Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-21-1989 1 s~:p ~ ~ J Regular Meeting - February 21, 1989 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on February 21, 1989, in the Dublin School District Board Room. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Burnham. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Burnham, Mack, and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Rod Barger, Senior Planner; Laura Hoffineister, Associate Planner; Trudi Ryan, Project Planner and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. ~ ~ ~c ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Burnham led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. *~~c~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of February 6, 1989, were approved. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commission had received no action letters. ~~~~~~~t~~~~~*~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~e~*~~c~c~~~~~~~~e~~~r~~~t~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-21 February 21, 1989 ~ • a PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-142 Hobby Horse Learning Center Conditional Use Permit Request to Continue Operation of an 80 Child Daycare Center located at Cronin School, 6901 York Drive Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that this application was for a Conditional Use Permit to maintain the existing use of Pod B at the Cronin School for a daycare facility for up to 20 children located at 6901 York Drive. The previous two-year Conditional Use Permit request to occupy Pod C had expired. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. The site contained 33 parking spaces which are shared with the Montessori School in Pod A. A total of 18 parking spaces is required for Montessori and 11 for Hobby Horse. The parking lot west of Pod A is occupied by Valley Continuation School and they are required to have 23 parking spaces. Parking is adequate for all three uses. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Staff was in support of this type of use and the City had not received complaints regarding the operation of Hobby Horse. Ms. Hoffineister stated that the Applicant had submitted requests for modifications to conditions shown as Attaehment 5 and 6. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Condition #11 of Resolution #86-069 required an enclosed garbage containment area and Applicant is requesting deletion of this condition. Staff had reviewed the Applicant's material and determined that the trash containment being used on the site at this time is sufficient and this condition is being met by the Applicant. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Condition #15 of Resolution #86-069, (landscape planters) was reviewed by Staff. The Applicant has indicated that there is no appropriate water or irrigation source available to maintain this area. This area is not visible from the public street and Staff recommends eliminating this condition. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the Applicant requested that the existing wall sign (2'6"x3'6") remain, as it was similar in size to the Montessori sign. Being that the sign at the Montessori School was an illegal sign, it has been removed. A condition requiring the existing sign to be brought into conformance has been added. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the Police Department has verified that the Child Abuse Awareness Program has been enacted for 1988 and the Applicant will need to coordinate with the Police Department for future presentations. Ms. Hoffineister stated that Staff is recommending that the use permit be approved with a possible two-year extension by the Planning Director if all appropriate conditions and findings were met. ~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~c~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c**~t~~~~~~~*~~~*~t~~~~~~~~*~r~*~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-22 February 21, 1989 ' • ~ Cm. Zika asked if the Montessori School had been cited for the illegal sign. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the Zoning Investigator notified the school and the sign was taken down. Melody Ferreia, representative for Hobby Horse, indicated that she had no problems with the Staff Report as presented. Cm. Zika asked why the use permit time frame ran beyond that of the State license. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that there is a condition requiring that the Applicant submit a updated State license when the existing license expires. If the license is not received, the use permit would not be valid. Cm. Zika asked if this was monitored by the City. Ms. Hoffineister indicated yes, the Zoning Investigator would be responsible for monitoring this situation. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Zika, with a vote of 3-0 {two absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-004 APPROVING PA 88-142 HOBBY HORSE LEARNING CENTER - CHILDCARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO OPERATE A CHILDCARE AT THE CRONIN SCHOOL LOCATED AT 6901 YORK DRIVE SUBJECT: PA 88-148 Howard Johnson's Conditional Use Permit request to add a proposed hair salon/barber shop, gift shop, offices, dance floor, retail sales and auction activities within the existing building located at 6680 Regional Street Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that this application had been continued from the meeting of February 6, 1989 in order to receive comments from the police department. This application was for a Conditional Use Permit requesting the addition of a hair salon, gift shop, offices, etc. to the existing hotel. Also requested is a dance permit request for the Lord Dublin Restaurant lounge area. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that there had been numerous County and City use permit applications approved which have allowed the hotel and conference facility uses as well as lounge/restaurant and car rental agency. There has not been any approvals for a dance floor or shops and office uses. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~c~~~~~**~~*~t~~~~~~~~~~~~c*~~~~~~~~~r~c~~*~~~~~~~~~*~~r~*~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-23 February 21, 1989 ' • • Ms. Hoffineister indicated that on December 21, 1987, the City Council adopted an ordinance requiring dance permits be requested through the police department as well as through the City Planning Department for approval. The Zoning Ordinance allows temporary administrative use permits to be approved for auctions, retail sales, etc. for no more than a 60-day time frame, or a Conditional Use Permit for a longer time frame. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that numerous activities have come up whereby a temporary use permit would need to be required. Staff had met with the Applicant and had determined that a Conditional Use Permit would better address the ongoing activities at the hotel. In addition, the Applicant would like to expand their office area servicing the hotel, as well as a beauty shop catering to the hotel occupants. Ms. Hoffineister stated that Staff believes these uses coincide with the others uses at the hotel. The parking is adequate for these additional hotel uses and these uses occur within the hotel building. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the police department has reviewed the application and has added conditions regarding the dance floor permit. Staff is requesting modifications to Condition #8a, b, and 8c on page 2 of the resolution which are related to the number of bouncers required. The Applicant feels that some other type of arrangements could be made. Staff is requesting that the police department and the Applicant review these conditions. Staff recommended Condition #8a, 8b and 8c be changed to indicate that the final number be subject to the police department's agreement. Staff recommended the application be approved as modified. Cm. Zika asked if there was someone from the police department present. Ms. Hoffineister stated no. Cm. Zika asked if Baxters had the same "bouncer/security guard" condition. Ms. Hoffineister stated yes. Johnson Clarke, Applicant, indicated that he had no objection to meeting with the police department. He was concerned over the one-year permit limitation. Mr. Tong indicated that Planning Commission policy typically provided that new uses have a one-year time frame. After that, the use permit could be administratively granted a two-year extension, for a total three year time frame. Cm. Burnham asked if the retail sales were confined to the conference rooms. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that retail sales were limited to the conference rooms and a State permit was also required for the retailers. Cm. Zika asked what if the Applicant and the police department cannot work out the requirements of Condition #8. ~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~t~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~*~~~~~~~~~~*~~*~~~~~**~~~~r~~r*~~~~*~~~~r~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-24 February 21, 1989 • • Mr. Tong indicated that an appeal can be filed to the Gity Council. Cm. Zika asked if they could come back to the Planning Commission for approval and to have the police department present. Mr. Tong indicated that yes, this could be done. On motion from Cm. Zika (requesting that a Condition #17 be added indicated that if the Applicant and the police department could not agree on terms of Condition #8, that the application come back to the Planning Commission for approval), seconded by Cm. Mack, and with a vote of 3-0 (two absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-005 APPROVING PA 88-148 HOWARD JOHNSON'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD A PROPOSED BARBER/BEAUTY SHOP {HAIR SALON), GIFT SHOP, OFFICES, TEMPORARY RETAIL SALES AND AUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING HOTEL BUILDING AND A DANCE FLOOR WITHIN THE LORD DUBLIN RESTAURANT/LOUNGE AREA. SUBJECT: PA 88-009.1/.2/.3 Heritage Commons Planned Development Rezonin~, Tentative Map and Site Development Review located at Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Drive (continued from the meeting of February 6, 1989) Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Ryan indicated that this item had been continued from the December 19, 1988 and January 17th meetings. The Planning Commission had asked for additional information as to the legality of the ingress/egress easement on the property. Ms. Ryan indicated that a letter had been sent to the City Attorney to clarify 1) who could determine if there was an easement and ingress/egress of the property; 2) does the City Attorney have the right to make this determination and 3) does the Planning Commission have a legal right to make a decision regarding the easement. Ms. Ryan summarized the City Attorney's answers to the above questions. A judge would make a decision if the