Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JUNE 6,1994 June 20, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes of June 6, 1994 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2067-94 - MEHDI RAFATY (SUEDE) A request to allow live music entertainment and dancing at an existing billiard facility. Subject property is addressed 1988 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEOA Guidelines Section 15301. This item was continued from the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting.) No one opposed this application; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. A letter of explanation, dated June 15, 1994, was submitted with the revised plans and forwarded to the Commission. The public hearing was re-opened. Applicant Mehdi Rafaty, 3400 Avenue of the Arts, Costa Mesa, gathered new information to show the lay out of the parking situation and the lighting system. They're looking at 138 parking spaces in the front. None of the businesses are open after 7:00 p.m. except the coffee house and restaurant. Most of their customers are expected to arrive after 10:00 p.m. Valet parking will allow them to park additional cars on the side of the building and in the rear. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith was satisfied with the interior lay out and the justification of the parking situation. All of the issues have been addressed in a professional manner. Commissioner Pruett was also satisfied with the information provided by the applicant; however, he was concerned over the process the City is following. He didn't believe this project was given a fair review on the part of other staff members because they did not have an opportunity to see the new Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1994 He felt it was important for staff to review this and have a chance to respond to what has been submitted. He would support the project, but there needs to be a condition for staff to review the new information and make their comments to ensure a good, solid project for the community. Chairman Bosch suggested for consideration to add condition 11 -- Require review by the City's Environmental Review Board, including and not limited to, Building, Fire and Police Departments, to identify conformance with building and safety codes prior to final issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Smith felt this was an excellent suggestion, but thought it was an undue burden on the applicant for this particular project. She thought it would be appropriate to initiate that for future projects. Chairman Bosch thought it may be a burden to call it a condition when in fact all that it includes must be done to conform to the ordinances. But, it puts staff on notice in terms of handing over an approved conditional use permit that in fact the other building and safety ordinances must be enforced by the City. It may be more for staff's edification than it is for the applicant. Regardless of the approval of this project, the applicant must provide the appropriate plumbing fixtures, legal exiting, exit aisles, fire separations, etc. This keeps everyone from making mistakes. He encouraged the added condition, even though it is a bit redundant. Commissioner Walters remained opposed to the project. He thought it was trying to crowd too many people into an area that despite the capacity indicated for occupancy, with 7 pool tables it is not physically going to fit properly to allow pool playing. He heeded the police report in this regard in that it was asking for trouble. Mixing of live entertainment with pool tables will not work. They are changing the basic character of the facility to that of a night club with live entertainment (dancing, alcohol and pool all mixed together). It's not good planning and it's something the City should not engage in. The applicant stated he would provide valet parking, but he heard that when the applicant got his original permit and he didn't do it. This is an effort to build a crowd and it's on the wrong basis. It has proven in other cities not to be a good mix. Chairman Bosch shared some of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Walters based on the history of the project. He believed anyone has a right to succeed in business. It started out, however, as a billiard pallor with an incidental restaurant. This is transitioning it for the purpose of hopefully retaining existing business, but it is also changing the character to some extent. He's hopeful it will stop with this. There needs to be an enforcement mechanism for valet parking. There's more of an obligation than the business within the four walls; there's an obligation to the existing lease as well. Commissioner Cathcart noted the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2067-94, with conditions 1 through 11 (new condition). Also, if valet parking is not provided for any reason, the conditional use permit will be revoked. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Walters MOTION_CA_R__RIED Planning staff will monitor the valet parking and/or any complaints received. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2068-94 -RICH ROBERTSON A request to allow the construction of a two-story building (a second unit over a three car garage) on property zoned R-2-6 (Residential Duplex, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet) within the RCD Residential Combining District) overlay. Subject property is located at 477 South Orange Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b). There was no opposition; the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. 