Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-1996 PC MinutestJ?:561J. f-;.;(, 3 MINlJTES Planninll Commission City of Orange December 2,1996 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, CarRon, Pruett, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Romero STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Seo- Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Hamid Bahadori, Traffic Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Seci'etary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINlJTES FOR THE MEETING OF 11118/96 The Minutes were continued to the next meeting due to a lack of quorum.IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2165-96; VARIANCE 2025-96; MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 22-96' RICHARD BORIS The applicant just arrived in town for this hearing and he requested additional time to review the staff report before he made his presentation.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to move the Agenda order from 2 to #3 to allow Mr. Boris additional time. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2159- 96 - ULTRAMAR The applicant is proposing redevelopment of an existing gas station to include complete demolition and reconstruction of gasoline pumps, and a larger retail market (1,652 square feet). The site is located at 2245 West Chapman Avenue - Ultramar gas station at the northeast corner of Chapman and Rower Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1516-96 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Qualny Act, to address the potential environmental impacts of this project.The full presentation of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition. Staff distributed 5 additional conditions of approval, which were also provided to the applicant. They are standard conditions that pertain to every conditional use permit request and they were inadvertently left out of this application.The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes December 2,1996 Acclicant Ahmad Ghaderi, A&S Engineering, 207 West Alameda #203, Burbank, represented Ultramar, Inc. Th.e proposal is to completely demolish the existing structure, pump islands and canopy. . They will reconstruct a brand new building on the northeasterly comer of the parcel, rebuild the canopy, Install new pumps and upgrade the underground tanks and piping. They propose to enhance the landscaping as well. They have read all the conditions, as well as the additional 5 conditions, and have no problem meeting the requirements of those conditions. Chairman Bosch noted there were a couple of concems with regard to the Design Review Board, who will see the final plans. Primarily with regard to the location of the trash enclosure and to the proposed back lit fascia on the canopy, and the red neon lighting strip around the building. He asked Mr. Ghaderi to comment on these items. Mr. Ghaderi said they were going to eliminate three parking spaces along the eastern property line to allow them to push the trash enclosure closer to the building and away from the street. They requestedtoretaintheilluminationontheneonlightingstrie. It was a new image for Ultramar and 11 has been installed at their other locations. It's not brignt; it s a subdued color. They will provide pictures for the DRB's consideration. As far as the multi-colored fascia, they will abide by the Design Review Board' s condition and recommendation.Mr. Ghaderi had a question for Public Works about the existing driveway remaining on Chapman. If they moved the driveway to the west about 10 or 15 feet, it would allow better access to the middle island,especialiy for their tanker trucks. Would they approve that change?Mr. Bahadori would like to take a closer look at the driveway before Qiving the applicant a verbal approval. His concern was to keep that driveway from as far away as poSSible from the intersection.Chairman Bosch suggested adding another sentence to condition 5. "Final location of theChapmanAvenuedrivewayshallbedeterminedinconsultationwith, and subject to approval, of the City Traffic Engineer."The public hearing wes closed.Commissioner Carlton questioned the earthen berm that should be eliminated from the front yard (Page 5 of the Staff Report); however, on the previous page it talked about the street widening occurring some years from now. She wondered what the point was in eliminating something that is going to contribute to the landscaping and aesthetic appearance of the property when no one knows when the streetwideningisgoingtooccur? In the meantime, the landscaping could be enjoyed and be in place. What would be put there at this point in time?Mr. Donovan said the problem with that is that the berm would rise at the center of what is now proposed as a 20 foot wide yard. If 10 feet were cut away, the high point of that berm would berightalongtheedgeofthesidewalkandessentiallythewholelandscapedareawouldhavetober9!,lraded.The area would be level with no berm and landscaped. When the City knows about a streetWideningproject, they try to get the applicants to design a split irrigation system as well so that when the street is widened, the Public Works Department can simply cut the irrigation system and cap it off at theportionthatwouldbecometheright-of-way. Staff is trying to make it an easy transition as possible.Commissioner Carlton asked about the trees. The DRB felt that a Yucca tree didn~ lend anything to the other species that were planted in that area. She thought Crepe Myrtle trees shed a lot