issue went to court, however, the City Attorney could provide opinions on the validity of the easement for ingress/ egress on Stagecoach Drive. The Planning Commission could make a decision on the item with or without the opinion of the judge or City Attorney. Ms. Ryan indicated that a request was made to the City Attorney's office to have a representative present at this meeting, however, their schedule was not permitting. A letter was attached to the Staff Report for the Commission's review. Ms. Ryan indicated that there was a concern regarding who would be responsible for the maintenance of Stagecoach Drive. It was Staff's suggestion that maintenance should be shared by both the existing residents (40~) and the new development (60~). ~~~c~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~*~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~*~~~~~~~*~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-25 February 21, 1989 . . Ms. Ryan discussed the traffic signal that could be installed on Amador Valley Boulevard and the main entrance to the new development. She stated that Caltran's manual shows that this area does not "warrant" a traffic signal in that the pro~ect traffic volumes would be below what is usually warranted for a traffic signal. If a traffic signal was installed, it could cause excessive delays, drivers that disobeyed the signal or they would take alternative routes, and could also cause more accidents. Cm. Zika asked that even if the traffic signal was not warranted by Caltrans, couldn't it still be installed. Ms. Ryan indicated that the City uses the Caltran's criteria and feels that it would be irresponsible to install a traffic signal when that signal is not warranted. Ms. Ryan indicated that there was a concern regarding the location of the main entry to the project. This entry was actually the best location for traffic and pedestrian visibility from both directions. The Applicant had sight and stopping distances projected and drawings are a~ailable for the Gommission's review. Median breaks were suggested with acceleration lanes in and out of the project. This would improve safety of the intersection. Ms. Ryan indicated that there was a safety concern for pedestrians crossing Stagecoach being that the new pro~ect would generate more traffic. The Applicant has suggested installing speed bumps at the end of Stagecoach prior to the entrance. Staff had no objections, however commented that speed bumps can sometimes be a nuisance. Ms. Ryan indicated there had been a concern regarding the noise levels created by the new development. A noise study had been done measuring existing and future development in the area. The study shows the noise level does not exceed local standards except for Building 23, 24, 25, and 26. Condition #46 and 47 of the PD Rezoning Resolution requires installation of equipment to mitigate the noise level to local standards. Ms. Ryan indicated there had been a concern regarding increased traffic on Amador Valley Boulevard. The police department had been contacted regarding traffic problems on Amador Valley Boulevard. Figures show six accidents had occurred last December and January, however these accidents occurred in the commercial area. Citations have been issued of speeding, being under the influence, illegal turns, expired licenses, etc. Staff did not believe that the project would cause more problems for this area. Ms. Ryan indicated that the site plan of the project was shown on the wall. Additional plans were available. Plans were attached to the December 19, 1988 Staff Report for the Commission's review. Ms. Ryan clarified that this application is in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would take final action. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the recommendations to the City Council. Regular Meeting PCM-8-26 February 21, 1989 - ~ ~ Ms. Ryan indicated that a letter had been received from a title company addressed to the Applicant assuring CoastFed Properties that there is an easement and the title company could not issue title insurance on the property if that easement was not there. Carl Steinberg, Applicant, stated that all concerns had been clarified such as traffic, circulation, easement, etc. He hoped the Planning Commission could make a decision on the application. Mr. Steinberg presented a picture board to the Commission which visualized all directions of the property; sectional drawing, line of view site and eye level site drawings. Mr. Don Kurtz asked if there could be access through the Arroyo Vista development. Ms. Ryan stated that there was not enough room on Arroyo Vista's property. Mr. Steve Cameron asked if the easement was limited to certain users. Ms. Ryan stated that this easement was to allow ingress/egress onto Stagecoach Drive and was not limited to emergency vehicles. Nancy Hill, 6516 Amador Valley Boulevard, had concerns over noise levels and asked about the noise levels on the existing project. Ms. Ryan stated that the noise study was to evaluate noise levels from the project or the surroundings that would cause impacts. No impacts were identified from this project on the existing Heritage Commons. Nancy Hill indicated that she would like to see a traffic signal installed. Cm. Mack asked for clarification on Condition #53 in Exhibit C. Ms. Ryan stated that the apartments had to be constructed to condominiwn standards. The apartments were being recorded as condominium and thereby would be sold sometime in the future