2 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant June 20, 1994 Rich Robertson, 477 South Orange Street, proposed to build a two bedroom and two bath unit over a 3-car garage. He and his wife are very proud of the project. They are using the finest products to complete the project. They've had the support of staff, the Design Review Board and their neighbors and hoped to get the support of the Commission. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Walters asked staff about the two story height on this street and block. Did it meet the new, not yet passed, guidelines? Mr. Godlewski said this was not considered 1 1 /2 stories. A person does not need a conditional use permit if it were 1 1/2 stories in height. Because it is two stories, the code would say a conditional use permit would be required. Commissioner Smith thought it would be helpful in evaluating second units to have some sort of rendering or picture of what the front unit looks like. She wondered what the size of the front structure was and what architectural styles were going to be used on the second unit. Mr. Carnes of the Planning staff responded the Design Review Board reviewed the application and determined the proposed structure to be similar in style to the California Bungalow. The original structure was built in 1908 and is 1100 square feet in size. Chairman Bosch stated in looking at the overall design and lay out of the site he appreciated a number of things -- one is the retention of the front residence, which is beautifully maintained. With the rear structure, he appreciated the response to the concerns of the DRB. There's a lot of concrete between the garage doors and the alley, but the City requires a 25 foot backup. It respects the setback lines from the alley of the existing second unit to the north. His key concerns with second units is the provision of adequate open space and respect of the initial residents and maintaining privacy as much as possible to existing residences on either side. He noted two windows on the north and south side that face adjacent properties. The one out of the living room to the north faces a property that already has a second unit and is over that unit so it has minimal impact. The one to the south is from one of the bedrooms and it's a fairly small window. It's a nice design in terms of providing cross ventilation and cross lighting to the bedroom; it breaks up the facade so as not to have a large massive wall. He was pleased with the overall effect. The balcony does not disrupt the lives of neighboring people. He's hopeful the landscaping will continue to be worked on to blend more with the existing historical landscape on the existing site. Commissioner Cathcart thought perhaps the project illuminates a need for the Planning Commission and Design Review Board to meet together for a study session to look at landscaping issues (i.e., historical relevance, plant materials, as well as architecture). He thought the project was a good reflection of staff, DRB and the applicant working together. Commissioner Smith appreciated the use of wood windows, siding, handrails, garage door and the use of good, original materials mitigate the presence of cement in the back. Chairman Bosch noted the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA guidelines. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2068-94, with the one condition listed in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1994 MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1690-88 -TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH A request to use a modular building, previously approved for temporary use, as a permanent classroom facility. Subject property is located at 24900 North Canal Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Joan Wolff, Planning Staff, presented the staff report as there was opposition to this project. In July, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit which allowed the expansion of Trinity Church. The proposal at that time included several permanent classrooms, a meeting room, storage room and a modular building for temporary use. That temporary use was to be until permanent facilities could be constructed. Consistent with the applicant's request the modular building was allowed to remain on site for a period of two years by a condition of approval. That condition would allow an extension in con1unction with issuance of building permits for a replacement classroom facility. Upon approval of the C.U.P. the church installed the modular building and constructed only one permanent classroom. No further construction occurred. The modular building has remained on site since its initial installation as part of the pre-school. The building contains two pre-school classrooms and office space for the pre-school director. The pre-school is licensed to care for 72 children and it utilizes a total of six classrooms in accordance with State requirements that there be at least one teacher for 12 children. Since the approval of the CUP the church has substantially scaled back it's expansion plans. At this time, they no longer propose to construct the building additions that were originally approved. Because of this the applicant has made this request to the Commission to be able to keep the modular building on site as a permanent facility. The action would be a modification to the previous CUP. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Reverend Virginia Erwin, 755 South Lane Tree, Anaheim, said they were currently serving 72 young children at a level of income of the parents. Therefore, the pre-school will not be able to afford to build the buildings that were once planned. They wanted to come in good faith to say they probably won't build the new building in the near future. They're housing a third of the children in the modular classroom and would like to keep them there. Those speaking in opposition Don and Helen Kossler, 1115 Alder Grove Circle, lives directly behind the church. The property the modular building sits on was a piece of property that belonged to them, but was under a permanent easement to the church until the end of this last year. At that time the church acquired the property with a condition that all structures on the property would be screened from the Kossler's view with some kind of trees to block the building which is not pretty to look at. They tried to sell their house, but couldn't because potential buyers saw the modular buildins and it turned them off immediately. They felt the modular building should not become permanent until the screening is installed. They submitted pictures to the Commission for their review. Commissioner Smith asked if landscape materials were planted to screen the building, would the Kossler's be opposed to the permanent building? (No.) What would be a proper landscape material? Mr. Kossler thought some type of shrubs or trees would be appropriate. The church planted small trees, but they're not large enough to cover the building and won't be for a long time. They just trimmed all the trees and shrubbery and it's made the appearance even worse than before. Commissioner Cathcart asked the City Attorney for his opinion regarding the letter (was it more of a private matter -- deeding of property -- rather than a land use issue that the City would want to get into)? Part of the addendum to the grant deed was personal between the Kossler's and Trinity Church. Mr. Soo-Hoo had not received a copy of the letter, but from the description that he heard at the hearing it sounded like a private transaction attached to the sale of the property. If the Planning Commission, however, feels it's appropriate there are land use connotations as far as the modular structure remaining for perpetuity and how to handle the interface between that and the adjoining properties. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1994 Rebuttal Reverend Erwin had no objection to what the Kossler's told the Commission. It's true. Their landscaper, in a good attempt to trim all the trees back, trimmed the principal cover of the trailer. They are making plans to build a trellis for vines and it will be taken care to the best of their ability. Hopefully they will be able to work with the Kossler's; they've been cooperative with them the last few months in the property exchange and will continue to get their satisfaction. Chairman Bosch asked if the church had considered extending the planting material further to the north and south, extending to the sides? He was sure they wanted to be a good neighbor and have a pleasant facility. Were additional improvements considered? Reverend Erwin said they must take into consideration young children play out there so they are limited as to the kinds of shrubbery and plants they could use. The trees were a mirnmum attempt so they realize they have to cover the building. Commissioner Cathcart recommended adding a condition to have the project go back for review by the Design Review Board to adequately address the landscape portion of the project. The DRB might be able to offer some ideas without expense to the church. Chairman Bosch asked what assurances could be built in, in terms of how the CUP is granted when the use is already in place to assure that this occurs? He understood in all good faith the church will carry on with whatever approvals are necessary, but lots of things get in the way in terms of financing, time, etc. and there needs to be some way of assuring that whatever managerial concerns occur, there will be an appropriate fulfillment of the condition. Mr. Godlewski responded the Commission could adopt a time frame for staff to come back and give them a report on the condition of the property. At that time, the Commission could set a public hearing to revoke the CUP and have the church remove the trailer or decide the church has complied with the condition of approval. Commissioner Cathcart commented a trellis was an excellent idea because vines grow rapidly. He appreciated the concerns about the children, but Bougainvillea (with proper pruning) provides a fast coverage particularly in hot weather. Given a time frame of three months would be sufficient for something to be seen in an adequate way. Commissioner Pruett noted on the site plan that the building was 60 feet in length. The property line from the back of the assembly hall is 80 feet. But there was no setback shown in terms of how far was the building off the property line. That leaves approximately 20 feet. How is it situated on the property? Reverend Erwin responded the building was almost in the middle (10 foot setback). Commissioner Cathcart thought to be more consistent with other applicants, a six month review period be stipulated rather than 90 days. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith said the building was originally approved for its temporary 2 year use and now 6 years have gone by. It's now being considered for permanent use. She would feel more comfortable if the project were reviewed by appropriate staff to ensure fire and safety regulations were in compliance with the building. The Commission discussed returning the project to the Design Review Board for final review of irrigation and landscaping. It would be beneficial to the DRB and applicant for the Commission to be a little more definitive in terms of what their expectations were. That is why a study session was suggested -- for all to understand what was being accomplished. Chairman Bosch noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA and the Commission had final action on this project. 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the modification to Conditional Use Permit 1690-88 with conditions 1 -- to refer the item to the Design Review Board for landscape review, with a 6-month review at the Planning Commission to assure it has been accomplished, and 2 -- to refer to the Environmental Review Board and staff for building code and life safety items. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2069-94 - ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH A request for the temporary installation of 2 "portable" classroom units to expand the capacity of the existing elementary school, proposed addition to a smaller storage building, and modifications to parking areas. Subject property is located at 154 South Shaffer Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental duality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chairman Cathcart chaired the hearing. One person opposed the project; therefore Joan Wolff presented the full staff report. The property has gone through a number of CUP reviews. They request one portable unit, which is a double-wide unit, for a classroom and a language lab. That would be installed by Fall of '94. Also, for a portable unit to be used for one classroom only, to be installed by Fall of '95. The addition to the accessory building would be for storage and a "tape outlet". The parking requirement for weekday use, for which these buildings will be contributing to, would be provided for by a new parking lot on Shaffer. The modular units have been requested for temporary use in anticipation of completion of a long range plan. The church reports they are working on such a plan and hopes to complete the plan within the next couple of years and then follow through with construction of the permanent facilities to accommodate their school and other auxiliary uses by 1998. Commissioner Smith asked how temporary is a temporary building? What is the stipulation on this particular proposal? Ms. Wolff responded in this case the condition is recommended to be approved through September, 1998. Staff does not have a standard as to what constitutes a temporary use; there is no definition in the code of what a temporary use is or the time frame involved. It varies among the conditions of each proposal, as well as the applicant's request. From research done, temporary use varied widely from two years to 10 years. Commissioner Cathcart asked if the applicant needed to come back before the Commission for modification to the CUP if the removal of the modular buildings did not occur before September, 1998? Yes.) Commissioner Smith understood the parking situation at St. John's. What parking is required for a school of this size, if the school were to be built on a brand new piece of property with no parking restrictions? Where does St. John's fall in this realm? Ms. Wolff didn't remember the exact number of classrooms and code requirements. In researching the project, 23 spaces were required for the day time use -- a ratio based on the number of spaces per classroom. The parking was calculated based on all the day time uses. The parking requirement for day care (per code) is 2 spaces per employee. Elementary is 1.8 space of classroom. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Doug Wutschke, 3010 Via Vinal, San Clemente, is a member of St. John's Church. They will be modifying one of the existing parking lots to make additional parking available. They also have another parking lot between the Music Conservatory that will be revised and will have 15 spaces. They have read the staff report and were aware of the conditions of approval. A master plan has been formulated to acquire all of 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1994 the properties needed for the church and school. They have accomplished most of this except for one piece; it's hard to negotiate with one owner. They hoped to have this put together by 1996, but because of the delays, it has been pushed back to 1998. Commissioner Smith asked if future plans include building permanent buildings to enlarge the school? How many children are in each classroom? Mr. Wutschke responded to enlarge it to where it would have 3 classrooms for each grade and then also have the pre-school. Their long range plan will include plans of how to add permanent buildings to include 27 classrooms plus the pre-school. He couldn't answer how many children were in each class as he was not involved with that. Commissioner Smith asked if Mr. Wutschke had children attending the school? (No.) Was he aware of the dynamic of circulation in the mornings and afternoons? (Yes.) Was there inclusion of a traffic circulation plan in the church's master plan? Mr. Wutschke said they were changing the circulation to where there would be a drop off area on Shaffer bus bay with a landscape median). Those