Loading...
PC Min 10/10/1989 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. TUESDAY OCTOBER 10, 1989 ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Chairman Olszewski Commissioner Ronald Christ Commissioner David Fox Commissioner Jane Meyer Commissxoner Mark Wilkinson Commissioner I. (Bud) Alne Commissioner Jay Perrine Director of Planning and Development, Steve Piasecki Principal Planner Stafford Public Works Director Donald C. Wimberly City Attorney William Seligmann APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairperson Olszewski asked that in Application M 89-16, his comment be amended to read in part, "...noted that insufficient information on Pathways, Inc. was provided." M/S Meyer, Perrine Motion to approve the Minutes as amended was carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Fox being absent. COMMUNICATIONS: Planning Director Piasecki noted the following communications: Revised Development Schedule, Exhibit 3 for S 89-09 (Item 3) Letter from Leah M. Stickles, 535 Westchester Dr., Campbell, Re: S 89-09 (Item 3) Letter from David E Rutherford, 871 Monica Ln., Campbell, Re: M 89-16 (Item 4) - Letter signed by Vitalij Szumakow, Alice Vollenweider, Elmer and Bernice Krahm of N. Cen- tral Ave., Re: M 89-16 (Item 4) - Letter from John C. Thomas, Thomas & Childs, Certified Public Accounts Re: S 89-14 ORAL REQUESTS: Ms. Mary Forenzi stated she was concerned about children at the school on More St.; she noted the safety hazards of having them cross the street when they exited the bus. In addition, there were severe parking problems for the residents from parents picking up and dropping off their children. Planning Commission Minutes 2. October 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZC 89-13/PD 89-16 Saray, S. Public Hearin to consider the application of Mr. Steve Saray, on behalf of NADCON Development, for approval of a Zone Change from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to PD (Planned Develop- ment); and, approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of 9 townhomes on properties known as 65 - 85 East Latimer Avenue, in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Tentative City Council hearing date: November 11, 1989. Chairperson Olszewski read the Application into the record. Planning Director Piasecki reviewed the Application and discussed Staff Report Staff Concerns: an aerial map and architectural renderings were presented. Commissioner Perrine reported on the Site and Architectural Review Committee's discussions. In response to Commissioner Wilkinson's inquiry, Planning Director Piasecki commented that because there was a mix of unit types in the area, Staff felt that a variation of single-family housing could be allowed; in addition, Esther Ave. was fully developed as a single family residential area. With some design modifications, this proposal could be acceptable. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Morton, Campbell, stated he lived in the 47 unit complex across from the subject site and was not favorable to the mission tile roof proposed; in addition, there was an existing, severe parking problem which spilled over into the street. He asked that these concerns be addressed. Commissioner Perrine noted that there had been a change in calculating the parking ratio since the speaker's complex had been built. Commissioner Christ commented that designated guest parking, independent of individual units, had not been provided; this was his major concern with this project. He would support the project if residents were not inconvenienced by other than their own guests parking in their driveway. Mr. Steve Saray, Applicant, stated that tandem parking was provided. Applicants were very inter- ested in having common open space areas with landscaping; however, if the parking took precedence, some of the landscaped area could be used for additional parking. He was amenable to using materials other than the mission tile proposed for the roof. Chairperson Olszewski agreed with Commissioner Christ's concern about guest parking; he con- curred with the recommendation of Staff and the Site and Architectural Review Committee that this Item be Continued. In response to the Applicant's request for reassurance on other aspects of the Application, he stated that he was not happy with the number of units proposed and felt that this project did not sufficiently blend with the character of the immediate area. Commissioner Alne commented that if one subscribed to the observations of other Commissioners, one could conclude that perhaps there were too many units proposed for the site; if the require- ments of aesthetics, open space and parking could not be satisfied, then the number of units would have to be reduced. Planning Commission Minutes 3. October 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Christ responded that he had not reached such a conclusion at this time. Commissioner Wilkinson agreed that parking was the greatest issue; however, he was favorable to the architectural style presented. Chairperson Olszewski stated that he wished to be on record as sharing concerns raised by Staff. Commissioner Christ clarified that it was not the number of guest parking spaces, but the utilization of such that was of concern to him. Mr. Saray stated that he was confident that the parking could be worked out. The Public Hearing remained open. M/S Motion to Continue ZC 89-13/PD 89-16 to October 24, 1989, was carried 6-0,1, with Commissioner Fox being absent. 