as condominiums. Cm. Mack and Staff clarified Exhibit C, Condition #20b (chain link fence); and Exhibit F, Condition #18 (patio and deck areas). Cm. Zika asked what resolution contained the conditions for no construction on Stagecoach Drive and speed bumps. Ms. Ryan indicated that the Tentative Map resolution would have these conditions. There was limited construction on Amador Valley Boulevard and exceptions only on Stagecoach Drive. Speed bumps can be put under the improvement plans on page 6. Cm. Burnham asked if you could access Southern Pacific property. Mr. Steinberg stated that there hasn't been much luck with Southern Pacific. They have plans for a rail system. Regular Meeting PCM-8-27 February 21, 1989 ~ _ ~ ~ Cm. Burnham asked if the new development was part of Heritage Commons, Phase l. Ms. Ryan indicated that at one time this site was one project. Phase I was the only development built. The CC&R's would indicate phase differential. Mr. Gardner stated that the new development was not part of their homeowner's association and development. A person in the audience indicated that she was under the impression when she bought into Heritage Commons that the new development would be condominiums, not apartments. She indicated that Dublin did not need any more rentals. Mr. Steinberg indicated that he was also concerned over the maintenance of the property. The Planning Commission could visit any one of his projects to have a look at how they are maintained. He stated that the current density of his project is lower than the previous phased development. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Zika, requesting that a Condition #78 be added requiring speed bumps upon entering the pro~ect, seconded by Cm. Mack, with a vote of 3-0 (two absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-006 RECOMMENDING THAT A MITIGATED NEEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE BE ADOPTED FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP 5883 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS FOR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 206 DWELLING UNITS, AND COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPOSED OVER A 17.45+ ACRE PROPERTY SOUTH OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD, SOUTH AND EAST OF STAGECOACH DRIVE, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 88-009.1, .2 AND .3, HERITAGE COMMONS PHASE 2-4, COASTFED PROPERTIES, CASDEN COMPANY RESOLUTION N0. 89-007 RECOMriENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A REPORTING OR MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS OF 206 DWELLING UNITS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPOSED OVER 17.45+ ACRE PROPERTY SOUTH OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD, SOUTH AND EAST OF STAGECOACH DRIVE, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 88-009.1, .2 AND .3 HERITAGE COMMONS PHASE 2 THROUGH 4, COASTFED PROPERTIES, CASDEN COMPANY RESOLUTION N0. 89-008 RECOMrIENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING PA 88-009.1 HERITAGE COMMONS, SOUTH OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ALAMO CREEK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~e~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~c~~~t~~c~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-28 February 21, 19$9 - • ~ RESOLUTION N0. 89-009 RECOI~II~SENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE MAP CONCERNING PA 88-009.2 - HERITAGE COMMONS - CASDEN COMPANY RESOLUTION N0. 89-010 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IMPOSE A TRAFFIC IMFACT FEE ON PA 88-009.2 - HERITAGE COMMONS RESOLUTION N0. 89-011 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CONCERNING PA 88-009.3, HERITAGE COMMONS - CASDEN COMPANY SUBJECT: Proposed Abandonment of the West Terminus of Betlen Drive (continued from the meeting of February 6, 1989) Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong indicated that this item had been continued from the February 6th meeting. The Planning Commission had questions regarding the,final treatment of the site as to fencing and lanscaping. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff approved landscaping and irrigation plan for the front of the site as well as a 6 foot high redwood fence and gate for the Pulte Homes project. There is no action to be taken by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong stated that the Commission's deliberation should be confined to whether this street should remain as a public right-of-way for extension in the future or should be terminated from circulation. Mr. Tong indicated that the stub end of Betlen Drive could not be physically constructed through Valley Christian Center and has been closed off from the Pulte Homes development, Staff recommends the Commission make the finding of conformity to the General Plan. Mr. Tong indicated that Lee Thompson was in the audience to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Tong clarified for Cm. Zika the approval of the abandonment of right-of- way. The landscape plan had previously been approved and could not be voted on. The Commission's concern was to the abandonment of the right-of-way. Cm. Zika asked if the Dublin San Ramon Services District could do what they wanted with the site. Mr. Tong indicated that there were certain overriding factors. These conditions would have to be complied with. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~c~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~c~~~~~*~~*~~~~*~~~r~~~~~~~*~~c Regular Meeting PCM-8-29 February 21, 1989 " • ~ Cm. Burnham had concerns over the fencing and gate. Mr. Tong indicated that this was for screening purposes only. Cm. Burnham had concerns that this site would become a storage area, have problems with vandalism, etc. Mr. Tong indicated that if the site is not kept up, a zoning violation could be enforced. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Zika, with a vote of 3-0 (two absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION N0. 89-012 FINDING THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN SUBJECT: PA 87-031 East Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Studies and Environmental Impact Report. Review of the Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies and Ob_jectives of the East Dublin General Pian Amendment Study Cm. Burnham asked for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger indicated that at the meeting of February 6, 1989 the Commission had received the prelimnary draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives for the East Dublin studies. The Commission was asked to review the document and comment on it at this meeting. Mr. Barger indicated that all areas of the draft document be reviewed and considered. Staff and WRT need input and direction from the Commission on the document. Mr. Barger discussed overall issues such as land use, circulation/ transportation, open space, parks and recreation, public facilities, housing, conservation, biological resources, cultural, noise, etc. that are covered in the Staff Report and in the Preliminary Draft Goa1s, Policies and Objectives document. Mr. Barger indicated that the Commission would need to discuss and provide input for all identified issues. Mr. Adolf Martinelli, Alameda County Planning Department, complimented Staff and WRT on the excellent job in producing the draft document. He stated that he was in full support of the environmental restrictions. He was concerned about identifying development now for the future, into the year 2000; such as residential development; extry freeway lanes, extra Bart station, etc. ~~~r~~~~*~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~*~~r~~~~*~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-30 February 21, 1989 ~ ~ ~ Steve Barton, Bay Area Council, congratulated Staff on report. He commented on the housing and jeb issues. Ted Fairfield distributed a letter to the Commission and Staff. He was concerned over the trend of preservation. Carolyn Morgan, property owner, had concerns over the wetlands and country life styles that would become non-existent, if the East Dublin area was developed. Don Redgewick, had concerns regarding development on the ridgelines and slopes. He discussed traffic congestion, affordable housing, buffer zones, trails, etc. Barbara Foscolina requested copies of the minutes. She had concerns regarding hillsides, landslides, wetlands and riparian areas. Mr. Barger and Mr. Tong stated that the minutes could be made available. Donna Ogelvie had concerns regarding over-development. She would like preservation measures to be taken. Nolan Sharpe discussed access roads through Contra Costa County. He commented that both counties and surrounding cities should work together on the development. Marjorie LaBar had concerns regarding sewer treatment plants,:infrastructure, police, fire, airport zone, buffer zone, endangered species, drought problems, etc. Mr. Barger indicated to the Commission that decisions had to be made regarding the issues that had been discussed. The Commissioners discussed with Staff some of the language and meanings used in the draft document, such as "alternative", "discouraged", etc. Mr. Tong stated that Staff was hoping for input from the Commission, whether the Commission concurred, agreed, disagree, etc. on the draft document. Cm. Zika asked to have more time to review the document more thoroughly. Mr. Tong indicated that the issue could be continued. Staff could incorporate public comments into the Staff Report and a special meeting be reserved. The Planning Commission continued the East Dublin issue to the March 6, 1989 meeting. ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council discussed the Hansen Hill project on February 27, 1989 as well as the appeal of Dublin Security Storage's freestanding sign. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~c~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-31 February 21, 1989 ~ • , • ~ ~ Cm. Zika asked about the Schneider Variance. Mr. Tong indicated that the patio was too close to the property line. The developer had made an error. Staff, however, was able to inake the legally required findings of fact and approve the Variance. ~r*~~ OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Zika asked about the nail boutique and their truck advertisement. Was this legal. Mr. Tong indicated that if the car was used in normal business, that was legal. If the car was stationary and used for advertising purposes, this was illegal. Cm. Burnham indicated that these car/truck advertisement are becoming,an eyesore. The Commission and Staff discussed other advertisements that had been identified in various parking lot areas. * ~ ~ * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission er - u ' L urence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~c~~~~~ x~~~~~*~~~~~*~~~~c~~~~r~*~~~~~c~~r~~~~~~c~c~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-32 February 21, 1989