sgeakinp in opposition Frank Bertella, 535 East Almond, was a member of the church and his kids attend school there. The main concern is the playground, which will become a parking lot. That's the only grass and playing field back there. The full build out is a nice plan, but he felt they were trying to force the issue by stuffing too much in the one area before coming up with a better design. Commissioner Cathcart knew if this were a public school, there would be some regulations on open space per child for playground area. But this was a private school and he was not sure if there were State rules. Mr. Soo-Hoo responded both public and private schools were regulated by the State. There are certain minimal regulations that would apply and he assumed the applicant has met the requirements. It's up to the applicant to decide if that is adequate for their needs. Commissioner Cathcart asked if there was a way to assure the neighbors and the City that State regulations would be met? Mr. Godlewski responded the regulations of the City in what was being reviewed at the hearing was merely the placement of the structure. Staff assumed all the State regulations were being met. It is not within the City's jurisdiction to require that they be met. Commissioner Walters has had a long history with Salem. He guaranteed the County will monitor the project. The State is extremely rigid and will follow-up. Rebuttal Mr. Wutschke said they also agonized over losing the grass area. He tried to get the parking lot to work without going into that area, but there was no other way to get the parking that's required. That green area will not be taken away until the second modular goes in (another year). Commissioner Walters asked if it were permissible under City code, would the church support the notion of an extended parking lot not being paved. That is done at Salem. Mr. Wutschke would love it; it would save them a lot of money. Commissioner Cathcart said some type of cell structure would be needed under the parking lot area to support the weight of vehicles. He personally found it to be a dangerous situation for kids to play on a grass parking lot area. Mr. Godlewski said the parking section of the municipal code states it has to be maintained with a surface of asphalt or portland cement, or other materials approved by the City Engineer. The only other material 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1994 would be something like turf block, which requires more preparation than asphalt or concrete. It may not serve the play ground purpose. Mr. Wutschke referred to the conditions of approval. He asked that conditions 1 and 4 be made part of the second phase when the second trailer will be installed. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Walters would like to add condition 5 -- that the temporary parking lot be left in grass, with a movable entry gate, suitable for playground area, if approved by the City Engineer. There could not be a fence between the paved and grass parking lot; it needs to be removed. But an overflow situation doesn't require that it can't be fenced with a gate. Commissioner Pruett thought there would be some times where they will anticipate the need for that parking (i.e., Sundays). Maybe the condition should indicate when the gate is to remain open. Mr. Godlewski clarified the parking is based on the daytime use of the facility. Staff is referring to the 26 parking spaces or what the code says is required for daytime use. It does not relate at all to parking on Sunday. Commissioner Smith was not in favor of the grass parking lot. It's very unsafe. The cars may know where they're going, but the kids don't know where the cars are going. She didn't think it was appropriate to treat the proposal as 1/2 of the school. The school (east and west) must be looked at as a whole. She guessed the facility is under parked. If there are special events, then it is over parked. The City cannot afford to fudge on any parking that has been proposed. The grass idea is nice, but she was concerned for the children's safety. In answer to the number of parking spaces, Mr. Godlewski said the parking spaces on Center Street are going to be taken up by the placement of the buildings and they would be lost. Those spaces are the ones that are going to be made up on the current grass area. Commissioner Cathcart said it would be nice not to take the grass play area at all. How many parking places is the City asking the church to provide after they build out the first and second phase of the temporary modular additions? (23 spaces for day time uses, west of Shaffer Street.) Ms. Wolff said they would lose more than two spaces on Center; they would lose 4 on Center and 4 on Shaffer. Commissioner Cathcart did not like mixing parking with playgrounds; that's a bad idea. If the church were able to allocate more than what the City was requiring in the way of parking for the facility on the west side of Shaffer, the church would not need to take the playground. Mr. Wutschke spoke in regards to the parking. There are two existing parking lots. Staff has asked them to update the parking lots to the new Orange code. That's why they have to redesign the lots. They need additional back up area; therefore, the landscape had to be taken. Mr. Godlewski noted staff took in the application and accepted the fact there were 46 parking spaces on site for the entire school's use. Staff felt by adding the trailers to the property, there should be no net loss in parking to