of leaves and flowers where a Yucca is more evergreen and it doesn~ do much but sit there. She would like them to look at the other trees and think of something that would be a little cleaner.Chairman Bosch asked that staff take that suggestion back to the DRB as a commentfrom the Planning Commission.Chairman Bosch was pleased that there were a number of improvements thathelptheneighborhoodsubstantiallywiththeredevelopmentoftheservicestation, particularly with regard to eliminating several of the driveways and the reduction of traffic hazards, and the subsequent increase in landscaping which is sorely needed on the existing site. And, also the introduction of the wall along the north property line 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 2,1996 along the alley, This is a substantial improvement to help with noise and trash concerns. In addition to the modification to condition 5 as prev!ously discussed, he suggeste~ adding to cond!tion ~. - a!tert~e first sentence - " There shall be no internal Illumination of the canopy faSCia except for the Identfflcatlon sign age nself on the canopy," He also saw from the DRB's previous comments the desire to allow vines to grow on building walls and trash enclosure. He thought vines growing on building walls were unnecessary as they lead to leaks and maintenance problems, and also potential security hazards. He wanted to add in condition 9 - " There shall be no vines planted on building walls." He reserved his judgment on trash enclosures. The elimination of the three parking spaces on the east property line to allow better positioning of the trash enclosure and also a subsequent increase in landscaping was acceptable. He recognized there would be some off sets perhaps to allow for the ADA access walkway to the building,Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative Declaration 1516-96 in that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources,AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioner Pruett Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2159- 96 with the conditions listed in the staff report, changing condition 5 by adding another sentence -- " Rnallocation of the Chapman Avenue driveway shall be determined in consultation with, and subject to approval, of the City Traffic Engineer." And, adding a new sentence to condition 9 - after the first sentence - ''There shall be no internal illumination of the canopy fascia except for the identification signage itself on the canopy." And, continuing with condition9 by adding the sentence, "There shall be no vines planted on building walls." Also, to add conditions10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 that were added by staff, This CUP is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. The granting of this permit will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area, but will rather enhance the area. There will be a positive effect on the community and neighborhood by granting this CUP. And, the CUP is granted subject to all conditions listed necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant.AYES:NOES:ABSTAINED:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioner Pruett Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Carlton asked for clarification on the back lighting, Chairman Bosch explained the applicant originally proposed to back light the entire fascia; the edge of the canopy, Condition 9 would eliminate the back lighting and just leave the sign age back lit, and still allow the applicant to have the neon strip,Commissioner Pruett arrived for the Planning Commission Meeting,)IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2165-96; VARIANCE 2025-06; MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 22-96-RICHARD BORIS The applicant is proposing conversion of a residential structure to a non-residential use with outdoor storage. Also required are waivers of development standards, The site is located at 2410 North Batavia Street. This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This item was continued from the November 4, 1996 hearing,) NOTE: 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1996 There was opposition to this item; therefore, the full presentation of the staff report was given, Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, explained the Commission continued this item from the November 4 meeting due to an error in the legal notice that was mailed out and there were concerns raised regarding the proposed landscape/maintenance firm that was considering moving to this site. The concerns had to do with employee parking on site, outdoor storage and on-site circulation. Since that time, the landscape/maintenance firm has withdrawn their offer to buy the property. The applicant still wants to move ahead with his request for the conditional use permit, variance and minor site plan review. His request is to consider a generic, industrial use of his property, It's use as a residential property is very limited, He has revised the site plan to indicate increase paving of the back for parking and public sidewalks on the Batavia right-of-way, as recommended by Public Works, After the plans were prepared, Mr. Boris indicated he did not wish to add paving to the back or to put in the sidewalks, or to consider on-site circulation, or to narrow the southerly driveway approach, as recommended by Public Works, Their concerns had to do with the driveway heading straight in to the proposed handicap parking space -- that cars turning into the