2. ZC 89-10/PD 89-12 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Steve Saray, on behalf of NADCON Development, for approval of a Zone Change from R-M-S (Multiple-Family Residential) to PD (Planned Develop- ment); and, approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow construction of 17 townhomes on properties known as 400 and 410 West Sunnyoaks Avenue, in an R-M-S (Multiple-Family Resi- dential) Zoning District (6-13 units per gross acre). Tentative City Council hearing date: November 7, 1989. Chairperson Olszewski read the Application into the record. Planning Director Piasecki reviewed the Application. Commissioner Perrine reported on the Site and Architectural Review Committee's discussion. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Steve Saray, Applicant, noted that they wished to have a central open space in this project; he recognized that new information was submitted too late for Staff or the Commission to review and was confident that a two week Continuance would be sufficient. The Public Hearing was then closed. M/S Perrine, Alne Motion to Continue ZC 89-10/PD 89-12 to October 24, 1989, was carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Fox being absent. 3. S 89-09 Bibler, G. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Gerald Bibler to consider the Site and Architectural approval for an outdoor storage yard to be located on property known as 535 Westchester Drive, in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Chairperson Olszewski read the Application into the record. Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Application and presented a location map. City Attorney Seligmann updated the Commission on the status of the legal ownership of the site; in any case, the use ran with the land, and was not affected by the identity of the property owner. Planning Commission Minutes 4. October 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Perrine reported on the Site and Architectural Review Committee's discussions. Commissioner Alne cited Staff Report Staff Concerns 4., and questioned if a 20 ft. distance from the front property line would be adequate to allow trucks to pull into the site and not block traffic. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Arthur Burton, 515 Westchester Dr., Campbell, stated he had several concerns; .he felt that a 50-60 ft. distance was required for trucks to pull in~ off the street to load and unload; in addition, the driveway was being used to park vehicles. The Plot Plan gave the impression that the site was wider than the actual frontage on Westchester Dr.; 40 ft. of the 84 shown was used for the adjacent theater access. The site was not adequate for the use intended and he opposed this Application. Chairperson Olszewski stated that it would appear that the map presented was inaccurate; Principal Planner Stafford confirmed that the map submitted as part of the Application was incorrect. Commissioner Alne noted that the Application listed equipment storage with no reference to con- tainer storage; he was concerned that the map presented did not properly depict the location of the equipment, that the southerly portion of the site was unusable or that only a 44 ft. wide access was available, not 84 ft. as initially understood. Commissioner Perrine felt that the Commission should defer to Staff on this Application and ap- prove the request, allowing Staff to resolve the concerns raised. Commissioner Alne reiterated his concern that the 20 ft. setback did little to satisfy the City's re- quirements or provide sufficient parking; Principal Planner Stafford responded that such was an improvement over the existing situation. Mr. Gerald Bibler, Applicant, stated that loading activities were not taking place in the street; trucks were backed into the site and unloaded there. Trucks were not parked at the entrance, but occas- sionally had to stop and wait for cars to be moved out of the way before they could proceed. Commissioner Meyer suggested that the Public Hearing be closed, approve the Application per Staff Recommendation and allow Staff to work out the details. The Public Hearing was then closed. M/S Meyer, Perrine Motion that the Public Hearing on S 89-09 be closed was carried 6- 0-1, with Commissioner Fox being absent. M/S Meyer, Perrine Motion to Adopt the attached Findings and approve Application S 89-09, subject to the attached Conditions Commissioner Christ stated he was reluctant to approve the Application with an inaccurate map; he asked tl~at the details be worked out and a revised map presented prior to approval. Commissioner Alne cited the current violations and noted that the Applicant had an obligation to satisfy the Commission on the validity of this proposition and the suitability of his actions. He also was not favorable to approving the Item at this time. Planning Commission Minutes 5. October 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Vote on Motion Commissioners Meyer, Wilkinson, Perrine, Chairperson Olszewski Commissioners Christ, Alne Commissioner Fox Break 8:55 - 9:10 P.M. 4. M89-16 Stanford, M. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Mark Stanford on behalf of Pathway, Inc., for a modification to aprevi- ously approved Use Permit to allow conversion of a 23 Bed Senior Housing Facility to a 19 Bed Residential Drug Treatment Facility for Youths, on property known as 531 North Central Avenue, in a C-i- S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and an R-l-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Olszewski read the Application into the record. Planning Director Piasecki reviewed the Application and called attention to the new correspondence. Chairperson Olszewski noted the lack of provision of common open space for residents of the site; Planning Director Piasecki noted that the yard had a 10 ft. width on the west side of the building. Commissioner Perrine stated that them was no additional information from the Applicant for the Site and Architectural Review Committee to discuss; the issue of off-site parking was raised. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Hanson, 843 N. Central Ave., Campbell, commented as follows: - The Pathways Program in San Jose was impressive; however, both the building and the amount of open space proposed for this facility was inadequate for the number of potential residents - Placing a drug treatment center in this neighborhood would be a cultural negative for the area; property values would be affected by such a cultural negative Traffic congestion in the area would increase over that presently experienced by residents Mr. Jim Witkowski, 627 N. Harrison St., Campbell, stated that the manager of local Bruener's would not return his phone calls; however, the manager of the San Ramon Bruener's confirmed that only three off-site parking spaces would be provided. Mr. Bob Burkhart, 859 Harrison St., Campbell, agreed with concerns about the lack of open space recreational area on-site; the Harrison School site would be a better location for Pathways. Mr. Paul Collula, 346 David Ave., Campbell, commented that extending the open space area by eliminating two parking spaces would not solve anything; parking impacts would only be increased. Ms. Sarah Benton, 574 N. Harrison St., Campbell, stated that her question on off-site recreational activities had not been answered to her satisfaction; it was unreasonable to expect nineteen teen- agers ranging in age from 13 to 18 to exercise on an arbitrary schedule imposed by busing. Mr. Raymond Smith, 592 No. Harrison St., Campbell, stated that Pathways had made a very good presentation at a recent community meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 6. October 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Smith continued his comments by suggesting consideration of a six months trial period prior to final approval; he stated he was very concerned regarding the impacts to him and his family. Judge John T. Ball, Superior Court, stated that he was not present to influence the decision on location or the specific facility under consideration; he was available as a resource for information on the type of individual referred to community treatment programs. He assured the Commission and public that the Juvenile Probation Department as well as Court Officers made concerted efforts not to have any individual released from custody who would be considered a threat to a com- munity. He answered questions addressed by the Commission. Commissioner Alne commented that candidates for the Pathways Program, in comparison to other young people, had already demonstrated many types of antisocial behavior; a review of the con- straints used to keep residents on-site showed that these constrains were imposed after the fact, i.e., a misbehavior resulted in being removed from the Pathways Program. There was no positive constraint in place which would prevent residents from leaving the site if they should decide to do so; this was of concern. The only protection the community had was after the fact. Commissioner Fox was present at 9:40 P.M. Ms. Franzelli, 801 N. Central Ave., Campbell, felt that the proposed location was inappropriate; she suggested Pathways find a larger site, one that would not create traffic problems. Ms. Linda Fazo, 542 Monica Ln., Campbell, cited her letter and added that the only alternative presented to candidates for the program was either the Pathways Program or a locked facility. Mr. B. Gerber, 831 Martha Ln., Campbell, commented that constructing recreational facilities on a .residential treatment site was unrealistic and unnecessary; amenities similar to that found in any residential home could be expected. He added that many people in other parts of the country were constrained by limited living spaces and weather, and did not have the privilege of daily walks. Residents of the Pathways Program were there for rehabilitation; if his own children required services, he preferred to see them in a residential setting where there would be good role models. With respect to parking, he thought that the spaces provided would be satisfactory; if use of his driveway would be helpful, Pathways was welcome to use it. In addition, there were school buses in the neighborhood every day; he did not object to the two vans that Pathways would be using. Finally, with respect to property values, he questioned whether such would be more affected by a residential treatment center or a vacant property with an unknown use, in the neighborhood. Ms. Margie Davis, Campbell, stated that her initial reaction to this proposal was negative; how- ever, upon consideration she realized that anyone could have a teenager who was an occasional drug user and got caught. This program served a purpose, but she had concerns about the site. Mr. Esau Herrera, Pathways Board of Directors, wished to clarify the following items: - Statement that the San Jose facility was not in a residential area; in fact, the San Jose facility was located in an area of sorority and fraternity houses, as well as long term area residents - Statement that Pathways worked with adults and had no experience with adolescents; in fact, they worked with adolescents in the schools and had set up training programs for other services - Statement that there was no recreational space on site and that residents would be confined to the home; he cited the example of when he had been confined to his room as a teenager Planning Commission Minutes 7. October 10~ 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Herrera, Pathways Board of Directors, continued his comments as follows: Statements regarding the type of referrals to be made to Pathways; their San Jose facility had existed for twenty years without any crime in the neighborhood Statements regarding traffic impacts; Pathways would be using two vans to transport residents Mr. Grey Benton, 574 N. Harrison St., Campbell, commented that Mr. Herrera's statement that some residents had failed and committed a crime was odd; he did not think this was the type of statement that Pathways would want to make. He added that the recent community meeting held by Pathways was informative; however, he was still uncomfortable and had questions about the fi- nancial viability of the operation. He preferred to see another site used for this facility. Mr. Wayne Prescott, 873 N. Central Ave., Campbell, stated he had located a suitable site in the C- ! zoning district that met the Applicant's requirements better than the site under consideration. Mr. Glen McClellan, 872 N. Central Ave., Campbell, believed the Pathways Program deserved a chance to survive; if not in this neighborhood, then where could such a Program be located? It was the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the community was adequately protected. Resident of 711 Monica Ln., Campbell, felt that Pathways deserved a chance, but this was not the best site; the program had never before been tried on adolescents. Mr. Mark Stanford, Executive Director of Pathways, Inc., commented as follows: Resident's daily schedule was reviewed; such included schooling, therapy and daily activities Staffing: the State required one staff person at night On-site parking: cited the number of parking spaces (9) provided on-site and the number of staff during cross shift (11); two staff would have to park off-site at Bruener's during cross shift Applicants were willing to do whatever was reasonable to provide assurances that the parking would be adequate, i.e., obtain a written agreement from Bruener's, lease additional space Treatment Services: drug dependency was an illness; Pathways did not accept referral of any person with hard core criminal violations Rate of recidivism for community-based treatment programs was very low, while recidivism rates for penal institutions was high; punishment did not work - Staff credentials were reviewed per request of Commissioner Alne Commissioner Fox stated he had made a site visit to the San Jose facility at which time he had reviewed the screening process; he was most impressed with the operation. If clients at the San Jose facility had received treatment when they were younger, they would not be in the position they now found themselves. There was no parking provided for staff, and adjacent residential parking was by permit only; nonetheless, he had not observed traffic or parking problems. In response to Chairperson Olszewski's inquiry, Mr. Stanford reviewed the clinical assessment procedures for candidates; he confirmed that the principal diagnosis would have to be chemical dependency. All confidential information on an individual being considered for Pathways would be made available to Staff; referrals made to the Program were not necessarily accepted by Path- ways. Only clinical personnel could make a clinical determination. Chairperson Olszewski noted the need of all individuals to have private, open space areas, which did not appear to be able to be accommodated on site; would Pathways consider such options as atriums, outdoor space or other such accommodations? Planning Commission Minutes 8. October 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Stanford responded that they agreed that private open space was necessary for everyone; the development of aesthetic pleasures was important to clients. With respect to the concern about the lack of open space, he agreed that the available open space on-site was limited; however, residents would have free time at various times during the evening and could use the yard area. Chairperson Olszewski felt that there was no usable open space available on-site; the 10 fi. wide area could not be considered usable open space. A member of the public noted that Bruener's was currently for sale; he questioned how any agree- ments on the use of the off-site parking could be made with the Store. Mr. Wayne Prescott reviewed his proposal to provide information on a C-1 zoned site that he considered suitable for the Pathways Program. Resident of 711 Monica Ln., Campbell, added that she felt that residents of the Pathways Program would stand out in the area; the neighborhood was not favorable to this use and residents of the Pathways Program would be able to detect such. Mr. Esau Herrera suggested that a resident of the area could be a voting Board Member; in addition residents could serve on an Advisory Board. Ms. Becky Swensen, Swensen Construction, clarified that they would be willing to accept a tem- porary use permit for a five year period of time. M/S Meyer, Alne Motion to close the Public Hearing was carried unanimously (7-0). Commissioner