facility. Staff accepted the fact the church is under parked. Staff did not want to add something to it to make the situation worse than it was. When adding the trailers, they run into a situation where the City is looking to upgrade one of the parking lots to current City code. By doing so, the church loses parking spaces. And it falls below the already low level of 46 parking spaces for the entire site. Staff felt in order for this application to be approved, there should be no net loss in parking and the parking that is lost because of the remodeled parking lot, needs to be made up somewhere else and it comes out of the landscape area where the children currently play. Commissioner Smith was concerned with the parking issue. Since there are 27 classrooms, she assumed there were 27 people, not counting the administrative staff (another 3 people). Thirty spaces would be needed on a daily basis. She thought St. John's needed to be treated as both halves of a whole. They're looking at a potential of 900 children on both sides of the street. The protection of those children needs to be considered when crossing those streets. She was concerned with the circulation pattern for the pick up and delivery of children to and from school. The City needs to see the master plan before 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1994 requiring any permanent parking plan. She would like to tie in the approval of these two modular units with the submission of a better treatment of the circulation of the traffic in the drop off and pick up of the children. It's hazardous and she thought St. John's could do a better job of monitoring that (in terms of cars being double parked, doors being thrown open on the drivers' side of the car, kids lumping out into the street). She was frankly surprised there was only one person representing St. John's for this project. She would like to see a continuance of this item to ask that a circulation plan be submitted to address how a safer traffic circulation could be proposed for this coming Fall. Also, to give St. John's a chance to look at perhaps the inclusion of landscape or a green play area for the children, as well as the appropriate parking standards that are needed. She would be willing to drop some of the turning regulations to gain more space in the parking lots. She sees the hazard more on the street than in the parking lots. She doesn't believe adequate attention has been given to the traffic and parking concerns with the modular unit requests over the last two years. She would be willing to vote in favor of the buildings as temporary buildings, with a time limit. She would not approve them as permanent buildings because of the traffic and parking concerns. More information and a better plan were needed in any event. Commissioner Walters appreciated the concern for traffic and parking, but he thought it was not appropriate for this application. They were looking at a fixed time for two temporary structures to be placed. Traffic circulation is not going to be found on the streets; it's going to be found on site. And it can only be done when the final general permanent building is constructed after design. The issue the Commission must consider is whether they are willing to add two temporary structures between now and the final build out on a short term basis. Commissioner Smith did not feel it was unreasonable for St. John's to take a look at those circulation/parking issues and talk with the parents to educate them on traffic safety. Commissioner Pruett thought to do a complete traffic and circulation study was not appropriate at this time. It will be required upon completion of the master plan. The church needs to look at the issues raised by the Commission and communicate them to the parents. That can happen without a traffic%irculation study. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2069-94, with the conditions as listed in the staff report, amending conditions 1 and 4 to be implemented during the second phase of the project. St. John's administrative staff was also requested to apprise parents and drivers of safety features regarding dropping off and picking up their children; to inform the parents of a potential hazardous situation in crossing the streets at Grand and Center. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting. IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said the City had a habit of imposing all sorts of conditions. The building inspectors follow through because they have to. He suggested staff do something to keep track of all the conditions. The City Council is worse than the Planning Commission. With all of the computers, it ought to be possible to keep track of imposed conditions. Two examples came forward at this hearing -- no valet parking, although it was a condition and a condition for temporary modular units for a period of two years, which turned out to be six years. Several problems would be eliminated if the conditions were monitored. IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Mr. Godlewski said a letter was received from a resident in the Persian Bazaar neighborhood. It was a complaint about some of the activities that have gone on, but it relates more to the upkeep of the property. Code Enforcement has been dispatched and the problem has been resolved. Property maintenance issues are still going on in the area. Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: ADJOURNMENT June 20, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld 10