site may either hit a car parked there, or may stop and maneuver back out onto Batavia, causing a traffic problem, The conditional use permit is to allow outside storage within 300 feet of residentially zoned properties, The minor site plan review is to allow the conversion of a residential structure to a non-residential use. The variance request is to allow a portion of the handicap parking space in the front setback, existing 6' masonry walls to remain within the front setback, and to allow a shorter than 30' driveway approach to a parking space.The public hearing was opened,Aoolicant Richard Boris, 2410 North Batavia, recently moved to Idaho, He was in escrow 6 months and hadn't gotten anywhere, The buyer, after the last meeting, decided he didn1 want to be nit picked by the City so he backed out There was a misinterpretation when he submitted his plans to the City, His architect understood the Commission wanted certain things and he put them on the plans, The first issue was the sidewalk, When he purchased the property in 1986, the City did not require sidewalks in an industrial area, Now, the City wants him to put in a sidewalk, He cannot afford, nor does he want to put in a circular driveway in the back yard, If the northern gate were to be opened, people could come in and take things out of the yard without being seen, The gate will be locked during the day, or if necessary, he will take out the gate and put up a brick fence, He's asking for outdoor storage and if he had to put in a circular driveway, it would eliminate some of that storage space, His yard is getting smaller and smaller,He talked to Public Works about parking, The only thing required was the first 20 feet from the approach back, be paved because the City did not want rocks being brought from the back yard into the City street. Paving the back yard was not required because the business was not big enough. There was too much emphasis on the handicap parking space, As far as parking in the rear, the owner of the business should be the one to regulate where his people park. This is a small, private business, He has been making payments on this property and trying to get approval from the City, but it's getting to the point where he can't afford it If it remains empty, he will lose the property. This is a triangular shaped property that faces Batavia; it's not a desirable piece of property.Chairman Bosch's recollection from the last meeting was Mr. Boris purchased the property after the street was widened, (Yes.) He purchased the property in the triangular shape with the street frontage and property line location as it exists today, (Yes,) There was no greater taking of property being required of Mr. Boris under the current ordinances of the City,Mr. Boris explained he had three parking spaces out in front of his office that were eliminated by the City because it was decided a center left turn lane was more important than on-street parking. Now, a handicap parking space is being required in the front plus three parking spaces, which are shown in the back, But, those three parking spaces could have been out on the street.Chairman Bosch stated the City's zoning ordinance has, for many years, required that all required parking under the ordinance be on the private property, And that public on- street parking does not count toward that parking, He understands the convenience and resource that on-street parking represents, but there is no guarantee of that And, in fact, the ordinance requires it to be on the private property. He wanted to make it clear the City did not take away the street from Mr. Boris, The property was in that condition and there are other conditions w~h regard to the General Plan of traffic and circulation, and traffic demands and safety which drive what happens with parking on the street. There are Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1996 the fact this was originally a residence in a semi-rural agricultural area, The City developed around it,resulting in a property that remains that may impose some specific hardship on the property that IS worth considering as the Commission looks at how Mr, Boris can best develop it now or retain some of the elements it has,Mr. Boris said the house was built in 1955, This has been a business operating out of there for the last 25-30 years, When he bought the property, he had no idea abouf the City's requirements until he came in to obtain a building permit He would like to put up a 3' high screen wall in the front so that cars cannot drive into the parking space, He did not feel 25 feet was adequate for trucks to pull in fhe existing driveway approach,Those sDeakina in ODDosition Richard Matiana, 2415 North River Trail Road, didn1 have anything against Mr, Boris or his property, He talked to Mr. Luna earlier and tried to find out what was going on, He told him he fell out of escrow because of all the problems with the City's requirements. He felt bad for Mr. Boris, after being in escrow 6 months, His concern now was if the City granted a generic conditional use permit, how would they regulate the conditions imposed on fhe property? He would like to see something in there that would be compatible to the nearby residences,Chairman Bosch explained the purpose of the conditional use permit is twofold: One is to convert a residential structure to a non-residential use, The land is already zoned for M- l, Within the ordinance there is a list of uses (specific kinds of businesses) fhat are allowed within the M- l district, subject