Christ commented as follows: - Felt there were a number of items to be addressed, which influenced his decision on this issue - Presence of a liquor store in the immediate area was not a substantial consideration in this Item - Concerns centered around whether or not this was an appropriate use considering that it was adjacent to a residential neighborhood - Stated he found it offensive that residents who lived a number of blocks away from the subject site contended that their property would be devalued; while he understood the concern, he did not feel that this would be the case - A number of concerns raised were inappropriatly attributed to the proposed facility which was a drug treatment center, not a proponent of drug use - Issues could be reduced to parking and open space; expanded open space for the resident's use would limit the on-site parking; residents would have to accept a certain amount of confinement Parking was his greatest concern; it was not practical to allow off-site parking two blocks away It was unfortunate that the majority of the neighbors still had concerns about the location of a treatment center adjacent to a residential area; he agreed that in order for a facility to be success- ful, the support of the community was necessary Even if Pathways were approved, it would be very difficult to function in this neighborhood Commissioner Alne complimented Mr. Stanford on his dedication in developing, the techniques and procedures necessary for treatment of the poli-drug user; he noted the progress in arriving at a non- judgmental, medical model of treatment made by such as Mr. Stanford. Planning Commission Minutes 9. October 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Alne continued his comments stating that unfortunately, the community had not come as far in understanding drug abuse as the service providers had; nonetheless, the community agreed that the problem existed and had to be attacked. The Applicants failed to address the public relations necessary; the community did not support this proposal. Commissioner Fox commented that the developer was willing to make any accommodations necessary to gain approval of this Application. He felt that even if parking were not an issue, the opposition of the neighborhood would be the same; he did not believe that the community would accept this facility even if it were a sterling example of a treatment center. It saddened him to think that the community at large recognized the need for drug treatment facili- ties and yet was unwilling to participate at all in building the services necessary; residents of the program would be off-site for significant portions of the day. In addition, the San Jose Pathways Program had demonstrated that it was very stringent regarding the use of over the counter drugs. While he recognized that the Application may be denied on technical issues such as parking and site constraints, it saddened him to think that the request would be denied on any other grounds. Commissioner Meyer stated that she had problems with parking, the provision of off-site parking at a Bruener's Store located several blocks away and the lack of open space; she recognized that she would use the more convenient on-street parking rather than walking several blocks. She agreed with Pathways' program objectives, but the site in question was not compatible. Commissioner Perrine noted that this was probably one of the most difficult applications heard during his tenure on the Commission; while Pathways was a worthwhile program, he agreed with Staffs assessment that the intensification of use proposed was not appropriate for this site. Chairperson Olszewski stated he was supportive of the project. The planning issue of open space could be resolved; the Applicants were agreeable to creating the necessary space. With respect to parking, he did not feel this would be a problem; in addition, parking was not an issue since family counseling sessions were scheduled to be held off-site. He noted the severe parking deficit on his street and commented that residents dealt with it. The City of Campbell provided a central location in the valley and shared in the valley's problems; drug problems were directly related to crime. At a certain point a community had to decide to look at the source of the problem; communities had to give and take. He agreed that the issue under consideration was a very difficult one; he was appreciative that there was not undue influence exercised over the Commission. Granting a five year Use Permit was reasonable and offered the Applicant the opportunity to develop rapport with the community; this was a treatment service program for misguided youth, not criminals. He asked that this Application be approved with the requirement that a revised Site Plan be submitted to the Site and Architectural Review Committee. M/S Meyer, Alne Motion to Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached Findings, denying Application M 89-16. Commissioner Christ stated he would be voting against the Motion. Commissioner Fox stated that while he opposed the Motion, he would not be able to vote due to his absence at the beginning of the Hearing on this Item. Planning Commission Minutes 10. October 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Wilkinson noted the difficulty of making a decision on this Item; he knew individu- als who had benefited from residential treatment services and this made the decision even more difficult. He stated he understood the resident's concerns and would have similar feelings if a treatment center were immediately adjacent to his home; however, residents would not be free to wander the streets aimlessly nor was this a methadone treatment program for hardened addicts. He stated that he was still undecided. Commissioner Alne commented that he took issue with the Applicant's statement that punitive measures were not effective; he cited examples where such was used. Chairperson Olszewski felt that alternatives to punishment would have to be explored by the community. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Vote on Motion Commissioners Meyer, Wilkinson, Alne, Perrine Commissioner Christ, Chairperson Olszewski Commissioner Fox Break 11:10 - 11:15 P.M. 5. ZC89-11/PD89-13 Gonsalves, E. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Frank Gonsalves for approval of a Zone Change from R-M-S (Multiple- Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and, approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of 3 town- homes on property known as 2011 Pollard Road, in an R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential/Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Tentative City Council hearing date: November 11, 1989. Chairperson Olszewski read the Application into the record. Planning Director Piasecki reviewed the Application and presented a Location and aerial maps, and an architectural rendering. Commissioner Perrine reported on the Site and Architectural Review Committee's discussions. In response to Commissioner Alne's question, City Attorney Seligmann stated that a legal determi- nation had not been made that the Applicant was mislead regarding the dedication along More Avenue and Pollard Road, nor was such particularly relevant to the Commission's decision. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Bud Perada, 1589 Pollard Rd., Campbell, stated he opposed the project due to the access, which he considered dangerous, the lack of sufficient on-site parking for the prospective owners and the intensity of development that would result from constructing three townhouses on this property. He would not object to two single-story units on this site; such would not obstruct sunlight onto his property. Mr. Bill Williams, 1690 More Ave., Campbell, cited the view impacts of a 30 ft. wall 15 ft. away from his kitchen window. One of the objectives of the General Plan was to protect and enhance neighborhoods; the plan under consideration would not accomplish this objective. He did not support the request and cited the parking problems that would result from this project. Planning Commission Minutes 11. October 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Mary Forenzi, adjacent resident, agreed that parking problems would result from this develop- ment; she questioned how there would be room for one unit, much less three units on-site. Representative of Four Corners Development stated that they wished a Continuance for a project redesign in accord with Site and Architectural Review Committee's direction. He noted for the record that prior to purchase of the property, it was their understanding from correspondence with the City, that additional street dedication would not be required. The Chair advised the speaker that a one month Continuance would be preferred considering the extensive project redesign required; the Applicant's Representative was agreeable to such. Commissioner Wilkinson stated he would support a Motion to Continue this Item; he stated that he had problems with the intensity of use, the height and the fact that two-story units were proposed. Chairperson Olszewski agreed and added that he thought the buildings were not sited properly. The Public Hearing remained open. M/S Meyer, Christ Motion to Continue ZC 89-11/PD 89-13 to November 14, 1989, was carried unanimously (7-0). 6. S 89-14 Bamburg, M. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Marvin Bamburg for Site and Architectural approval to allow construction of a professional office building on properties known as 1830 and 1836 East Hamilton Avenue and 1670 Grace Avenue. Chairperson Olszewski noted that a Continuance was requested by the Applicant. M/S Wilkinson, Fox Motion to Continue S 89-14 to November 14, 1989, was carried unanimously (7-0). MISCELLANEOUS: 7. M 89-08 Hester, L. Continued consideration of the application of Mr. Larry Hester for approval to allow outdoor storage racks and storage area in con- junction with a drywall operation, on property known as 400 Industrial Street in a M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Chairperson Olszewski read the Application into the record. Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Application; Staff recommended approval of this Item. M/S Perrine, Meyer Motion to Adopt a Resolution on M 89-08, incorporating the at- tached Findings approving the modifications and the outdoor storage area, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval was carried unanimously (7-0). SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: Planning Commission Minutes 12. October 10, 1989 REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: The written Report of the Planning Director was accepted. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P.M. to an Adjourned Regular Session on October 24, 1989, at 6:30 P.M. and then to the Regular Meeting of October 24, 1989, at 7:30 P.M. APPROVED: Bruce Olszewski Chairperson ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Secretary RECORDED: Carol A. Probst-Caughey Recording Secretary