with all due respect to Mr. Ely, as an architect he would not have
designed it this way. Furthermore, he would love to be able to say this project doesn't
conform; however, he didn't seem to have the discretion in making this decision in
deciding one particular way or another.
Commissioner Steiner stated he wasn't contending the Planning Commission doesn't
have the discretion to make determinations as to the feasibility or appropriateness of a
project but he added there is a fine line between using discretion and being arbitrary. In
this instance he thought they could use discretion and still come to the conclusion that he
came to in supporting this project.
Commissioner Whitaker indicated he didn't see a condition for eliminating the driveway,
installing landscaping, eliminating the curb cut and driveway apron and restoring the
parkway. He stated he believed this needed to be added as Condition #10 to eliminate
having 5 parked cars on the sidewalk.
Recognizing this project is in accordance with the proviSIOns of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 2580-06, Design Review Committee No. 4080-06 and
Negative Declaration No. 1767-06 with Condition #10 added to the Conditions of
Approval as submitted by Commissioner Whitaker:
Condition #10: The driveway is to be eliminated, landscaping installed, the curb cut and
driveway apron eliminated, and the parkway restored.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
Commissioner Imboden
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED.
Vice Chair Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on
Page 21 of 22 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 February 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. for a special study session.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Whitaker
Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:00 p.m.
Page 22 of 22 Pages