to all the other City ordinances with regard to noise, dust, odor, etc., and subject to meeting the parking requirements for the use and building. This is enforced by law and people must abide by it There are other uses that may cause problems in certain circumstances, Those uses are not allowed by right and would have to come in for a different conditional use permit and public hearing to see if the proposed use that's allowed only by a CUP would have any potential negative impacts on the surrounding properties, mitillated by conditions of approval and by site plan design. The City has a code enforcement diVision within the Community Development Department that is responsible, along with the Police Department, for policing nuisances or violations of ordinances and violafions are not looked at kindly, The other two actions before the Commission includes a variance and minor site plan review, A variance is difficult to obtain because the applicant must prove there is a hardship imposed that is not caused by what he has done. shape of property, widening of streets, etc, In this regard, the applicant is asking for a variance to save an existing block wall that was there before the street was widened, It was probably legal when it was built And, also with regard to parking, Because to meet the handicap standards and because of the limited shape of the lot, Mr. Boris believes he ought to have some allowance for that parking space in the front yard, The other request for a CUP is for outdoor storage,That's allowed in the industrial zone, subject to a CUP. Again, the ordinance places specific limitations on what that outdoor storage can be, how tall it can be, how it is to be shielded and protected from adjacent properties, But, the final concern is looking at the site plan and seeing whether all these in combination,given the building, the shape of the property and site access have produced a site plan that satisfactorily addresses mitigating the potential impacts of that outdoor storage or the conversion of the house upon the neighbors. That's the purpose of the Planning Commission hearing - to look at this request and see what can be done to meet everyone's needs in the best way possible.The applicant did not offer further comments and the public hearing was closed,Commissioner Smith empathized with Mr. Boris over his property, It's what she describes as a "soup sandwich" project It's possible he was misinformed when he purchased the property, but the City has worked hard in the last few years to bring properties into compliance, Some aspects are fine with her,but other parts of it are a problem. There are a lot of requests on one piece of property, which is an immediate yellow flag to her and it needs to be looked at closely. She all'eed with everythin9 the City has required except that she would not require the circular driveway gOing around the building, The sidewalks should be put in across the front as a matter of public safety and access. Definitely, the handicapfarking space is needed, To not have it would be discriminatory towards future employees or patrons 0 any business for that site. She didn't understand the requirement to make the driveway more narrow, Usually the request from the City is to make it wider. The outdoor storage, the conversion of the residential structure to a non-residential building is fine with her. The retention of the block wall is fine,But she didn't see the requirement or need to have that circular driveway because it will create Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1996 security problem, How would someone prevent people from crashing behind the building, unless it were a one way driveway? Commissioner Carlton agreed with some of Commissioner Smith's comments, This is a non- commercial kind of property; a private business is going to be there. She didn~ see a need for the sidewalk, She would leave the dnveway wider and she didn't think a circular driveway was needed. This is a real hardship on the property. To be in escrow six months and then to have it fall out - she could relate to that The use has been established for years and years. It's not like a retail business, She would agree to no circular driveway, the handicap parking space is okay, she would leave the driveway wider, and would not require the sidewalk to be put in, Commissioner Pruett said this was a complex issue; he had some sympathy for the applicant. But at the same time, much of the problems came with the property, He didn't see they were developed durmg his use, The circular driveway in the back is something that may not be required, given the ability to access the storage area in the back, The way the property is laid out now, he was confused as to whether this plan was the proposed plan to address the parking in the back, He wanted the applicant to clarify if this was the parking plan? If it is, it could restrict or limit the ability to ~et into the back yard, It could present some problems in terms of how that parking is proposed, The Issue of the sidewalk, he wanted staff to comment on that as it relates to the industrial area, Is that something to look for in an industrial area? He heard at the last meeting that sidewalks were not required in an industrial area, Chairman Bosch found the property interesting in that it has been used as a light industrial use for many years. It has escaped scrutiny for all these years as it existed and it was changed from a purely residential property to a business enterprise with gravel surfacing, changing the use ot the building over time and the truck traffic, etc, that has occurred there, It has come to the attention of the City because of the non-permitted building additions, He didn~ know at what point they look at it as a non- conforming use because it has existed for all that length of time, It certainly doesn't give him the latitude to consider over looking problems of public safety, That's his key concern. He found that because of the previous widening of the street and the taking of property that leavin~ the brick and wrought iron fence in the setback as requested in the variance was appropriate, That s not a hardship caused by the property owner. The handicap parking space is not even a City ordinance; that's Federal law, There is a huge fine if one doesn't provide the handicap parking space. The owner must put the handicap parking space in the front setback, He didn~ have a problem with the conversion of the residence to non-residential use either. That's clearly the intent through the rezoning years ago. He agreed with the outdoor storage, He believed the protection afforded under the existing ordinance as enforced for outdoor storage, keeping the height below the surrounding wall, which is an existing wall. Therefore, it will limit the height of the outdoor storage, With regard to the rear yard, parking, gates, and circulation, they're not talking about a circular driveway, but talking about a one-way drive in and out because of the narrowness of the driveway along one side, He wants to do what is nght in terms of land use and providing a property that is beneficial to the community. Given the previous conditions, the limited intensity of use that the property can support because of its size and shape, he didn't see a need to pave the whole rear yard of the property, It didn't make sense for general use, A lot of tenants will probably turn away from the property because it is gravel; that it doesn't provide a secure surface to store goods on, The gravel surface is a limited value to the majority of people who might be interested in the property. On the other hand, it would be a real hardship at this time to cause that to be reconditioned as part of this approval. It would deny the owner a privilege that is being enjoyed by other similar properties in the area, That would apply to paving the whole circular driveway as well. He didn't think the parking, as laid out, is appropriate, but that's something that should be worked out between the applicant and staff in terms of how parking is oriented on the site and identified to assure parking is readily available, He would like to believe people will be able to find their own parking space on an oddly shaped property with a gravel surface behind a house with a single access driveway, There needs to be something done with signage, bumpers -- some control to be sure that the parking is corralled and made safe for the people that are there. That can be done on a gravel surface as well. That's not a major land use issue and it should be left to staff and the permit process. He was a bit concerned with the driveways. He thought Mr. Boris would face a bigger expense if he were to close in the northerly wall opening with a wall than he would by doing some other controls, Because the existins concrete driveway apron to the street in that case would have to come out It would have to be demolished and the driveway removed and the curb re-poured so there would be no access to the property behind in terms of public safety,He would rather see the driveway maintained for use and to provide potential for one-way access to the site, He shares a concern about the width of the driveway and would like to hear from staff their feelings about those driveway shapes and widths, He knew the City liked to have a 30' Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1996 a setback throat of the same width, Are they looking at an application 01 standards that are generically applied, or are there some salety issues involved? Mr. Ghaderi said staff was concerned about vehicles entering the driveway and running into the handicap parking space or to eliminate the potential lor on-site collisions, However, he believed the applicant' s suggestion might be a possible mitigation to the problem.Chairman Bosch would like to have the Commission consider accepting Mr. Boris' offer lor a low masonry screen wall bordering the pedestrian access way to the handicap parking space. It would be less than 42" tall so it would be acceptable within the setback and would provide a more positive barrier when vehicles approached the site and may reduce the potential lor collision w~h the car and handicap parking space. It's a tough piece 01 property; ~'s a tough complex decision,Commissioner Smith said there were a couple 01 questions lor staff that still need to be answered, One was regarding the sidewalks in the industrial area?Mr. Jones' understanding was that the City has not always required sidewalks in the industrial area. But,they are now requiring them in the arterial areas, There are bus lines that come up in this area and several people use them, There are some problems in the industrial areas, particularly on the arterials where people do not have any place to walk but in the streets to get to the businesses,Chairman Bosch would like to see the sidewalks put in along the street than all the other improvements suggested, except lor the handicap parking space and landscaping in the Iront yard.Commissioner Smith agreed and lelt strongly about the public sidewalks. That's a benelit to the entire community and would be hazardous il not put in, She summarized the points 01 concern: Public salety issues -- it was all right to leave the lence; the handicap parking space is Federal law and must be put in; the lront setback would be retained as it is; it was okay to convert the building to a non-residential use; it was the consensus 01 the Commission not to require paving the rear yard; and the Commission accepts Mr. Boris' offer to put up a masonry screen wall In the 30' loot driveway, The parking space orientation on the site is to be worked out to the satislaction 01 the City staff and code requirements,Mr. Jones asked lor clarification about no paving in the rear yard area,Chairman Bosch eliminated the paving 01 the spaces in back in the area behind the building, He thought the drive along the side 01 the building should be paved to the rear 01 the building and to the gate ( to the rear west corner 01 the addition), So that everything in Iront 01 the gate and rear west corner 01 the addition would be paved to the east 01 that out to the public right-ol-way, And, the other northerly drive approach would be paved Irom the property line back to the existing wall and gate as well.It was noted this project was categorically exempt Irom CEQA review,Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2165-96 to allow lor outdoor storage within 300 leet 01 residentially zoned properties; approve Variance 2025-96 to waive the 20' setback requirements lor an existing 6 loot high wall without the lull code required landscape in order to provide lor a handicap parking space, and to waive the minimum 25' width lor a two-way travel aisle, revising condition 6 -"Prior to occupancy 01 the main structure, retain the existing drive approach and add a masonry screen wall less than 42" high at the handicap parking space,"; then,waive the 30' minimum drive approach lor parking space access, And, approve Minor Site Plan Review 22-96 to allow the conversion of the residential structure to a non-residential use, Condition 5 shall be modified - ''The area used lor on-site parking and circulation around the rear 01 the main structure shall remain as a maintained gravel surface with an agreement to be reached on placement and standards between the staff and applicant relative to the parking location and identification; and that paving 01 driveways shall occur easterly at the rear line 01 the addition at the south driveway and easterly 01 the existingwall and gate at the north driveway." The conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles 01 land use and in response to services required by the community; it will not cause deterioration 01 bordering land uses or create special problems lor the area. The CUP was considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood and the CUP should be made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare 01 any applicant The Commission lound that special circumstances are applicable to the subject property with regard to the variance lor depth of landscape setback, retention 01 masonry Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1996 space due to the previous street widening; and the previous residential structure to remain, which would deny the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification, if not approved, The variance will not cause conditions which constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon the properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located, Regarding the findings for the Minor Site Plan Review approval, the project will not cause a deterioration 01 neighboring land uses, the project conforms to City of Orange development standards, the project will not cause significant negative environmental impact, that on and off- Site circulation is adequate to support the project, City services are available and adequate to serve the project, and the project is compatible with community aesthetics, AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch said this was one of those properties that gets painted into a corner. The Commission has found a way that is appropriate to retain the major values of the property and still on the front side of the property, takes care of the public safety and appearance issues, which will also enhance the value of the property in the future, It will benefit everyone along the way,Commissioner Smith commented Mr. Boris has moved to Idaho, but she is comfortable knowing this property is now a nice package for the City with appropriate land use in place,IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 4. STATUS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES IN THE MAIN PLACEITOWN & COUNTRY AND EAST ORANGE AREAS Staff has set up their displays/exhibits in the Weimer Room for an informal presentation and discussion,and asked that the Commission adjourn to the Weimer Room,Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to the Weimer Room, AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Jere Murphy, Manager of Advanced Planning, Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning, and Hamid Bahadori, Traffic Engineer briefly summarized their staff report, dated November 21, 1996, Discussion ensued as to the different projects and development activities in the Main PlacelT own & Country and East Orange areas.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p, m, AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED sld